Open main menu

Community WishlistEdit

Hi Fram: I read your comment on the User Mute feature talk page about the WMF not bothering to talk to editors, so... I thought I'd talk to you about it. My team runs the Community Wishlist, as well as the Anti-Harassment Tools project. I think we do a pretty good job of talking and listening to editors, but we could always do more, and I'd like to know what you think we're doing wrong. Do you want to talk about it? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering that I was close to getting you blocked for your role here in the Flow debacle (and considering the effort it took to get Flow finaly disabled here later), and the problems you had with communicating with the enwiki editing community (communication in the sense of listening to what people had to say and responding to it in a meaningful way, not just repeating the WMF talk over and over again, or worse pretending to listen but do the WMF will anyway) and that e.g. some really terrible Community Liaisons are still active despite years of problems in their role, I don't think it is really fruitful to repeat my complaints once again. Just follow WP:VPT for a while and you will see a lot of my complaints pass there. Or look at some contentious Phabricator tickets or Meta Flow pages and the way some community members (from here or dewiki) get shooed away for venting their frustration after polite comments get ignored again and again. The last time I actively contributed was at the 2014 Community lisaisons product survey, and that experience was so frustrating (and only confirmed by later encounters with WMF products and their (WMF))named defenders) that I don't spend any more time there. Fram (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@DannyH (WMF):. I forgot to express in my previous post that, while I don't think us discussing this is useful, I appreciate you making the effort to come here. Anyway, just look at the current discussion at VPT about the Wikidata descriptions to see the problems in discussing things with the WF on too many cases, the unpleasant surprises on has when comparing what was promised (turning off a "feature") with what is actually done (turning it off in one place only, leaving it active with the exact same problems elsewhere without any indication of this), and the trouble of getting some WMF people to actually read what people write, instead of the rosy-tinted things they want to read. How they concluded from my comments that I believe that "feature" to be "a step in the right direction" is beyond me. Fram (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Borderline racist attacksEdit

Hi Fram, I would like to bring to your attention an unfortunate comment by another editor which was directed towards Kautilya3. I remember that you had stepped in last time a similar incident had happened. The edit can be reference here [1]. I am not sure if this warrants any action or a warning is enough. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The user got blocked at WP:AN3. That should be enough for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, both. I wasn't online to take any action at the time. Fram (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Years of the 2nd century in AsiaEdit

Category:1st century BC in Egypt has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:1st century BC in Egypt, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yoga Vidya GurukulEdit

Hi Fram, Pls. find below links which might help. [2] [3] Unfortunately, these references are in Marathi language and I am not sure if you understand this language.Kautuk1 (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence surveyEdit

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

WarningEdit

Do not remove my comments form talk pages. Doing so again may lead to you being blocked from editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha. If you had followed my request (which is based in policy), this wouldn't have happened. But points for trying anyway. Now stay off my talk page. Fram (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI NoticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand. Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

MelunEdit

Can you please have a look into Category:Princes of Epinoy there might be some confusing with Category:Princes of d'Espinoy, or do both titles realy belonged to the house of Mélun?--Carolus (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You are referring twice to the same category, so your question doesn't really make sense. Fram (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, you didn't, I see. "d'Espinoy" means "Of Espinoy", "of d'Espinoy" is a duplication which doesn't exist. The category "Princes of d'Espinoy" should be deleted. Fram (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, i know what it means, but is it correct both different titles are owned by the house of Melun? See Lords of d'Espinoy--Carolus (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
you did not answer my question, so i kindly ask you to replace the article, the sources are very clear there is nothing wrong with the title. And reply to my question above, otherwise i will delete the whole thing, again you do not show respect for others.--Carolus (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
"he sources are very clear there is nothing wrong with the title." Allright, then please show me a source using "lord of d'espinoy" or "prince of d'espinoy". Fram (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There are no "both different titles", "Prince of d'Epinoy" doesn't exist. I have moved it to Draft:Lords of d'Espinoy as the title is totally wrong, and the list of lords is quite wrong as well. Hugues III is the son of Isabeau. This book, old as it is, gives perhaps the best description, better certainly than the sources from 1724 or 1730. Please first work in draft space or in your sandbox to research all these problems before putting these things into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I did not create Prince of Epinoy, but eSpinoy do not hold me respnsible for other peoples errors.--Carolus (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
You created the "Lords of d'Espinoy" article, and you moved the category: "Carolus moved page Category:Princes of Epinoy to Category:Princes of d'Espinoy: correction of the name". Please don't lie. Fram (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't insult me, you think i am an idiot? The article was full of references, are you blind?--Carolus (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I just think that you are once again getting highly disruptive. Once again, please show me a source using "lord of d'espinoy" or "prince of d'espinoy". Fram (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I left a message on the creator of Guillaume de Melun, Prince of Espinoy, if you can accuse him of creating princes that don't exist. Fine, your game.--Carolus (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I saw your message there. You don't seem to have understood anything of this conversation, do you? I never said that "Prince of Espinoy" doesn't exist, even though Prince of Épinoy is the most common form of the name. I said that your distinction in two categories was wrong, and that the name of your list and of your category (the one you moved) was totally incorrect, like I said right from the start: ""of d'Espinoy" is a duplication which doesn't exist." It is either Prince of Epinoy, or Prince d'Epinoy, but not the Franglais you invented. Fram (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
If you are even not able to write my name without mistakes, then my point is proven.--Carolus (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Carolus Carolus Carolus. Can you now provide these sources for "Lord of d'Espinoy" or "Prince of d'Espinoy"? Fram (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
"Gone" but not forgotten...Domdeparis (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Commons is much easier, so not realy "gone".--Carolus (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Humm looks like you are already getting a few interesting conversations on you talk page there...happy editing! Domdeparis (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Closure requestEdit

Could you close this discussion please? I am the one who created the proposal so it is not really appropriate for me to close it myself. No one has added anything else to the discussion and I would like to know if I can (or cannot) act on the proposal. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ellinksEdit

You should now that we already have a category for data comparison between Wikidata and Wikipedia. Using templates enables this feature. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we have that category (dubious whether it is a feature though). So? Having that category is not something that helps our readers or editors. Many thousands of articles don't have an official website on Wikidata, many thousands have a different website here, so what? What is important is that we have the website, not that we can compare something here with something at Wikidata. Using the template is preferred by you and a few others, not as a rule. We have way too many enwiki-Wikidata comparison categories as it is, arguing that is preferred that these get populated is only reinforcing this circular reasoning. We need to show the correct information on enwiki, and there is no reason to believe that using Wikidata will help with this in general. Fram (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Comparing with Wikidata is a way to control whether we display the correct data. Comparing with another Wikimedia site works as a control for both sides. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Comparing with Wikidata is much more time consuming than simply following the link. Furthermore, the way you add most of these website links, you don't compare with Wikidata, you replace with Wikidata, which doesn't work as a control for both sides but removes changes to the the link from our view, relying on another wiki which much less active editors to somehow do a better job in keeping these links correct. This is a step backwards, not forwards. Fram (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To make it more concrete, how do these changes allow a control for both sides and a comparison with Wikidata, instead of just relinquishing the care for this link to another, less populated wiki? Fram (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you remove the url of the official website on enwiki, like here (and quite a few other edits you made recently)? In the short term, it doesn't help anything (the website stays the same for our readers), and in the long term, it has a few disadvantages:

  • Vandalism of the field is much less likely to be spotted and reverted, since it no longer appears on the watchlist of most enwiki editors (while one can show Wikidata changes here, most people don't do this as the sheer amount of irrelevant and unreadable changes appearing in this way is overwhelming)
  • If the website needs changing, chances are considerably bigger that some enwiki editor will notice this and change it than that some Wikidata editor will notice this. Wikidata has mostly editors who make many semi-automated routine changes, and relatively few editors who make specific, content-based changes.

Please don't remove the url of the official website from enwiki articles in the future. Fram (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Using Wikidata is possible and plausable because Wikidata is monitored by far too many people. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

D You have got to be kidding me. Wikidata has far fewer editors than enwiki (make sure you don't count the supposed Wikidata editors who are just editors on some wiki who e.g. move or delete a page, these get counted on Wikidata as well despite never editing there). Vandalism on Wikidata gets hardly reverted. There are loads of edits on Wikidata, but the vast, vast majority are mindless repetitive tasks, not people actually looking at individual issues or at the edits others make. Fram (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Related Wikidata changes to a Wikipedia articel can be shown in your watchlist as far as I know. So every Wikipedia editor is potentially a Wikidata patroller. Am I wrong?
-- Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
If you had actually read my post, you would have seen this already. Many Wikipedia editors have enabled this option and quickly disabled this again to keep their sanity intact. Fram (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for this - I'm going through the Feb '09 orphans and had a few tabs open at the same time and tagged the wrong one. Sorry about that. DrStrauss talk 11:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Strategies for improving the descriptionsEdit

Hiya. So sorry, and I'm way over my head here, but my instinct was to revert adding this to WP:CENT at this time. I trust your judgment, I'm not trying to put on the brakes, etc. In the last few days, it's been revealed that one of the ways Russia interfered in the US elections was to promote the most volatile groups on both sides of a variety of issues ... and they were smart, that _is_ the best way to disrupt things. The current discussion that you're pointing to still seems diffuse and polarized to me, and pointing everyone to it might make things worse rather than better. I'm thinking hard about how I can help ... I think I might stand aside from all the big questions, and focus on prose points that I think are essential to the discussion (what makes a bad description, what makes a bad infobox, etc.). So, I'm not muscling in here. Keep up the good work. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I thought that, now that the WMF comes with an actual proposal, it is best to get widespread participation on this (it wasn't really hidden but not extremely well publicized either), and I think that the more extreme positions are by and large already present in the discussion. But it's hard to be sure when and how to post it, so I have no problems with your revert. We'll see how others react, if no one can be bothered to readd it then it probably didn't belong there (yet). In any case, thanks for letting me know. Fram (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course, any time. You make a good point. I'm thinking hard about this, I'll make another post soon, either here or on that page. My gut tells me that this is a more explosive issue than any I've seen in the last 10 years. And this is the WMF we're talking about, so that's saying something :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
More extreme positions? I didn't even suggest killing wikidata with fire yet! Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Heh. Just want to be clear that I'm not saying that Wikidata stuff does or doesn't belong on Wikipedia, in any context, or that anyone is being unreasonable. I'm actually not sure what I'm saying. I'll figure it out. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, what I'm saying is that i've been watching this stuff for 10 years, and I can't sit on the sidelines any more, because of the gravity of this particular issue, but also because stuff like this seems to just keep happening. I'm batting around some subversive ideas with people. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Got it. There are a few WMF people I'm comfortable talking with; I'm going to try to impress on them how serious the situation is, and where I think things might be headed. If that doesn't work, I'll talk with Wikipedians about a kind of escalation that might be effective and fair. What I'm doing might take a while, so don't wait for me ... please feel free to re-post at CENT whenever you think the time is right. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not optimistic that we can get a meeting of the minds, I think I'd favor an RfC next ... what do you think? First, there's the question of whether Wikipedians even care about the app that uses Wikidata descriptions; we tend to care a lot about text that appears to be part of a Wikipedia article, and less about other text. Checking random articles on my smartphone, they don't have descriptions appearing above the text; maybe that's a winnable battle? I don't know. But if it's not, if descriptions at the top of articles are a given, then Francis and others have made the point I wanted to make ... that it's not a binary choice, there's a 3rd option: load the magic word into every Wikipedia page, semi-automate the process of using text after the magic word that comes from suitable text that appears in various places on Wikipedia, pay attention to the arguments that arise over the descriptions, then write a guideline on how to write a good description based on the outcomes. Francis mentions one place to get a description: certain hatnotes. Certain categories are specific enough that they make a good description. Certain text in the first sentence of articles is likely to translate well to a page description. We may find that some people who have been writing these wikidata descriptions have done a great job, or that wikidata descriptions containing specific words tend to be okay as a starting point for discussion. And so on. Thoughts? Is anyone putting together an RfC already? - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

In my view the next step should be a tightly focused RfC confirming that what we said in March applies to the apps and if they still won't take the descriptions down, then I intend to seek indefinite blocks on en-WP for the WMF employees who are responsible for the decision not to withdraw. What they have done violates WP:Bot policy, WP:CONSENSUS of the en-WP community, exposes us to BLP and V violations, and breaks the fundamental deal of the entire movement (we write, WMF publishes). It is a sort of constitutional crisis in my view. The WMF needs to back out of making content decisions. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, if there were two RfCs going on at the same time, one similar to the one i'm suggesting and one similar to yours, i'd probably vote in the first one and avoid the second one. You might ask around about what kind of RfC people want to participate in. Having said that, I know you guys will do a good job with this. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The March RfC showed that we do care about it. The problem with the descriptions on mobile became visible to us; we were just unaware of the apps. The WMF's decision to force the description into all articles is as radical as Putin just taking Crimea. This cannot be allowed to stand. The en-WP community taking the kind of measures you suggest is just surrendering to an abuse of power that never should have happened. I am still hoping the WMF wakes up and backs off without the community putting yet more time into this. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
That first sentence sounds like you agree with me (I may be misunderstanding). I'm sure that Wikipedians care about any text that appears to be Wikipedia text, regardless of what server the text resides on, including so-called page descriptions. I don't know how strongly Wikipedians feel about the app that recommends Wikipedia pages. If mobile Wikipedia pages are going to start showing descriptions at the top (a random selection are not showing page descriptions, at the moment), then I'm proposing that one of the options in the RfC should be that we do a number of things that would effectively get text that comes from Wikipedia rather than Wikidata text into as many of those page descriptions as possible, as soon as possible, and make Wikipedia the place where all the editing happens. That's not everything we could possibly want, but it's a reasonable step to deal with the thing that people seem to be concerned about at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we are not discussing the same thing. There are two main ways WMF has used the brief descriptions. They started using it as a navigation aid, to show what is at a link. They kind of crept from doing that, to actually adding it to the top of Wikipedia articles. They did that first in the android and iOS apps, then in the mobile view. Due the March RfC they removed it from mobile (so you will not see it there), but they did not apply the RfC outcome to the android and iOS apps where they were doing the same thing, since 2015. So there is a) navigation-aid, and b) mini-lead in articles. I have been focusing on (b) - the actual intervention by WMF in content, and indeed as the first thing people read when they get to an article; it is a high impact thing, and meant to be. I am a bit troubled by the navigation-aid use (which is also high impact, but is not directly intervening in content) but am not focusing on that now... Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, then the point I'm making about not seeing it at the moment is irrelevant ... I'll strike that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── several people have suggested that the en-WP community should find one way or another to accommodate the WMF's demand for brief descriptions at the top of WP articles. I do not find that sort of interaction with the WMF to be acceptable. What you and others have proposed deals with the problem that the WMF created; in my view we are not doing ourselves any favors by leaving the deeper governance issue unaddressed - -namely their creating the problem by overstepping and refusing to step back. fwiw a similar overstepping thing ~appears~ to me, to be happening with the anti-harassment team. Please see here. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you that bad things are happening and something needs to be done about it. I could be wrong, but I think Wikipedians might actually like the idea of having a short description for as many pages as possible, and might want to display this description, maybe not where the WMF wants to display it, but somewhere prominent. Just the awesomeness of having a short description available for popups might be worth the time invested (unless people tend to get hot under the collar arguing about proper descriptions ... but I don't want to just assume they will or they won't, I want to see it in action). You see my problem? I don't want to write a manifesto on the evilness of the WMF in forcing page descriptions on us, only to find out that we actually like page descriptions. It might come across as an out-of-proportion response to a fixable problem. Other problems may need a manifesto, for all I know. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Short descriptions might be useful. I have no interest in manifestos. I do have an interest in correcting the specific overstepping by the reading team here. The two are completely separate things. The WMF needs to step back and undo their overstep. If editors want to discuss creating short descriptions that is great. The only place the two intersect, is in the WMF's demands, which I reject. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you live with an RfC that as one option has something like my proposal, and as another option has something like yours, with the addition that if they do what we ask, then we will make a good-faith effort to see if a program of Wikipedia-based page descriptions is desirable and possible?
They are separate things. In my view we best handle them from the foundation up. We get the WMF to step back. Then we can see if the enWP community wants to try to give the WMF what they are demanding, and if the WMF will accept what we are willing to give them. It is so important to move with procedural clarity. Screwed up governance leads to endless repetitions and wastes of time. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If you go that way, I recommend having a discussion (it doesn't need to be 30 days) that verifies that the community still wants now what they wanted back in March. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Changed my mind, I can't recommend this with or without a prior discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
That is what I wrote above -- In my view the next step should be a tightly focused RfC confirming that what we said in March applies to the apps and if they still won't take the descriptions down, then I intend to seek indefinite blocks on en-WP for the WMF employees who are responsible for the decision not to withdraw. First the RfC on short descriptions on the apps. If they say "OK, we will take them down" then we can go on to your suggestion. If they say "no", then I will want to take the indefinite block fork. I understand that you and others might still want to run with the "what shall we offer them" RfC. But the first one should be the "yes/no" to the wikidata-forced-into-WP discussion. (heck if people actually say "yes it is OK", we will all be done! That would surprise me but you never know) Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Terriffic Dunker GuyEdit

An editor that has been here for nearly 4 years should know better than to add unsourced content to articles, particularly given the number of warnings they have had. GiantSnowman 10:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think, if you would put that to the test at WP:ANI, that you would get much support for blocking the editor for additions like that. You warned them once in March 2018, and the next thing is a "stop or you'll be blocked"? I don't see the number of warnings or attempts at guidance we normally expect before reaching for the block hammer for good faith edits by good faith editors. Fram (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Misuse of tools by Fram". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Going for the boomerang? Fram (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright abuse questionEdit

I'm fairly sure you made the right call about that not being fair use. I was just saying that it didn't matter if you made the right call, because even if it was a mistake, it wasn't abuse, and that was the question that had been raised. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. True, but deleting things incorrectly (even by mistake) would have created much louder calls for my head than deleting things which were clearly or arguably correct (opinions were not 100%, but no one seemed to argue that it was clearly acceptable). Fram (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well...Edit

...You lasted longer than I did. Was it the circular reasoning or responding to things you didn't actually say that caught you? ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Both. And the "hah, you responded to me bringing up Wikidata, so you discussed Wikidata all along" fake gotcha! I hoped, when they were discussing things with you, that it simply was a (bizarre) case of talking past each other, but it seems to be systematic and deliberate. Will probably result in the slef-fulfilling prophecy of this ending up at ArbCom. No idea what they try to achieve except prolonging the agony for everyone involved. Or the lulz of course. Fram (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Lascar (volcano)Edit

Hi Fram, if you are going to pull an article written by an admin and reviewed by another admin, I think it'll be courteous to at least notify them (I apologize in advance if you were in the process of doing so). I do have to admit I overlooked the inadequate GA review when I promoted the article, but when I read through the article I did not find any major concerns, neither did other two DYK regulars. So it'll be helpful if you would raise the concern at WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS first before pulling, in my opinion. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 09:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm writing my message for the WT:DYK page as we speak (with pings to the involved persons). Fram (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Commented on WT:DYK and remedied some issues that were pointed out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!Edit

WP:CLEANEdit

Hello Fram:
You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for ArbitrationEdit

I have filed a Request for Arbitration concerning conduct at the Reference Desks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

WT:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs#Magic_wordEdit

Okay, over to you. I see you may have a lot on your plate; take your time. Any thoughts on my proposal that we attempt to automate the production of 5.5M article-space page descriptions? I know many of the descriptions would be blank, and many more wouldn't be very good ... the questions in my mind are: how good the automated descriptions are likely to be, how fast the community could manually fix the problems, and how much time we're likely to be given before the process goes "live". But I can imagine other objections. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage SiteEdit

 Template:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

About ScorumMEEdit

Not only this user is a spam user, but I think it is a paid editor. See also [7]. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hhhhhkohhhhh there's also blocked user:ScorumCom, which renamed from account user:ScorumComBot. I also submitted the issue to WMF-legal for trademark concerns. The website scorumcoins.com / scorum.com / scorum.me was claiming to "partner" with Wikipedia. Alsee (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Alsee: Thanks, I have already reported on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ScorumCom, and now the case was closed. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

AfDEdit

Hi, I would like to ask your permission to nominate 5 After Midnight to AfD because it is unclear if X Factor runner ups are relevant, and it could use some more people looking for sources (you should check the talk page there too). Dysklyver 16:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request archivedEdit

Hi Fram. The Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request, submitted 30 October 2017, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Richard MorrisEdit

Fram, I was hoping you could respond on this nomination—you commented on the issues at WT:DYK a while back—so it can either continue or stop, depending. Thank you very much for any help you can give. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Is anyone actively looking at what is being imported into wikidata and where from? A question came up at the other place about database protection/copyright in the EU - and indicated some editors on wikidata are importing protected databases wholesale. The UK has slightly different rules to the EU about this and I am only familiar with the UK version (job related) but importing a protected database into another bigger database, even if you break down the database into its component entries, would be hitting a number of red flags in the EU. I have not even looked at that aspect as it wasn't on my radar, being filled as it is with sourcing and vandalism problems rather than legal aspect of the data included there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think most of them really care what they are importing at all. Quantity is their only concern. I am not clear on what the laws are on importing databases wholesale, I seem to remeber that there were troubles in different countries in repeating or importing e.g. timetables (transport), TV schedules, Nielsen sales reports, ... The distinction between "the individual fact is not copyrightable" and "the compilation of facts is copyrightable" may well be lost on Wikidata. I haven't looked into this any further, I had and have plenty of reasons to reject all Wikidata data anyway (up to and including the Authority Control probably). Fram (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that's kind of the problem. Wikidata is essentially a giant database. While individual facts are not copyrightable, importing an entire database into another database certainly is a problem (in the EU) as databases have protection on creation there. In the UK its a bit more subtle - a wide database compiled of publically available info from say the electoral roll (purely as an example) would almost never be protected. But likely a database/list compiled from public information that has significant 'effort' involved in its creation can be protected. If wikidata editors are importing other databases whole without considering this, I think there is a legal issue. Functionally the WMF has protection regardless, but consider the situation: An EU Wikipedia editor uses data from wikidata that has ultimately been imported whole into wikidata from an EU-protected database by someone else... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@OID, the legislation to which I assume they're referring is the Database Directive, which is one of the most misunderstood pieces of legislation of recent times; it explicitly weakened data protection requirements in the EU to below the previous Berne Convention standards. The key phrases are by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation and no other criterion may be used by Member States; this means that if some original thought went into the database it's automatically protected (e.g. "London Pubs Named After Sort-Of-Famous People"), but if the database is purely a collection of information (e.g. List of pubs in the City of London) it's explicitly uncopyrightable. If all you're doing is importing something like the catalogue of the Bibliothèque nationale, and the data being imported isn't annotated or sorted to the extent of constituting an original work, you don't need to worry; Wikidata has many issues but this isn't one of them. Assuming by "the other place" you mean Wikipedia Review, this wouldn't be the first time they were talking crap about something they don't understand, and it certainly won't be the last. (The "short descriptions" issue—regarding copyright of individual entries in a database when some actual original thought has gone into them—is something different; in that case, the fact that it's come from a database is a red herring as the copyright issue is no different to if Wikidata were taking the first line of the Wikipedia article, or the descriptions from books' dustjackets, without attribution.) ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

EJusticeEdit

FYI, I left them this note since they seem interested in appealing the community imposed indefinite block that you made. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Motion: Crosswiki issuesEdit

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:
(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.
(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.
(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).
(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.
(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.
(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Crosswiki issues

RfC?Edit

Feel free not to answer, I don't want to get you in any trouble, but do you have any thoughts on what the question(s) should be in the next Wikidata-related RfC? - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dank:

Where should we use Wikidata in the mainspace (articles, categories and templates used in either): multipe answers are possible

  1. Mandatory wherever possible
  2. As much as possible (but not mandatory); if a wikidata version exists, it gets precedence over the local one
  3. In templates (infoboxes, external links, ...)
  4. For lists (Listeriabot)
  5. For references (Template:Cite Q)
  6. For placeholder articles (pseudo-articles generated purely from Wikidata info)
  7. Only when reliably sourced on Wikidata
  8. Only for substitution, not for transclusion
  9. Only for specific, stable, scientific data (so yes for infobox gene, no for infobox biography)
  10. Only for link templates (authority control, taxobox, twitter, facebook, ...)
  11. Display of Qnumbers (Wikidata items without English label) allowed
  12. Only for interwiki links
  13. Not at all

When?

  1. Now
  2. Only after Wikidata has accepted our basic data policies (BLP, V, RS)
  3. Only after it is possible to edit the Wikidata directly and seemlessly from enwiki
  4. Only after protection and blocks effect this data as well (an editor blocked here can't change the page through Wikidata, a page protected here can't be edited through Wikidata, pending changes also apply to changes done through Wikidata, ...)
  5. Only when Wikidata improves their vandalism reverts significantly
  6. Only when Wikidata changes appear in watchlist, recent changes, ... immediately, without a (sometimes long) delay
  7. Only when only relevant Wikidata changes appear in watchlist, recent changes (changes that affect the enwiki page)
  8. Only when changes in the Watchlist are understandable (show Englsh label instead of Q-number)
  9. Only when changes which affect Enwiki page appear in the page history

Many questions, I know, and I probably forget a few issues. Feel free to copy this to the 2017 RfC talk page to get more input, if you think it is useful. A pahse 1 RfC to determine which questions should be put to the public may be useful, a too ambitious RfC will proabbly fail under its own weight. Fram (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The "When" questions are things that a broad range of Wikipedians will understand, but they might not make it to those questions if they don't understand the "Where" questions. What would you think of condensing those to a single "When" question, along the lines of "After Wikipedia policies are in place regarding where to use Wikidata (for instance, it might appear here but not there, here but not there)"? - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the "where" questions, I'm just anticipating that we'll need more than one RfC, so we don't need to do everything at once. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I try to take some distance from the whole Wikidata thing, which is toxic and brings out the worst in some people. Fram (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:MOSMETRO stationsEdit

I just undid a change I made to this template after seeing that this had come up as a discussion topic here and you had edited it for this station.

I’m not terribly adept with templates. So looking for some help. You’re certainly correct as to why the articles were originally pointing at Streshnevo (Moscow Central Circle). Now however the succession for Mitino (Moscow Metro) displays the following station as Volokolamskaya (Moscow Metro) and I guess stylistically the template usually displays stations with just the name rather than the full article title. I guess I don’t care all that much. Too busy actually trying to write some articles on stations. But in the interest in figuring out the template, do you have a suggestion on how to work with it in case I run into this in a different article? I can experiment a bit but will probably manage to screw up the template at some point. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 05:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That series of templates probably needs complete rewriting, it is hard to navigate and change. But I don't have the time or interest in the topic to tackle this, sorry. Fram (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TastyPoutine, fixed

77.180.156.189 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences surveyEdit

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Fram. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Unesco WHS templateEdit

Where was this RfC? The new version seems just as catastrophically bad as the old ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Example? The RfC was at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?. Feel free to suggest all improvements you feel are needed. Fram (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been complaining for many years, without the slightest impact. The information given is mostly useless bureaucratic nonsense of no interest to readers (and available by a click from UNESCO), and no important information on the site is given - date, purpose, culture, style. Its a triumph of anal cruftish train-spotting over encyclopedic information. At least keeping Wikidata out of it is the right move. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to somewhat improve it in general, by e.g. removing the UNESCO region ("Europe", "North America", that sort of thing) and instead adding, where appropriate, the actual size of the protected area, which in some cases gives a better idea of what we are dealing with. The other things you would like to see are less usable in an infobox. Fram (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that on La Madeleine (where I guess you saw this), the old version e.g. duplicated the website, coordinates, and map from the infobox right above it. I have removed the location, image and caption as they didn't add anything to the actual la Madeleine article either (removing parameters is much easier now than with the earlier version of the infobox though!) Fram (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I saw La Madeleine from this. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
That's also possible of course ;-) Fram (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

WTF!Edit

So your work is just to delete content anyhow?

No. If you were to tell me which article you are talking about, we could perhaps have a reasonable discussion. Fram (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' GreetingsEdit

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

  Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Authority controlEdit

Hi Fram, you're much more au fait with Wikidata etc than me. Can you explain in simply terms what use {{Authority control}} may be at Nerys Hughes. I've read the documentation and am none the wiser; I've clicked on the links in the template and they appear to be coming up with pointless results. As far I can work out, she hasn't written a book etc (despite appearances in one of the results) so we're just cluttering up a biography with some sort of unique identifier that goes nowhere and wastes the readers' time. I'm obviously missing something. Perhaps it is that ultimately any book etc that even mentions her will be linked by some library somewhere? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

TPS here, it probably has no current point. But because the article had Persondata before, it was migrated. It might have been relevant previously, but since that template was deleted, we don't know what it said even in the previous revisions. I cant see any of the current links have any use at all - they just appear to link to database entries that contain the same or less info than the Wikipedia article. Probably qualifies for removal under WP:ELNO. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I did remove it and then had second thoughts, thus reinstating the thing. Even after all the years I've been contributing here, I fear the wrath of Andy Mabbett and my ability to control my temper when faced with it! Is the overall point something akin to a worldwide social security number for every person who someone, somewhere thinks is of note? I can see massive scope for errors, eg: I recently had to contact Google because their top-right infobox doo-dah for Jean Alexander was showing her as the author of books such as Russian Aircraft Since 1940 (it still does!) - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Essentially Authority Control links an article to a number of external databases. The database link is generally taken from wikidata. Its entirely subject dependent on how useful it is. For some article subjects its an invaluable tool. For others its completely pointless. And it can vary over quite a wide range in-between. The common errors are as you have found, where wikidata contains incorrect information regarding the external database link/data. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Churches of Chiloé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of San Francisco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Diesel Loco Shed, KalyanEdit

Can you Please explain to me why you Proposed deletion for my articles of Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan. Sir, this loco shed is one the biggest loco shed in India which serves around 46 train in my country. Jaywardhan009 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2018 IST

Is it notable? Being big is not a claim to notability, many big companies have large buildings for storage, maintenance, fabrication, ..., that doesn't make any of these notable unless they have received significant attention in independent sources, e.g. for having a special architect, for being protected monuments, for breaking some record, ... Fram (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Blues from the Apple" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Blues from the Apple". Since you had some involvement with the "Blues from the Apple" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata ...Edit

Here is a great example of the issues with Wikidata. Here the edit uses FindaGrave for a date of birth. Not only is it using a dodgy source, it can't even get the data right - as the actual body of the Findagrave page gives a circa 1450 date, not a hard and fast 1450 date. Instead of using the ODNB article on Warham (which gives a 1450? date as his birthdate), instead we are treated to "references" such as "imported from German wikipedia" and the Catholic Encyclpedia (of 1912!). But, wait! The CE says "born... about 1450" but Wikidata says that the CE supports a birth date of exactly 1450. Oh, good gods. And we're supposed to freely import this into Wikipedia??? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

But it's The Future of Wikipedia! How dare you criticize this, when enwiki also has errors? Either singlehandedly make enwiki error-free or accept everything the WMF and some enthusiasts propose and support, no matter how much of a step backwards it would be. Fram (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Findagrave is a user generated site and fails RS, so anything ultimately sourced to it should be removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, but some people at enwiki think differently, and some people who have been sidelined at enwiki but now are very active at Wikidata take the position that basically any source is acceptable, and that it should be kept as authoritative until a better source is found, and then it shouldn't be removed but "deprecated". Fine, that's their choice, but then don't expect me to ever accept Wikidata as a source for anything on enwiki. Some (but too many) people are using Wikidata as a tool to circumvent the higher standards at enwiki (even though they are too often not applied here either), and this doesn't seem to be a problem for many Wikidata-enablers here. Basically, when they choose quantity over quality right from the start (e.g. by mass importing data from all Wikipediaversions), they doomed their future goal of being a datasource for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Japanese people who conserve Article 9 for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Japanese people who conserve Article 9 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese people who conserve Article 9 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018Edit

 
The Fox Hunt (1893) by Winslow Homer, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Its a good thing...Edit

...I can spot sarcasm. You probably wouldn't be amazed at how many people would have taken your comments at face value. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be great. In my experience, most experienced non-admin editors are capable of spotting such sarcasm. Some admins might struggle a bit, but once they bring their head back to a place where the sun does shine, they should be able to understand it as well. Fram (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

ANIEdit

Help Needed!Edit

I need help with this Page.

Google International Space Station

Grateful for all help,

--Out of this World Adventure (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you check me...Edit

I'm afraid that I may be going somewhat down the path of User:Illegitimate Barrister, concentrating on two things. Cleaning out the categories in Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories by removing userspace categories from pages in userspace and using AWB to remove (or in a few cases fix) the DISPLAYTITLE entries from. The first only directly affects pages in userspace and the second does not have an affect on what is visible on the page. Please let me know if you are uncomfortable with either.Naraht (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The first one isn't a problem, as you are actually fixing an issue and because it is in userspace. The second one is also mainly in userspace, with occasional articles and categories thrown in, and is cleaning out an actual maintenance caegory, so again it doeesn't bother (although it is less useful than the first task). Still, if people would come to your talk page and ask you to stop (with some reason for their request), then it is best to stop and try to work things out of course. But I can't see you getting into trouble with these tasks. Fram (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
For the second one, I'm only using AWB on the ones in mainspace (and categoryspace). I don't care about userspace pages in that category since they don't affect mainspace or categories (other than the maint category). Thanx for the work you do. Just curious, how long is IB's ban this time?Naraht (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
1 Week. Fram (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
ThanxNaraht (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

Hi Fram! I wanted to thank you for being objective and looking at this AN discussion with a level-headed mindset and for reviewing the evidence neutrally. Recently before this discussion started up, another discussion was started on my talk page here regarding an uncivil discussion between him and another editor where I had to do the same thing. Wanted to drop you a message and express my gratitude :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata iconEdit

Why are you going around articles and removing this from articles? @Primefac's closure said "The existing uses of the template should be replaced with {{interlanguage link}} until such time as the RFC, local consensus, or other discussion determines the "best" way to present the information." Mike Peel (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Detroit, MichiganEdit

I've seen that IB was blocked for change the single link Detroit, Michigan into separate Detroit and Michigan links on numerous pages. My question is whether it would be advisable for me to go through and revert these edits. On the one hand, I would imagine the answer is yes given that he was blocked for those edits, but on the other hand, it may disrupt other users by clogging their watchlists. Please advise. Lepricavark (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I would leave them alone in general (feel free to revert any individual pages you are working on of course). The main disruption was that these edits (and many which were worse) changed one accepted kind of link to another one, without consensus or much benefit, but at the same time clogging up watchlists. Reverting them would have roughly the same effect and the same benefit, so that wouldn't really be useful IMO. Of course, if there is some clear policy or guideline which strongly prefers the previous version, then you have a better argument for reversal, but otherwise why bother? Blocks already send the message that these edits aren't welcome, reversion isn't likely to be more of a deterrent. Fram (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of reversion as a deterrent, but more as a cleanup of edits that decreased article quality according to our standards. If I do make any reverts, I'll do it very gradually, so as to avoid watchlist clutter. Thank you for the advice. Lepricavark (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Carolwood Pacific Railroad DYKEdit

I am the contributor of the Carolwood Pacific Railroad DYK. I see that it was pulled from the queue, as it was suggested that one level of the review process was skipped, or something along those lines. However, I see that it was not moved back to the Approved Nominations section where it was before. Can it be moved back there so that it can go through the review process correctly? On a related note, I added a new alternate hook to the DYK page, and it's a shorter version of the original hook. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Couple notesEdit

Re: The Book of Beauty, you do appear to be correct, unless I'm missing something (known author, published during their lifetime, died 1980, should be PD 2051). I'm not finding anything to indicate it was donated by him or his estate, but I might be missing it. But seems like we may have a slightly bigger problem there, given that we have more than a dozen (at least) prints from the book uploaded to Commons, some by Elisa, some by others (possibly where she got the idea in the first place that it was PD).

Besides that in particular, this is, at the end of the day an editor who hasn't even been around a year yet. I'm not saying you should ignore COPYVIO, because you shouldn't obviously. But something like starting an AfD where there is an obvious redirect (rather than dropping saying "I don't think this is notable, let's redirect and merge it to improve this other article instead") is probably more bitey than we really need to be.

I'm not saying you're not trying to do the right thing, but obviously the delivery isn't quite coming off in a way that might most effectively support healthy collaboration, and maybe not the most effective at getting them to address apparently legitimate issues like copyright and close paraphrasing. GMGtalk 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If they had shown any interest in discussing her many editing problems, I might have taken a different view. However, someone who constantly removes all critical posts from her talk page immediately and only keeps the positive things, and at the same time shows no signs of improving her actual editing habits, is beyond hope. She had been blocked before, nothing has changed, so she is now blocked again. Whether that Villa should be a redirect or deleted is not really much of a concern to me, it is a non notable subject and unlikely search term (whoever is interested in it will look for Lee, not the Villa, as the starting point). I'm off now to start a copyright contributo investigation... Fram (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I typed this before I saw they were blocked, for whatever that's worth. Besides that, if whether it should be redirected or deleted isn't your concern, then you should probably let someone else be the one to decide whether to nominate for deletion, because that's something AfD nominators are supposed to be concerned about. As to whether they're receptive to your advice, well... I'm sure so youd better stop complaining about it [8] surely helped to set things off on the right foot, and give them the impression you were giving honest, important, and well-meaning advice. GMGtalk 15:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
My "honest, important, and well-meaning advice" was this, after which they at first continued to edit war about that source. Quoting a final reply as if that was the start of our interaction is probably also supposed to be "honest, important and well-meaning" advice? As for that AFD, I believe deletion is best and hence have nominated for deletion. If others feel strongly enough about it so that it ends in redirect, meh, I won't let any sleep over it. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't nominate it for deletion though. Fram (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

AnticsEdit

Fram, could you please look into this article talk page delete? I undid it but was promptly reverted. IMHO this qualifies, though on another page, as what you referred to as "antics" here. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case openedEdit

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom requestEdit

Your statement at arbitrationEdit

While we allow some leeway on the length of statements, especially for parties, yours is over twice the length limit. Could you please trim it down to something that contains the essence of your side of the story? GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll try, although it is a stupid rule which always causes problems (not your fault of course). Fram (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Populating_article_descriptions_magic_wordEdit

Hi Fram. I've closed this RFC. Apologies for the delay in doing so. I am working through the RFC closure backlog when I can, as nobody else seems to want to do it. Cheers, Fish+Karate 13:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Thanks. No need to apologize, we are all volunteers and no one is guilty if something isn't done fast enough (or I would be guilty of ignoring many backlogs and not editing fast enough in general!). No blame was intended towards anyone who actually tackles these RfCs. Fram (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have started my stopwatch to time how long before the WMF reply saying why they are not going to do it, or why they cant, or that the great God Marduk has forbidden it etc.... I'm betting 'technical' considerations preclude doing it at this time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Nothing technical, they just won't do it unless we populate 2 or 3 million descriptions first "for the benefit of the readers", which suddenly are the thing the WMF cares about, and we (the editors) obviously don't. Fram (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Trivial bot request to populate desc with first sentence of the article. Ironically if it was targeted at BLP's, it would instantly make the short-descs substantially more compliant. Granted that's a terrible short desc which should ideally be one-to-five words. But if people want to play arbitrary hurdles... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

William Foster NyeEdit

There was a speedy deletion notice which I contested. I took the article from an 85.7% Earwig down to a 2% earwig. It was deleteed (can't recover who did it) anyway as a copyuright violation. SNAFU. There was no copyright violation. Nobody was "fooling Earwig", as you alleged. Please help. 7&6=thirteen () 13:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I did the deletion and commented upon it at RAN's talk page, with clear examples of remaining copyright violations. Changing "and" to "-" or something similar brings down the Earwig percentage by a lot, but doesn't remove the copyright violation at all. Fram (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This was a contested deletion. You should have WP:PRODd IT. You violated WP:Before. There was a 2% chance of a violation per Earwig. 7&6=thirteen () 13:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Read the policies. Copyvio trumps contested. I have shown at RANs talk page some of the clear copyvios remaining after your rushed cleanup job. Earwig is just a tool, good for exact copies but quite easily fooled by even very minor rephrases which don't solve the actual problem at all. Fram (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
There was no copy vio and no close paraphrasing. You deleted based on an alleged copyright violation. Your expansive, new and novel Procrustean approach is clearly outside of policy. WP:Before violated. Article could have been improved and expanded. The mere coincidence of proper and trade names doesn't make this a copy vio. 7&6=thirteen () 13:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Then bring it to whatever dispute resolution board you prefer to deal with this. The bolded parts in my statement at RANs talk page are not a "mere coincidence of proper and trade names". Fram (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I would also note that you left a notice at here at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 's talk page, and he is currently blocked from editing. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy. 7&6=thirteen () 13:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declinedEdit

The committee have declined the request for arbitration to which you were a party. Many of the arbitrators appear to think that the dispute is not ripe for arbitration and that other avenues of dispute resolution ought to be tried further.

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sander.v.GinkelEdit

I have lost track of the project to sort out the articles written by user:Sander.v.Ginkel. About a year ago, user:MFriedman moved a lot of Van Ginkel-drafts back to main space, what is a bit strange. This evening, I got alarmed by some edits of MFriedman of the Dutch Wikipedia. After an hiatus of 4.5 years, he suddenly pleaded to keep an article written by Sander.v.Ginkel. So I filed there a sockpuppet investigation and the result was positive: MFriedman is a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel. So Sander clearly circumvented the project to clean up his mess by using a sockpuppet to restore his articles.

What should be the next step? The Banner talk 22:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for your information, after a checkuser request on nl-wiki it turned out MFriedman was a sock puppet of Sander.v.Ginkel. - Robotje (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

MailEdit

 
Hello, Fram. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Captain Occam (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you were offline for about ten days after I sent you this e-mail, so I'm not sure if you noticed it. I'd appreciate some acknowledgment that you didn't miss it. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I have no interest in registering there. The issue you note may be real and serious, but then it would be better if you or other concerned editors take it up with that editor and/or contact admins who have had more positive interactions there (as their words are more likely to be listened to). Fram (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we communicate via e-mail? I'd like to respond to what you said in your comment, but I shouldn't do so on-wiki. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I really don't like to have offwiki communications, sorry. Fram (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NYRepresentativesHeaderEdit

 Template:NYRepresentativesHeader has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

ANIEdit

Sorry about that - didn't realize I was getting quite as carried away as I was. (Long morning, sorry.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've had further discussion with the WikiProject in question. They have no problem with the ANI edits being done until a bot is coded. I'll ease up for the day. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request for desysop of Fram. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requestsEdit

Hi, Fram. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018Edit

  Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 95.9 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
For recognizing (if a bit belatedly) when things are going off the rails and having the good sense, and self-confidence to recognize and address it. The ability to look at one's own actions and accept criticism is an important, and regrettably rare, attribute. Cheers! Jbh Talk 19:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Better late than never, but I have indeed wasted the time and patience of a lot of people recently. Fram (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You have received significant grace, something not afforded non-admins most days. Try to remember that when dealing with good faith contributors in the future. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, Legacypac, do we need to storybook The Mote and the Beam for you before you think to offer offer faint praise/random condescension on your fellow editors? Fram is a pretty excellent editor. Go edit something, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I will, although I think you overestimate the divide between admins and non-admins in this way. And one thing you can't say about me is that I'm hard on non-admins but soft on admins. I don't think anyone has brought more (successful) cases against admins to ANI and ArbCom. Fram (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Take my comment from the POV of someone who has been blocked, without discussion or opportunity to defend myself, for less aggressive conduct than you displayed the last few days. Non-admins get blocks, while Admins get massive amounts of process and protection. Once that block is issued, regardless of what good work they do or the unfairness of the block, there is zero chance the editor ever get through RfA and the next block is often justified by the last block. There is no way to clear one's record or get a "not guilty" ruling. The blocked editor must confess the crime to et unblocked.
Now about the troll who thinks himself so witty. He has posted here, on my talk and in several ANi threads over the last several weeks, each time being a jerk toward me. Any ideas about that? Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I also, personally, find it important to recognize when one is right but when pushing the point is either wrong or not constructive. I think that this is probably one of those situations. It can, ungenerously, be seen more as martinet than 'tough but fair'. I happen to agree that the link is a copyvio but I do not see the use in making an issue of it. Jbh Talk 16:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If we let that one slide, then which ones will we remove and which ones do we let pass? Only remove ones in articles? Then we need to change the policy. The link is utterly unnecessary for the discussion (or even the "joke"), the youtube uploader clearly doesn't own the copyright: it doesn't get much clearer than this. If we let this one pass, then we basically say that our policy is utterly wrong and can be dismissed. If we allow everyone to get their way around policy if they simply revert changes and ignore policy (and their explanations at that discussion are not very convincing either, to put it mildly), then let's just abandon any pretense of having policies and standards. This is not someone using a link to youtube to discuss some article issue and improving enwiki. Fram (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    I do not think letting a joke link on ANI pass has much chance of leading to the downfall of Wikipedia. Your initial removal was a good initial 'brake' and I see no issue with it. It clearly signaled 'this is a bit dodgy'. I see a bit of an issue with the original poster re-inserting it. Where I see the problem, and this is just my opinion but it is based on a pretty solid grasp of social dynamics and conflict, is you then taking it up in ANI. Everyone who watches ANI was already aware of the removal and reinstatement of the link and there are many people familiar with our rules watching that page. If it were a significant issue someone else would have removed it. All it really did is call into question the insights you expressed in your Introspection comment ie it was 'a bridge too far' for the behavior at issue.
    Also, I am not writing this to dump on you. From your RfArb comment I assume you have recognized some behaviors you want to work on so I am giving a bit of feedback because I know it is hard to do. It is quite OK to tell me to piss off if I overstep. The best advice I can give is to remember that a single person is seldom the bullwork holding back the barbarians and if you ever start to feel that is the case, on Wikipedia in particular, it is a sign to step back not press on. Jbh Talk 16:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If not ANI (or AN), then where should I have taken it? If the answer is "nowhere", then there was little point to the initial removal as well. Fram (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a follow-up discussion live now at Wikipedia talk:External links#Linking to YouTube from talk pages. Policy talk pages tend to be only read by people who wrote or who are interested in the policy, so you'll get a better response. ANI isn't known as the WP:Dramaboard or the WP:Slough of Despond for no reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, to be strictly accurate you gave it that name and nobody except you has ever called it that in Wikipedia's entire history. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
While you need to look deep, some people other than Ritchie use that term. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it came from Wikipedia:WikiSpeak's description of WP:AN - "Not quite the Slough of Despond, but you can see it from there." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── And now we're on our fourth board. Can anyone say slippery slope? I can rip off a music video, put it on YouTube, and attract a bunch of YouTube-quality comments. Doubt that "look at the rack on the babe at 3:42!" would be critical commentary qualifying it as fair use. --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Look at the rack on the babe at 3:42". Crikey, maybe I should have put the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Maurer as "Nice legs, shame about the notability" after all.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In re "If not ANI (or AN), then where should I have taken it?" First - in general, since you took it to talk and had a solid base for your position, I do not think it was unjustifiable to take the matter up at ANI. (There is the question of whether it would be worth it since it was a one off that I would have answered differently since it looked like a 'one-off', not repeated behavior but meh.) It was just wrong for you to take it there after acknowledging, just a day ago, being too quick to go to the boards/over reacting to problems you see. A lower key response might have been to bring it up with another admin - kind of a sanity check - to say 'I think this is a big deal; can you have a word with…, do you think it is worth an ANI? Really, just using the resolution tools most of us use anyway.
    The only reason I suggest this extra step is that you said you want to re calibrate your responses to things like this, not because I think you are a bad admin or because I think you do not have a good grasp of policy — I can not stress that enough. I do, however, think that you have 'hardened' in the way you approach things and that you have recognized that that is causing some inter-personal, let's call it – 'friction' and that you wanted to work to change that. The only way I know to 'un-harden' (is that even a word, soften does not work so un-harden it is) is to take special care, like the 'sanity-check' or just letting something pass. This helps one re-calibrate perceptions and responses — to get rid of that rush of adrenaline, the 'to-the-hilt' response when someone does something seen as wrong. It is hard, making that adjustment or even deciding you want to. That is why I gave you the barnstar, it is really the only way wiki has to say 'good job' or 'I support what you did'.
    Well, I wrote more than I intended, probably more than I should. I hope what I said makes some sense and I have not given offence. Text is a difficult way to describe social nuance. Often I find my foot planted firmly in my mouth but I hope I have at least avoided that. Jbh Talk 23:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Feel free to post here, it is good to know what other people think about my actions and about what I can improve. I thought I showed considerable restraint in this episode (at least a lot more than in some other recent ones!), but discussing this with another admin might have been a good idea. Problem is of course that if I had e.g. brought it up with NeilN, I would have been confirmed in my beliefs and might just have removed the link again after such consultation. Whether that would have been a better situation is not really clear. But I'll try to find alternative means of solving these things in the future. Oh well, I can at least assure you that I wasn't planning on starting an ArbCom case about it. Fram (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you and thanks for listening. Enjoy your weekend! Jbh Talk 14:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be unwise for me now to wade into this situation, but can some other admins (or editors) perhaps take a look at the situation here. That comment in itself is unacceptable, but I haven't checked whether it was a tit-for-tat or came more out of the blue. Fram (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm on good terms with both the editors, but I'm with Volunteer Marek there, Fram. He took the trouble to write a fairly elaborate analysis of his position[10], — not entirely nicely-spoken, admittedly, as it contained "you just have no clue as to what you're talking about", but very clear and explicatory and if it was me, it would have taken some time to compose — and got a brief reply from MjolnirPants that started "I'm just commenting here that I've not bothered to read your response".[11] That would be proper infuriating in any context, even apart from its accusation of lying and the bit about losing his respect, and pretty much deserved the reply it got, which is the diff you link to, Fram. Not out of the blue. (I'm just answering you, not inviting the editors here, so I haven't pinged them.) Bishonen | talk 10:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC).
Thanks. Then perhaps a word with both editors urging them to calm down may help? Not from me though. Fram (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Weell... not from me either. I don't feel comfortable telling grownup people to calm down. Compare User:Bishonen/Calm down. Also I would think both these grownups already know they overstepped. They're both quite good with the self-reflection. Another admin, who is better with the tact than you or me, may feel differently. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC).

Arbitration case request closedEdit

Hi Fram. The Copyvio and retaliation arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Like!Edit

[12] Fine! bishzilla ROARR!! 22:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC).

Unblock requestEdit

Would you mind commenting at User talk:Elisa.rolle on the unblock request theee. It’s your block, and your thoughts would be appreciated  . TonyBallioni (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, our posts crossed each other! Fram (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem! I just saw it. Thanks for all the work you do in the area. I know you’ve taken a lot of heat recently, but your good work on copyright really is appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. To be fair, part of the heat was my own fault, but part was some people seeing a chance to take revenge for some action I took against them, their friends, their articles, ... in the past. The risks of being a long-time admin I guess. Fram (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would you consider not deleting Elisa.rolle's work please. There are lots of copyright violations. Sorting through the same user's work to find repeat evidence could be misinterpreted. Thanks for listening. Victuallers (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Would you consider deleting copyright violations please? If you know of an editor who has repeatedly made copyright violations, asking others not to delete them could be misinterpreted. In any case, feel free to misinterpret further deletions any way you like, I'm quite used to such misinterpretations and misrepresentations by now. I will not stop removing copyright violations made by an editor I blocked because they were making copyright violations. You were the one that falsely claimed "I have been looking at Elisa Rolle's deleted articles and the copyright violations appear to be (mainly) a misunderstanding over archive.com and very minor infringements that IMO just needed correcting." when the deleted articles were for the most part not copyvio's of wrong archive.com pages (there were a few of those, but not that many) but copyvio's of other books, websites, university pages, 1960s newspaper articles ... A very wide range, actually. You are not helping her by giving her such advice, and you are not helping enwiki, yourself or her by asking me not to delete her copyvios. Fram (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm nearing the end of her creations, and most serious copyvios are probably deleted by now, unless I missed them. Fram (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Victuallers? Copyright? That rings a bell. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm getting asked semi-regularly to restore several of Elisa's articles, and have been doing so (while rewriting the prose so it doesn't violate copyright, of course). I don't mind doing this, but it would be helpful if you could do it as well. If this means trimming it to a one sentence stub that doesn't prove notability, move it to draft, make sure the references are still listed, and RD1 the old prose. You're a good content writer, Fram, so it shouldn't be too onerous a task. A related conversation is here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Or you could all check these articles for copyvio of course. It shouldn't be too onerous a task either. Until then, I'll continue deleting copyvios, which should be the priority here. Fram (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

G12 deletionsEdit

Since 1st February you have deleted about twenty articles created by Elisa.rolle, stating G12, unambiguous copyright infringement, as the reason for deletion. Now the Criteria for speedy deletion define G12 as "This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material ... where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". A few days ago I sought clarification of the criteria for G12 deletion here, the response being that if there is anything salvageable on the page, the article should not be deleted. By way of example of your actions, on 8th March

The next day, you deleted six of the articles elisa.rolle had created. These were not articles that other people had nominated for deletion, but articles you had chosen to investigate. What consideration did you give to removing the copyvios and rev-deleting the history? Please explain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

When you finaly will have your long-coveted admin hat, you'll be able to do all of this yourself. When an editor has many copyvios, with articles often having text copied from multiple sources at once, it is not realistic to check every line to see which parts are copyvios and which parts aren't. Once you know that a) an editor has a history of copyvios and b) at least part of the article is a copyvio, the best way to proceed is to simply delete the article wholesale. Better safe than sorry.
On the other hand, you have now blatantly violated the copyright or intellectual rights of Elisa Rolle by using her text but posting it as if it were your own. I have accordingly redeleted the article. Please don't do this again. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Checking every line is not required, but glancing at whether there are multiple authors is. So for instance Cornelia Lyman Warren which you deleted had additions by me about the links to the Warren Cup. You have also deleted work by Cwmhiraeth. This is an editor in good standing widely acknowledged as a major positive contrbutor to our project. A small change to the article would have prevented bad feeling. You are allowed, but not required, to delete where it is a pure copyvio, but not when there is another contribution. As others point out this could be just as easily be replaced with a one line stub with much less drama. Victuallers (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from implementing your own solution. Elisa.rolle was blocked for copyvios on 31 January, i.e. more than 1 1/2 months ago. Have you done anything to find and remove copyvios in her articles since then? As for your "contibutions" to that article, you changed "run" to "ran", and "art collector" to "collector of Warren cup", which isn't really grammatically correct. "You are allowed, but not required, to delete where it is a pure copyvio, but not when there is another contribution." is nonsense, certainly when the additions are this minimal, but also otherwise. If you want less drama, remove the copyvio's, educate editors already blocked for copyvio in the past, and create one-line stubs for these deleted articles. Coming here is creating drama though. If you want a positive, drama-free solution, you could follow the example of Ritchie333 instead, who is looking for the best way to get articles on these topics back without additional melodramatics.
And no, I haven't deleted "work by Cwmhiraeth", I have deleted work by Elisa.rolle plagiarized by Cwmhiraeth. Your qualifications of his work and standing otherwise are not relevant, people are not allowed to plagiarize because they have done good work or have wikifriends. Fram (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you tell me please, what copyrights were infringed by the articles John Burnside (plantation owner) and Christian Ludwig von Kaphengst which you deleted? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That seems rather pointless after our discussion about that other article, no? I took a lot of time and effort to explain to you what you did wrong there, and you didn't understand or acknowledge any problem with your actions there (well, you admitted the problem to Elisa.Rolle, while at the same time insisting to me that you didn't make such an error). Looking at the first of the two, I see an attribution error (a long quote of a PD source which isn't indicated as a source or as "this article contains text from ...". It also e.g. copied text from this 2012 text. I haven't done a line-by-line check of every sentence to provide you an exhaustive list though... If you plan on recreating either of the two articles properly, then please don't reuse any part of the original text but just rewrite the article using the same sources but your own words. Fram (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
A failure to provide correct attribution then, hardly a reason for a G12 speedy deletion. What about the second one? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I gave you the exact external site where she copied text from (I even gave an example of pure copyvio on your talk page), and your response is this? This is no longer about adminacct (if it ever was), this is simply harassment. I will no longer waste my time to entertain you about deletions where you don't understand or accept any response anyway. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. There seem to be other creations by Elisa.rolle that you have deleted under G12 but haven't indicated why:

I will no longer waste my time to entertain you about deletions where you don't understand or accept any response anyway. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources excludes military and defense contractors?Edit

Hi... I'm trying to parse "I couldn't find evidence that this is a notable location (no reliable, independent sources, only military sources (directly or from suppliers)." (left on Cybertropolis page). Are all military sources (even if one is under the guidance of the Indiana state government) and defense contractors unreliable? Or is it that there needs to be an "arms-length" source? Would http://www.tribtown.com/2018/03/07/indiana-lawmakers-support-cyber-battalion/ suffice? Thanks, --Jhfrontz (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Its about primary vs secondary sources not the reliability of the sources. Primary sources such as direct military or related suppliers do not demonstrate notability. They demonstrate it exists and can be used in line with the use of primary sources, but notability is determined by coverage in secondary sourcing. Press releases do not count, but the tribune source is fine. Except notability is demonstrated by significant coverage. If there is just one article, it would likely fail an AFD. More sources like the tribune one would be better. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, that's what I meant, thanks! Fram (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Tylney, 2nd Earl TylneyEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Tylney, 2nd Earl Tylney. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Isophene Planteau Goodin BailhacheEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Isophene Planteau Goodin Bailhache. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Like I said at the DRV, what an utterly pointless waste of time. The title you present never was an article or redirect in the first place. Fram (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Laura Barney HardingEdit

Hi, I've had a complaint from Elisa that your deletion of this article is incorrect. Rather than listen to both sides of the argument, I would like to prove this myself independently. (And to be abundantly clear, I want to be able to say "sorry, but Fram is right because [link]" and manage expectations from there).

The URL listed in the deletion notice comes up with a Google Books entry for Kate : The Woman Who Was Hepburn, but there is no preview available, and no search facility, so I cannot check if the text is primarily copied from the source. If I do a random Google of text, I get nothing obvious.

Can you suggest anything else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't you get the "search inside" box for that book? It may be that it is not available in the US perhaps. Anyway, examples:
  • article: "an exclusive dance given by Anne Harriman Vanderbilt confirming her position among the top two hundred people in society."
  • Source: "an exclusive dance given by Mrs. William K. Vanderbilt affirmed her place among the top two hundred in the first rank of society."
  • article: "Lorillard Suffern Tailer, a well-known polo player and scion of a British-American tobacco family."
  • Source: "Lorillard Suffern Tailer, a well-known polo player and scion of the British-American tobacco family."

Hope this helps. Fram (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you check the sentence beginning "Harding made her debut into society...."? I do get search boxes some of the time on books but not all the time - it depends on licencing implications, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Harding made her debut into society at 18 years old" vs. "At age eighteen, Laura made her social debut". The remainder of the sentence is a lot less close to the original. If all of the article had been like this, there wouldn't have been a problem. Fram (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please Undelete Deepak Dubey Activist PageEdit

Hello Fram,

We believe that the page has been deleted in confusion, we have ample amount of data to prove it relevance, please let us know what all data you need.

AapDombivli (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The page has already been created and deleted twice at Deepak Dubey as well. Being quoted by the Times of India a ssomeone who commented about a notable event doesn't make him notable. What you need are good, independent quality sources about him. Fram (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Fram,

Independent news agency like DNA, The Times Of India have created topic with the name Deepak Dubey.


http://www.dnaindia.com/topic/deepak-dubey

http://mumbaiaaspaas.com/tag/deepak-dubey-aap/


https://www.google.co.in/search?q=deepak+dubey+dombivli&client=ms-android-lenovo&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFstvAyv_ZAhWGvo8KHZoCDE44FBD8BQgKKAE&biw=1100&bih=1712&dpr=3

AapDombivli (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

He is used as a spokesperson, he doesn't get attention yet for what he actually does. So far, he isn't yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Fram (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure at all how to write a message to you. I totally understand why you proposed the deletion of List of incidents at Parque Warner Madrid. The problem is I personally am pretty much just googling for news articles. One of the problems is I don't speak Spanish, but I did find another incident to add through youtube videos actually of an accident in the stunt show. You might want to check my references because I probably didn't link those videos the way wikipedia would have preferred, but anyways thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisisreed (talkcontribs) 20:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Unless a park has had a series of particularly notable incidents or is really known for them, such a list is in general a bad idea. We dont create "list of incidents in village X", even though every village of some size has had some deadly accidents on their roads and so on. We are not a news ticker, and putting together some accidents which have received little or no attention (in this case, one accident where there was some follow-up afterwards, but another accident which you found on youtube and where there may be a short article from the day it happened, but nothing afterwards) just because they happened at the same attraction park seems like too much attention for very little actual notability. Fram (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Could use a closeEdit

Could you--or any uninvolved (preferably experienced) talk page stalker--close this discussion? I would like to know whether I should or should not begin the process of merging.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

AttributionEdit

During February and March you speedily deleted a number of articles under G12 as failing to provide attribution to the original creators. Here is a list of sixteen other articles that I have found that have been translated from other language Wikipedias without providing attribution. I expect you will want to delete these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please take your faux concerns elsewhere. You have now moved from harassing me about actions I have taken (including a DRV you started which was rightly closed as disruptive) to harassing me with things I have no link with at all. I am not interested in whatever problems you may find with articles and editors I have no contact with or interest in, and would ask you not to post such concerns here again. In fact, I would prefer it if you wouldn't contact me at all apart from necessary notifications (for deletions, or for the inevitable ANI report or ArbCom case you eventually will start). Fram (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Declining speedyEdit

Sorry, the AN section got closed before I could respond but wanted to pick up on something you said: declining the speedy ... is an active admin action. According to the policy, any editor except the page creator can remove a speedy tag and so decline speedy deletion - as far as I can tell, for any reason. I know there have been cases where just mass-removing CSD tags has been considered disruptive, but what makes this an "active admin action"? Have I misunderstood / misremembered something? GoldenRing (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • (talk page watcher) A bit like a nac is an admin action; if an editor does something that could have an administrative consequence, it is an admin action. Someone once told me. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 11:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, but in fact I meant it more as "an active editing action by an admin". It's technically not an admin action (less so than closing AfDs and the like even), but if admins would make too many serious errors in declining speedies, they would face the possibility of a desysop, even if no active admin action error was made. The whole "admins are held to higher standards" + "we can't remove NPP rights from admins" and things like that. This is not a comment about this one error, and I'm aware that the "higher standards" line may sound strange coming from me... My reply mainly wanted to make the distinction between "not acting", which is within editor/admin discretion, and actively acting (by declining the speedy), which doesn't have the protection of such discretion. Fram (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Had any regular editor removed that speedy tag and then defended that action we would rightly question their fitness as an NPP. In fact many Admins would have yanked the PERM without much discussion. It happened to my PERMs twice with no warning or discussion and I still can't get Pagemover because of a totally unjustified sanction Nick started against me that was later unanimously lifted. Legacypac (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative toolsEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The above was started by Cwmhiraeth and closed (twice!) as "Fram has not abused their tools in any way, shape or form" by two different admins, with a third admin removing "the most egregrious of your personal attacks on Fram". Fram (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative toolsEdit

Hello Fram, I just wanted to let you know that your mean comments against me are being leveled at a 16-year-old, and that I was 13 when I created my Wikipedia account in 2014. Shame on you. --Powder River 1876

In what way is pointing out that your boast is not correct a "misuse of administrative tools"? Anw what has your age then or now to do with the fact that you recreated an already deleted article? If you want to use your age then and now as an excuse, you should show that you have improved and no longer make the mistakes of your younger self, not that you continue doing the same. Fram (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User rightsEdit

I could've named this section similar to last two sections above, though that is probably not so necessary following the Arbcom remedy.

Magioladitis removed my user rights in violation of WP:INVOLVED ([13][14][15] - [16] [17]) after I was banned by Arbcom. It was unusual also because I am yet to learn if it is necessary to remove user rights of Arbcom banned editors since many presently banned editors continue to retain their user rights.[18][19][20] After returning from the ban, I had asked Magioladitis to restore the permissions but he failed to do the needful.

Can you restore the permissions? Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the background, and would prefer if you would raise this at a noticeboard instead (either one where you can request userrights, or an admin noticeboard). Fram (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Fram, it appears that OccultZone is under a forum shopping restriction,[21] so apparently he can't raise the same issue elsewhere. In any case, I think since it has been already raised here, this issue can be best settled here. My observation is that there was no need to remove the rights in the first place—they should have been left as they were per WP:INDEFRIGHTS. Magioladitis was WP:INVOLVED, as the diffs above demonstrate, and even worse he provided no reason whatsoever for removing the rights. I'd go as far as saying that his action was very unreasonable.
Add to that, Magioladitis hadn't even had the decency to respond and do the needful when OccultZone requested him to restore his rights.[22] Administrators should be willing to restore the rights upon request, however what happened in this case was just the opposite.
I can cite my own case as an example. Xaosflux had removed my user rights shortly after I was blocked a couple of years ago,[23] but when I requested him to restore the rights not too long ago after I was unblocked, he did the needful, just as I had expected.[24]MBL talk 14:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not going to take any action on this. If that means that, because of their forum shopping restriction, that the rights can't be restored, then that's too bad. There is a stronger case to be made about me being involved with Magioladitis than of Magioladitis being involved with you (at least based on the above diffs; Occultzone leaving a DS notice on Magioladitis' talk page doesn't make Magioladitis involved, and something like this doesn't make them involved either), which leaves you with one revert Magioladitis made on Lovato Lovati): so it would be rather inappropriate f me to reverse their admin actions based on poorly substantiated claims of them being too involved to make those actions in the first place. Fram (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
DS notice was left by me, because of his BLP violations, other diff show that he had been acting as a complaining editor and leaving frivolous warnings. There were indeed a number of articles where we contributed or had disputes, and finally the Arbcom case itself, where he asked for sanctions against me, probably more than anyone. That's why he was never allowed at first place to take any administrative action. At the end I agree that you are probably not the right person to ask given your own involvement with both of us. Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not recall the case but I think it's very unlikely that I removed user rights after 2 months of a single revert in a page and without further decision taken somewhere. I rarely take any actions that result in any user rights modification. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Now checked a bit. The user rights removal had to do with the sokpupperty case and ofcourse not with a revert that happened 2 months ago . -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That came not only after 100s of disputes that we had, but also right after "the Arbcom case itself". And "sokpuppetry case" lacks any merit per WP:INDEFRIGHTS. Even if such frivolous excuse has any merit, then why you didn't restored when I asked you to restore them after getting unbanned? It was clearly not your motive, but it was extension of your bickering related to the Arbcom case and other disputes. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 16:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Before this gets out hand. Occultzone - the best option for you to get the rights returned is to either request them at the place specifically for that, or ask for them to returned at AN. As long as they were unrelated to the reason why you were blocked and you can show a reason why you would need/how you would use them, there is unlikely to be a problem. If you need this thread moved to satisfy the terms of your restriction I doubt there will be an objection. Stick to 'I would like rights X returned as I intend to use them to do Y and Z.' And avoid getting into back and forths about if it was justified they were removed or not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi All, (I was poked on my talk) Unless this is specifically a "denial" after being presented to Fram (which I'm not really reading as such), I tend to think this is an "invalid venue" situation and that creating normal requests at WP:PERM that clearly, but briefly include relevant links to past discussions and actions, as well as this discussion, is the best way forward. I would then see this as the "move to right venue" more then a "forum shopping" activity and this should be marked as archive. — xaosflux Talk 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Any right may be restored via the normal venue. Occultzone asking me in my talk page to restore rollback rights it was not the right venue. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I had asked on my talk page,[25] not yours, and never asked for just "rollback rights" and it was procedural to ask you first since you had admin bit then. This discussion is now over per comments from Xaosflux. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand Sea Cadet CorpsEdit

I am surprised that you are prepared to perpetuate the copyright violation in New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps, although I agree there are some puzzling circumstances. The likelihood of such an organization copying the Wikipedia article are infinitisimal, in my opinion. Although the source states copyright 2016, it was preceded by other versions of the website which will also have been copyright, and there was a version in 2005 when the article was started, because it was mentioned as an external link, but is now dead.

I look with suspicion at the passage, present in the original version "Every unit holds Parade Nights around 2-3 hours long weekly during School Terms. Each parade night usually begins and ends with a parade. The starting parade is used to inspect uniforms, and to inform the cadets on the parade night's activities. The final parade to inform the cadets on upcoming events in the unit. Between the parades, the cadets undergo classroom, or practical instruction."

The source is slightly longer with a few extra details and states "Every unit holds Parade Nights around 2–3 hours long weekly during school terms. Each parade night usually begins with a Colours Ceremony and ends with a Sunset Ceremony. The starting parade is used to inspect uniforms, and to inform the cadets on the parade night's activities. The final parade to inform the cadets on upcoming events in the unit. Between the parades, the cadets undergo classroom or practical instruction, including on boat work and rigging, shooting and other activities." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are prepared to perpetuate your harassment. There is no evidence that the 2005 article is copied from a copyrighted source, and the chances that such an organisation would copy enwiki are probably about a big as the chances that an enwiki admin with (as far as I can tell) no history of copyvios would have copied the text from them. Anyway, when you use poor copyright removals like this one as evidence that I am unsuited to be an admin, then you have now disqualified yourself from adminship under your own rules, as your version[26] still had the equally likely copyvio section "shooting", and the revisions you request to be redacted are completely inadequate (and just happen to be one edit by me), which would keep the supposed copyvio versions visible in the history anyway.
The sources in the original version of the article are this and this (the second one is later than the enwiki page, it's the oldest version I could find). I haven't been able to find the text of our article, or anything close to it, in those pages (browsing the menu on the left). However, if you can find the text from our page in those pages, or in any other page from before our article, then it really is an undisputable copyvio and should be deleted. Until then, it is just your hunch, fueled by a desire to shame me, and you would do best to drop this completely. Fram (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You are the one that is bringing personalities into this, I am just trying to establish whether the article is a major copyvio or not. The creator of the article was a new editor back in 2005 and may not have understood the rules on copying material (as was the case with DB).
In the paragraph I quote above, the creator of our article got the information from somewhere, but did not provide any sources, so we don't know from where it came. The idea that the New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps at some later stage thought "let's tell our readers about parade nights, when we hold them and what we do" and then copied the information from Wikipedia seems to me to be absurd. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
"You are the one that is bringing personalities into this". So you just stumbled on this article, and it had nothing to do with it being edited for copyvio by me earlier? Really? And you didn't already quote this article as evidence of my incompetence as an admin? My, what a vivid imagination I must have! In any case, "Cwmhiraeth thinks it is absurd" is not yet a valid reason to delete contents as a copyright violation. Find the source where it was copied from, or find other articles where the editor used copyvios, establishing a pattern and casting reasonable doubt on all their contributions, or otherwise leave it alone. Hunches are very goodthings to start looking for copyvio, but hunches are insufficient to act as if you have found a copyvio (never mind a "a flagrant copyright violation") or to accuse other editors of "incompetence" and failures. Fram (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The evidence for the copyright violation is here. It is rather shocking that Fram has once again changed the article back to its copyright infringing state. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You are comparing a wikipage with text from 2005, with a webpage from 2018 (or 2016 if you prefer). Once again, you seem to either not have read the above discussion, or not to have understood it at all, or to have read and understood it but to continue your same errors to annoy me. I have asked you many times now to stop your harassment and stay of my talk page. I opened a discussion at the article talk page, so you have zero reason to be here. I'll shout it one last time, perhaps that will get through to you. Fram (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

CWMHIRAETH, STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE

Seeking adviceEdit

Dear Fram,

Your revert is reasonable, as usual (and now I've read WP:BLUDGEON - thank you for the reference), and this leaves me in a quandary...

I noticed the predominance of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, on both sides of the debate about portals, rendering almost the entire debate ridiculous.

I'd like to point them out, while avoiding being disruptive per WP:BLUDGEON, or better yet, steer the discussion toward sanity.

What would you suggest?     — The Transhumanist    10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, "arguments to avoid" is an essay, and much of it is most applicable to article, and less so to a discussion like this one. Not having an article on a subject because you don't like it is a poor argument: not liking the way we in general do one aspect is a perfectly acceptable "don't like it" argument (imagine that there is a proposal to make the background of the main page pale blue: assuming there is no accessability issue, the discussion will mostly center around "like it / don't like it", which is absolutely fine). No content is lost if portals are deleted (no content is won by deleting them either of course). I think the issue is not so much "delete them", but "why are we giving these such prominence (links on the main page), and why are some editors adding links to portals to many articles, categories, ... when the result of all this is so minimal? That portals exist probably doesn't bother most "support" votes; but what bothers most people (I think) is something like this: use random article, first article I encounter is Shatin Anglican Church, which as at the top right a link to Portal:Christianity in China. Why? We have categories and links in the article to lead people to actual articles about related subjects: having yet another system and giving that one such prominence seems like serious overkill when most portals don't get updated and get few viewers anyway.
That portals exist isn't the problem, that they "pollute" the mainspace is. Portal:United States Air Force is linked from more than 6,000 mainspace articles, and gets viewed 60 times per day. This seems a poor tradeoff. We link 6000 articles visibly to a portal where the "news" hasn't been updated since 2011: Portal:United States Air Force/news. This is not a service to our readers, nor a good use of screenspace (database space is not relevant). Fram (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
And links to them are pollution because the portals are of generally poor quality. We could improve portals with features like automatic excerpts from relevant articles, news feeds, and so on, to make them more dynamic and relevant, similar to the Main Page. Using bots, templates, universal gadgets, etc., we may be able to avoid the need for labor that is required to maintain pages in the manner of the Main Page. But, how could we determine if it is worth the effort? Do you have any ideas on how to go about conducting a cost/benefit analysis on this? Traffic vs. enhancing the user experience, for example, is rather abstract/subjective. Obviously, portal traffic comes from inside WP itself, while article traffic comes predominantly from users clicking on external search engine results. None of our navigation pages get a huge amount of traffic (whether categories, portals, outlines, etc. - usually from 1% to 3% of the traffic volume of the corresponding root articles), but they are potentially useful for those who find their way to them. If portals became vibrantly self-updating, they may inspire return visits, which would indicate user experience enhancement. The question is, how to proceed from here?     — The Transhumanist    10:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Categories often get a lot more views than portals per linked page. Taking the first category of the first page linked to USAF portal, Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States: this is linked from 68 pages and 7 categories, but these 75 incoming links generate 40 pageviews per day, compared to 6000 incoming links (from article space alone) and 60 pageviews per day for the portal. I don't believe spending more effort on getting portals more attractive is worth the time, and it is not as if our articles couldn't use the effort instead. Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Good points. By the way, the effort wouldn't be human labor upon the various portals. I was thinking in terms of the labor required to build a bot and a handful of similar tools that would in turn work on all the portals, leveraging technology. Thoughts?     — The Transhumanist    11:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I've manually worked on portals in the past, and while some things could perhaps be automated (for major topics where you have some FAs, creating a range of subpages for these should be possible; but for topics where this isn't really the case, it may be a lot harder), it will be hard in general. For example, how to decide which articles belong with the portal (for the bot)? Presumably some link with a wikiproject, and the importance rating it got there? Fram (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I think avoiding static excerpts should be preferred. That is, making subpages with copied content in them. They go stale over time. Rather, pulling the current lead from articles, possibly cleaned up and trimmed via an algorithm, would be better. As for automatically creating a pool of article titles to rotate or randomly select from, there are multiple options. One could be to rely on the corresponding outline or category tree for this, ignoring stubs. Another could be to rank articles based on their appearance in similarly titled pages (corresponding article, outline, cattree, book, index, navigation template, etc. Or a two-stage approach, such as building a wikiproject resource that gathers and ranks relevant topics automatically, and then dipping into that list by the bot that updates the portals. But, the precise method for automating portal construction and maintenance this could be left up to the experts, such as the users over at the bot department. I think this is just the type of project they might like to get their hands dirty on. But they could at least tell us if it was feasible. They may even suggest generating the entire page, with whatever resources are available, so that portals that have "did you know" entries on WP would get a did you know section, while portal with none found on WP wouldn't get such a section. Thoughts?     — The Transhumanist    11:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that the portals aren't scrapped, I can't stop anyone from doing all or some of this. But it seems like a total waste of effort to me. We have serious backlog contents aplenty, we have tools requests by the dozen, to then use this time and expertise for a namespace which hasn't succeeded in capturing the imagination of most readers and editors in the past decade seems such a pity. Fram (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would be a waste, but I'd like to explore this concept further. I've posted a question at the RfC about the most well-maintained portals. After discovering which ones those are, we can compare their traffic to the average portal. That might give us some clues. Also, if portals were improved across the board, it may have a cumulative impact. For instance, one of the reasons that users are ignoring the portal links may be that they consider the desinations crap. But if they were no longer crap, those links may become popular and therefore used more often as the portals' new reputation for quality spreads. But building a whole system to find this out could be a labor-expensive experiment. Smaller-scale tests would be preferred.     — The Transhumanist    12:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The current discussion (if I am counting right) as of 13:30 on 13 April, has 102 supports and 89 opposes, but with a lot of grey areas (there is probably support to mark lots of inactive portals as historical, but how do you assess which portals are inactive if the editing is actually going on at the subpages? Is someone going to check all the 170,000 subpages of all 1500 portals?) I think it is plain by now that the proposal to scrap the namespace and/or delete all portals is simply not going to happen (unless there is a massive change in the !voting trends). Someone needs to work out a way forward, either by discerning consensus from what has been said (at the end of the 30 days) or by putting in the hard work to come up with a set of proposals that are detailed enough to be actionable and simple enough to be discussed and a new sets of RfCs carried out. There is a good argument for starting again from scratch for some portals, and trying new methods, as well as using the best of the existing portals (many of which already use automation of some kind). Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I'd be inclined not to wait 30 days. Momentum on a redesign project could turn the debate even further, as people see the potential of redesigning them and lots of effort going into it. However, as is being discussed above, I'd like some indication of whether or not it is worth it, and the current dilemma is how to measure the value of development time for such tools in terms of traffic to the portals, and the benefit they provide to users. Very subjective. Say, we turn them into shining stars of development, and then their traffic doesn't grow one iota. Would that effort to increase the quality of the user experience be justified? We are probably talking in terms of investing some human years of development time here. And so, what I'd like to do before we gather and commit such resources, is find clues as to what the result might be. Toward that end, we need to track down the best maintained portals and compare them with those that are not maintained, in terms of traffic, user experience, and so on. Then multiply that to reflect what the change would be to the entire system, and see what it "feels" like. So, I ask you: Which portals are the best maintained?    — The Transhumanist   20:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
My initial view is that any portal with a large listing and automated rota of featured article can be easily maintained purely as a showcase of featured articles for that topic. The Biography portal is a good example of that. The smaller portals are more problematic, as are the very broad topic ones that are so broad that there are less well maintained (similar to how it is very difficult to get a broad main topic up to FA standard). Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Short descriptionsEdit

Hey, thanks for the excellent idea on the auto-generating descriptions! Actually, it still doesn't work, there are some quirks to work out (stripping out images too..) :) Also, I'd just point out there's no need to test on a live page like Khoshkhash, you can use the Testcases and use css to show the short descriptions (as described at Template:Short description) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have the gadget enabled, but that only seems to work in the mainspace, not in userspace... Fram (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Copy .shortdescription { display:block !important; } to User:Fram/common.css - the short descriptions will display where they are placed (as long as {{short description is used}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
If you add a yellow background it is very easy to spot where it is if it may be randomly scattered in experiments. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I personally made it green text.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes and wikidataEdit

Hi, I've lost track of Wikidata decisions. Was there consensus not to fill biographical infoboxes using fetches from it? - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the current situation is "no consensus", but the current big Wikidata infoboxes RfC may change that. Fram (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I really have lost track. I wasn't even aware that there was another RfC in process. I'll look it up. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kesari ToursEdit

Gadgetsgigs has asked for a deletion review of Kesari Tours. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 11:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Cryptozoology Organizations listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Cryptozoology Organizations. Since you had some involvement with the List of Cryptozoology Organizations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

For your opinion on the matterEdit

So remeber when you nominated all of those Bird stamp articles for deletion? Well, while I was exploring this site with the "random article" button, I found this whole category of fish on stamps. Do you think that All of the articles in this category could be deleted for the same reason as the bird stamp articles were? Thanks, 💸Money💸emoji💸💴 18:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably, although I haven't looked at them in detail. But normally the same reasons will apply to those as well. Fram (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Vance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for William VanceEdit

 On 16 May 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article William Vance, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter Fodor CopyrghtEdit

Hello

I just noticed that a page I created got deleted. i did'nt know that that link was copyrighted. Can I change the reference for that and create the article again? FrancestBlanc (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You can recreate the page, but make sure that it is written neutrally. The previous version really read like an advert for the person, with way too much emphasis on the miracle benefits of his procedures. Please see WP:NPOV. And don't copy (or slightly rewrite) text from other sites, books, magazines, but write it all in your own words! Fram (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WHRD MENA CoalitionEdit

Hi Fram. I have expanded the page you proposed for deletion and think it's quite clear that it meets notability criteria. We created this page as part of the Wikimedia - Amnesty partnership last weekend to improve pages about women human rights defenders, and checked the articles to be created for notability before doing so. Whilst I understand the desire to delete things that don't meet NC, I think this clearly does, and I hope that you would reassess your view in light of the further citations and think about removing the deletion request. Thanks! Jwslubbock (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There is already one other page up for deletion which was created during the same partnership, and I have deleted another one you created as it was a copyright violation (using very, very minor word changes only). Sources you have added for this article include a press release, a primary source (not an independent source] and another primary source. What you need are non-partisan, independent reliable sources like newspapers discussing the organisation, not a network of like-minded organisations posting about each other (nor condemnations from opposing organisations, if such would exist). As it stands, the article clearly doesn't meet the notability criteria. Fram (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely no need to delete this rather than ask me to improve it. Appalling deletionism making our work harder.Jwslubbock (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Fram (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Restore history under redirect?Edit

Hi! Kaze Emanuar was deleted as A7 a while ago and later recreated as a redirect to where his work is covered, I'm currently collecting RSes with SIGCOV about him (tangentially so is Czar :p User:Czar/drafts/Super Mario 64 mods) but I'd like to be able to see what was already done last year. Do you think it might be possible to restore the deleted revisions under the current redirect (and leave it as a redirect for now)? Thanks! Ben · Salvidrim!  19:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, although there really isn't anything useful in that page history. Fram (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, was hoping for more hehe... well, we can always build from scratch! Thanks again for the help regardless. :) Ben · Salvidrim!  04:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
"Sorted" :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
+1 - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
+2 TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
+3 DeCausa (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban vioEdit

Regarding this, I'm advising you also of this only because it seems like a request for some proxy editing toward his "mission". I don't think he's going to go down quietly. -- ψλ 13:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

SvG SPIEdit

Hi Fram. You might be interested in this. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your ANI thread that proposed an interaction ban between Baseball Bugs and LegacypacEdit

Legacypac (talk · contribs) closed the thread without sanctions against himself, and Jbhunley (talk · contribs) immediately archived the thread. I have unarchived and unclosed it. I have further proposed that Legacypac be topic banned from posting to ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom restrictionsEdit

Hi, wasn't there an arbcom case regarding RAN and findagrave? I'm sure there was some sort of restriction but am blowed if I can locate it. Something to do with them editing that site and then using as a source in this project. I'm wondering if they're now circumventing things by use of Wikidata - see User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Findagrave. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions: "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. He may provide such links on the talk pages of articles, so they may be reviewed by other editors for acceptance according to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies; if accepted, another editor may add these links as desired." (and some other restrictions). I raised the issue of them circumventing this by using Wikidata already years ago (can't remember where, probably Arbcom clarifications) but the opinions were strangely divided on whether this was a real violation of his restriction or not. In any case, the page he is using Wikidata on needs a thorough cleaning, including the removal of all his WD links, the removal of findagrave as a source, and a check of the other sources. There also was a recent discussion about the use of such links to Wikidata in articles, but I can't immediately find it. The general view of it was quite negative in any way. Fram (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah. I was trying to find it by searching the ArbCom case archives with "findagrave". Thanks for digging it out. I may take it back to ARCA when my head is clear of mindwarping meds. I've no idea what WD allows or disallows as sources, though, so I think I'd better steer clear of that bit. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Found it, it is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#New RFC on linking to Wikidata. Fram (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018Edit

User:Fram, you have been informed that I am gravely ill. In the section User talk:Newyorkbrad#Comment by Newyorkbrad and above there is an ongoing discussion about arbitration. You have been informed about that and the critical state of my health. I cannot even move about at the moment. Please do not overide what Newyorkbrad and what other arbitrators have decided. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are so critically ill, then stay away from enwiki. You have used your poor health as an excuse before, but your behaviour inbetween is too often unacceptable. The discussion at User:Newyorkbrad's talk page is not a get out of jail for free card. Please link to what these unnamed arbitrators have decided that makes my opening of an AN thread in any way invalid or forbidden. Fram (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration requestEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

AN - RANEdit

Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Richard_Arthur_Norton. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Chinatown Handy GuideEdit

Hello Fram, Thanks for your comments on this entry. I have added more and better references per your suggestions. I am ready to move the page back to the main site, but wonder if you might be willing to give me any additional comments before I do so. thank you again for your time and attention. TeddyFang (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)TeddyFang

@TeddyFang:. I moved it back. The first line already is an example of original research. You then source the claim that "To this day, it remains the only title published in four different geographic editions tailored to the largest established Chinatowns in America’s biggest cities" to [27] which probably isn't a reliable source to start with, but more problematic is that it only says "Capitalizing on the fact that Chinatowns were becoming tourist attractions, John Fang began publishing "Chinatown Handy Guide" booklets in major cities. " which doesn't verify the claim you added it to at all. I already said that "Later academics described the books as “intended to boost (Chinatown’s) flagging tourist economy”" was not supported by its source, but it's still there. Similarly, "Fang “recognized the retail potential of the model family concept” to serve as “both a political defense mechanism and a means to strengthen (the Chinese community’s) economic muscle.”" is not really what the source says; the second part is said about Chinese Americans in general, whether it applies to Fang specifically is a big leap though.

A paragraph like "Fang introduced a number of business, publishing and marketing techniques that would later become popular in promoting Chinatown tourism. This included creating dual revenue streams – one from advertisements placed in the booklets by Chinatown restaurants and merchants, and another revenue stream from single copy sales as the booklets were sold for $1 each (including postage and handling for mail-in orders!)" is badly in need of an independent reliable source, as it is highly unlikely that he "introduced" these techniques which were standard in e.g. newspapers, magazines, ... (revenue from ads plus revenue from sales). The "innovative marketing materials" from the next paragraph also needs a very good source or otherwise needs removal.

All in all the article reads like a promotional piece for Fang, not a neutral, factual encyclopedic article.

Please use the WP:AFC system of letting others judge the article instead of moving it back to main space yourself. Fram (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Ok Fram, I do appreciate your comments. One thing is that the source specifically reads "its producers intended to boost the flagging tourist economy by selling..." so it does refer specifically to the Chinatown Handy Guide. The next source on page 154 specifically ties retail potential to the Chinatown Handy Guide: "San Francisco entrepreneurs recognized the retail potential of the model family concept as well. Chinatown Handy Guide (1959) lured sightseers ..." Page 154 also specifically uses Fang's Chinatown Handy Guide as an example of spreading the non-delinquency concept. I will re-consider all your other suggestions, but I hope you will re-look at the two sources cited for these references so that future readers won't be confused by your comments. Thank you.

Deletion discussionEdit

Hi Fram, just a small point please remember Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process in the end AfD's will come to a conclusion if the arguments that disagree with you arent valid then trust the closing admin to see that. The whole idea with the concept of letting the community develop a consensus is that everyone must be able to express an opinion freely, bludgeoning a discussion inhibits thats. Once you've expressed your opinion please leave it at that, if your feeling its so important that an article gets deleted then maybe you are too close to the subject or have a bias. Gnangarra 11:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hah, nice to hear an Australian admin talking about being "too close to the subject or having a bias" when all thos who want t o keep the article, and policies be damned (including you, an admin who should know and behave better) are Australians...
I don't have the feeling that it is so important that the article gets deleted, if people can show that it has actual clear notability then no problem, but I don't like it when people try to get like-minded opinions who treat AfD as a votecount and make a mockery of our processes. When you vote to keep an article without any independent sources, and then "strengthen" your vote when you "add a reference from an independent source about Daisy receiving Melbourne B&F awards, it defining characteristic about her, the club, and the team." which, apart from being a barely comprehensible comment, is not a source "about" her receiving the awards at all, but a source about her which mentions the award in the most passing way imaginable. If you can't play fair and try to uphold our policies and guidelines, then perhaps you shouldn't lecture someone else who actually does care about these. Now please go and a) change your vote to something policy-based, with comments which resemble reality somewhat, and b) lecture your compatriots about canvassing and ILIKEIT votes being worthless in AFDs. Fram (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I havent canvassed anyone...no reason to cause conflagration of opinions of different people in respondning to my comment. There no reason to need to repeat your comment to that user that also would be badgering. I just noting that so far every person who has made a comment to keep the article has had a response from you, for the same reasons and that you edits cover a significant part of the discussion repeating the same point to each person. The source I added confirms details within the article, it shows how the article is making an informational link between multiple articles. Gnangarra 12:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I never said you canvassed anyone. Your opinion about the source you added is ... weird. I hope you are a better judge of sourcing and voting when you close AfDs than you are when you vote in them, as these comments really are at odds with what one would expect from admins. Much of what you say really is very, very hard to parse ("no reason to cause conflagration of opinions of different people in respondning to my comment."?), and I have no idea what you mean by "it shows how the article is making an informational link between multiple articles." If you mean that the source is about the club and a player of the club, then, duh, that's a connection which existed before and without the award as well. Either you are expressing yourself rather poorly, or you really are grasping at straws and inflating the importance of a passing mention beyond all reocgnition.
I don't know what your definition of a discussion is, or how you try to find consensus, but in normal practice this means looking at the actual arguments people make, exposing faulty logic or irrelevant strawmen, having a back-and-forth about the subject until an agreement is reached, people agree to disagree, or it gets clear that one side (or both sides) are not interested in having a discussion based on facts, reason, and reality, but only on emotionally based grounds. Exposing poor arguments is a basic aspects of discussions: the moderator (or in this case) closer can decide which side has policy, fact, logic, ... on their side, but expecting them to also notice all wrong arguments (e.g. things not supported by the sources) without these being pointed out already during the discussion is overestimating the time and effort most closers can devote to an AfD closure. Fram (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hans AbelEdit

 

The article Hans Abel has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Skylord a52 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Edelmand and copyright violationsEdit

Hi Fram, I don't suppose you can help me with something? As you can see from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 July 6, I have expressed concerns over close paraphrasing and possible plagiarism in various Led Zeppelin-related articles, many of which appear to have been added by Edelmand (talk · contribs) 10+ years ago. The reason they haven't come to light until now is that the copyright violations are from offline sources so our usual tools won't spot them; however, I have one of the book sources in front of me and I can tell you that the text in this edit copies large portions of the book, and the last two paragraphs lifts whole sentences word for word. You can see a Google Books preview of the source here for comparison. Not only is this a serious violation of policy, it's a bloody cheek to take a recognised subject expert and rip them off almost word for word!

What I could really do with is somebody going through Edelmand's edits, seeing what else is lurking amongst there, and seeing if we have a serious long-term case to answer. Can you help? I appreciate these are ancient edits, but it makes sense that if somebody plagiarises a well-written source, it's not going to see much in the way of gnoming and copyediting, which is why I could find the problematic prose in the current version of the article just now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering that even this year, they wrote this:
  • "the full cost of the stadium including transport infrastructure will be $1.8 billion, around $200 million more than previous estimates."

Source: "the full cost to taxpayers of the Perth Stadium project, including transport infrastructure, will be $1.8 billion, around $200 million more than previous estimates."

it seems rather likely that they have been posting copyvios and plagiarism for all of their wikicareer. This from last year: "Rance provided a pivotal moment three minutes into the second quarter. With the Crows 13 points up and charging into attack, he effected a desperate diving spoil to deny Walker on the lead at centre half-forward. " vs. [28] "Rance provided a pivotal moment three minutes into the second quarter. With the Crows 13 points up and charging into attack, he effected a desperate diving spoil to deny Walker on the lead at centre half-forward."
So I guess we don't need just to look into older edits, but into all their edits. I think that something like this is copied straight from this but without preview it's hard to be sure of course. Fram (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Yelena ShushunovaEdit

 On 17 August 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Yelena Shushunova, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn commentsEdit

Hi Fram,

Thanks for your input to my comments. I wish to withdraw all my comments. [29] If you would prefer to have the cut comments struck through, please do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:, thanks, and no problem. No need to strike them through, they would only distract the actual conversation. Fram (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Fram dealt with the spambots, but I’ll deal with your personal attack on MER-C and myself here since this seems where the follow-up was: policy tells admins to assess whether or not a user is likely to continue acting disruptively when they have a name change. For spammers, the answer is almost always “yes”. If that is the case, policy says to hardblock. Blindly softblocking everything without considering the question of likelihood of being a productive contributor is actually the action that is against policy, not following the consensus of admins who have addressed the merits of the issue at that ANI, which is that the overwhelming majority of soft blocked users aren’t here to build an encyclopedia. Hardblocking them is not shooting from the hip: it’s actually following what the policy tells us to consider. In this case, the draft in question was a G11 case that if reported to AIV would have resulted in many admins blocking without a username violation. You owe MER-C an apology. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I apologise. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

for your information, but can someone explaine what is the reason for eventual deleting of article 1910 population census in Croatia (Brdovec)?--Rethymno (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rethymno:, Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place to reproduce primary sources (e.g. census results), but a place to summarize secondary sources. What is needed are reliable, secondary sources discussing the 1910 census for municipality X or Y at length, sshowing that this very specific topic has received the attention it needs to be placed in an encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. but what about someother articles like 1991 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina etc?? I make article like this fotr itself only because of reason that some municipalities have 150 settlements so it would be too much for article about some specific municipality. Thats the reason i make it like this. It could stay in the article of Brdovec for example, but i dont see the problem for the articles like this. Me,personaly have to see books and to find the results, this is much easier way to know the census results. But anyway you can do whatever you want. I just need to know can i make articles for other municipalities in Zagreb County or not ? Cause i am intersted in this thema of population in Austria-Hungary. Greetings. --Rethymno (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It would be best if you waited until the end of the deletion discussion before you made any similar articles. If the conclusion of the discussion is that such articles are allowed, then of course you can continue creating them. If these first three are deleted, it would be best if you didn't create other similar articles. Fram (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, thank you.--Rethymno (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

request to create article on Ida MattonEdit

Hello Fram,
When I tried moving my article on Ida Matton from my sandbox to the mainspace I saw the notice that you had deleted that page on 6 June 2017.
The instructions were to contact the person who deleted the item. May I create that page?
The article is currently in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WomenArtistUpdates/sandbox.
Thank you for looking into this. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi WomenArtistUpdates. Thanks for asking, but yes, you are free to move that page. The previous version was a machine translation of the Swedish version of the article, made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. It's good that we now will have an actual article about her. Fram (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Fram! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Threatening people on the basis of your incorrect copyright understandingEdit

Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Under the very first subheading, it presents a nice, easy table mapping out what licenses are acceptable so that even lazy editors don't go threatening editors who are uploading content that is absolutely correct on the basis of their own ignorance.

Had you done that, you would see a heading labelled "Licenses compatible with Wikipedia" and directly underneath that "CC BY, all versions and ports, up to and including 4.0". This would have informed you that you should definitely not be threatening users uploading content licensed CC-BY 4.0.

Please don't do this again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(Alternatively, perhaps you managed to not read either the attribution on the material I uploaded, the copyright license of the linked page, or the edit summary in which I explicitly spelled it out, which makes clear that it is CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA (which we could not use). Again, please don't do that again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. I read the right side column of the FAQ (which included CC-BY-SA 4.0, but failed to notice the other CC-BY 4.0 on the left side, the one you correctly used. Anyway, I didn't threaten you, I clearly said that you were not to blame for not knowing this, I threatened your articles with deletion. I was wrong, but please don't make this sound as if I was threatening you, the editor, in any way when all I threatened were the edits. Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Unblock of GorillaWarfareEdit

Fram, this is a courtesy message informing you that I have unblocked GorillaWarfare. Talking about an individual's behavior is not an automatic violation of WP:NPA. If one examines the "What is considered to be a personal attack?" section, none of what the user said falls into those categories. I have no interest in wheel warring, but there has to be a clear-cut violation of policy in the case of a unilateral block absent community consensus, and that is not apparent here. I would invite you to bring it to a noticeboard or other venue if you feel strongly about it. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Unblocking shouldn't be done before consulting the blocking admin though. From NPA, what constitutes personal attacks: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." So yes, talking about someone's behaviour in such a negative way and without any evidence clearly is a PA. Please reinstate the block and take it to a noticeboard instead. Fram (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare gave evidence. There's a diff in her Signpost post, which itself links to more diffs. She is also using as evidence the Signpost's article, which she both refers to and is commenting on. (That's the purpose of a talk page, after all.) :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
She gave evidence of earlier comments, that was never in dispute. She claimed only, without any evidence though, that the actual page she was commenting on was a piece in a campaign of misogyny. She gives no indication whatsoever what in the Signpost article is misogynistic though. That's not "giing evidence", that's making an unsupported statement to continue older grievances. Fram (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Fuzheado: There is no requirement of achieving a "community consensus" prior block. I further acknowledge that this is your first action related to blocks in last seven months.[30] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there a requirement to have recent blocking actions before unblocking an editor? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
No, but there is a requirement (or at least a strong suggestion) of contacting the blocking admin before unblocking. Fram (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
That was a joke. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No one reinstate the block until a consensus has been established at the appropriate venue. The lengthy discussion proceeding the block adequately calls into question whether Fram was INVOLVED. Given that multiple administrators participated in discussions with dissenting opinions demonstrates the need for administrators to not act unilaterally. Everyone should proceed cautiously and through the appropriate venues. Mkdw talk 05:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Mkdw's input and advice here is absolutely spot-on. The situation needs to be formally discussed and a consensus reached before any more administrative action is considered anywhere. We need to be a responsible group of editors; remember, our actions and words set the example for how editors are expected to handle issues and behave on Wikipedia. A consensus that is accurate, justified, and fair needs to be reached. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the outcome of that ANI, an apology would be appropriate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ironic statement of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright and all...Edit

I was recently going through the contributions of a contributor, (who got a mention at a CCI thread) and the purview of copyright on his creations was somewhat peculiar (atleast to me:-)).The author created quite many articles by copying copyrighted-content from non-English websites et al, ran it through the Google-Translate and copy-pasted the semi-comprehensible machine-translated stuff into the article.Is the edits a violation of our copyright-rules and is G12 or rev-del (on grounds of copy-vio) applicable in these cases? Thanks,WBGconverse 05:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, straight translations of copyrighted material are copyrighted as well, and G12 material. Fram (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

DupuisEdit

I looked at your earliest edits while confirming that indeed you got here long before me, and saw that you were creating all kinds of good stuff very early on in your Wiki career--you were well ahead of me. I have read thousands of Dupuis books; I was especially fond of Guust, as we called him in the Netherlands. I have seen more of you as an admin then as a writer--that's how it goes with veterans, I suppose, but I would like to thank you for all the work you've done for Wikipedia. And I hope our strong disagreement on this one recent matter won't permanently sour our relationship, or your dedication to the project. If you had chosen to block me, I'd have been fine with it, but GW has a different and more important interest in this, and I hope you can understand that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that you were indeed looking at my edits. It is perfectly allright to do so, although it may not be the wisest thing to do when you are in a disagreement about someone (but since quite a few things in that episode weren't the wisest things I have done on enwiki either, I am hardly in a position to complain, obviously). But I know some editors who have the "you rub me the wrong way, I go and visit some article you created to annoy you" perfected, so it surprised me to see your name suddenly on my watchlist there, as you didn't strike me as someone out for the petty revenge. So thanks you for coming here and making it clear that that was clearly not your intention, and that you genuinely were curious about my career and my edits. Thank you for the kind words (and yes, Guust is brilliant). While you might have been fine with me blocking you, it would have been the end of my admin career here (blocking another admin is in itself not a problem, but when the block gets undone by one admin, and the disputed comment restored by another admin, then blocking that second admin would be rather foolish, even though I don't think restoring that comment was wise either). Fram (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018Edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jim Heaphy. (Don't worry, you're not in trouble!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't scare me like that! :-) Fram (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Main Honchar articleEdit

Thanks for the heads up. You noted Unambiguous copyright infringement: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/19077630-dec-2017-botm-the-cathedral) but goodreads is of course not my source, that is only a goodreads reviewer quoting Wikipedia - quoting the two sentences I was moving out from the main Honchar Wikipedia article as I felt with a new standalone article on the book they would have been more relevant rewritten there. And yes I was clearly wrong to not finish the job or do it properly, but for the record I have never used something like goodreads as a source! All the best and thanks for your work. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The goodreads source appeared when I checked the text on Google, for some reason the original enwiki article didn't. Weird... Fram (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:8th-century disestablishments in Israel has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:8th-century disestablishments in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Israel has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Israel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Lion and tigerEdit

Do you think this article has the same problems as the leopard/jaguar/cheetah article? LittleJerry (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In many aspects, yes. Most of the sources don't address the two species (or in a very passing manner), or not these two exclusively, making much of the article well-researched OR. However, due to things like the liger, the exclusive combination of tiger and lion is less exceptional in the literature than other combinations. I wouldn't make an effort to keep the article, but it is a much less obvious candidate for deletion than the other two we just got rid off. Fram (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
No, this is not OR, this is far better than what you got deleted, in terms of references, I know what I mean by that, and that's a lot of references that we're talking about, and LittleJerry, you did not do one important thing when nominating that article for deletion. Leo1pard (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Little (American political candidate)Edit

Please undelete it. He has received coverage outside of his Senate campaign in California earlier this year.

Local news in Idaho and Florida

Article in the ADL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Ginsberg (talkcontribs) 07:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing much has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Little (engineer) (and ADL is not a reliable source). Furthermore, the article as written would need lots of work to comply with WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Fram (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It was also covered in the Forward which is a reliable source.
Now there's three extra sources from after his Senate campaign even though two should be enough. The AFD happened during his Senate campaign so speedy deletion is improper. I'm 99% sure this would pass AFD if it were nominated again. Notifying all the participants @Spartaz, Power~enwiki, Chris troutman, VitalPower, Mercurywoodrose, DESiegel, Samboy, Number 57, Javert2113, Dlohcierekim, Bearcat, SportingFlyer, Leftwinguy92, Enos733, Eggishorn, GrapefruitSculpin, StAnselm, and Neutrality: I hope one of them changes their mind or recreates it for me. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't support this being recreated until he passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Number 57 10:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Like the guy who responded to you when you said something similar and didn't respond back in the AFD I'm going to point out to you once more that nobody was arguing that he passes that guideline. Considering the coverage of his Senate campaign in local, national, and international news plus the three new sources that aren't about his Senate campaign, what more would it take for him to become notable (WP:GNG)? Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Still lacks sufficient coverage. Maybe wait until he wins election-- then he will certainly by notable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you read anything new since May. The Senate election is over for him. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that's pretty skimpy even for the routine coverage any candidate should receive. If anything, you've shown him to be not meeting notability requirements-- negative notability relative to what one would expect for a subject of an encyclopedia article who is trying hard to get his names up in lights so the public will recognize his name and maybe vote for him.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think any other California Senate candidate had an article about them published in the Times of Israel. The rest of what you said isn't based on any policy or guideline. Unless you think the articles that aren't about his Senate campaign in the Idaho Statesman, Sun Sentinel, and the Forward are paid promotions. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
People do not automagically get "passes GNG as a candidate and is thus exempted from having to pass NPOL" just because the number of extralocal sources available has reached two — that is not how an unelected candidate gets to be considered a special case who's so much more notable than other unelected candidates that he gets a special GNG exemption from having to pass NPOL. To get that treatment, a candidate's coverage still has to either (a) explode to a volume that rivals or exceeds what even some of the political elite are getting (e.g. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who's gotten so bloody much coverage that her article already contains just two fewer footnotes than Debbie Stabenow's does, when Stabenow's been in office for 20 years already), or (b) verify something that gets them over another SNG besides NPOL, such as the ones for actors or writers or businesspeople (e.g. Linda McQuaig, a Canadian candidate who's never won election to office but had already established preexisting notability as a journalist). GNG does not automatically kick in as a free exemption from having to pass NPOL just because the number of footnotes has exceeded two — the question of whether a person passes GNG or not is a complex evaluation of the depth and breadth and range and context of the coverage that a person is getting, not just an arbitrary number of footnotes. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
You are making up a lot of BS, look at Nathan Larson. Why are you trying to tell me "GNG does not automatically kick in as a free exemption from having to pass NPOL just because the number of footnotes has exceeded two" when there are more than 10 sources linked or referenced to in the AFD that you participated in and while you continue to spam "50,000 population makes a politician notable" in probably hundreds of AFD by now? Projection much? Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? I don't make up BS, I didn't participate in the Nathan Larson AFD at all, and "50,000 population makes a politician notable" is not a thing I say in AFDs either — a population of 50K used to be, many years ago, our notability standard for mayors, but that number was never relevant to any other kind of politician, it got deprecated years ago when the standard for mayors was revised, and it's not a thing I have ever once said in even one AFD since that revision of the inclusion standard for mayors. You're the one projecting here, kiddo, not me. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Heh, Fram-- long time no see. All my best.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

(waves back) Fram (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Larson (political candidate) is the most similar article that I could find that survived AFD. SportingFlyer you were for deleting Patrick Little in May but later chose to keep Nathan Larson in June. Can you specify what makes Larson notable that doesn't apply to Little? Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Morgan Ginsberg: There's a huge disparity of coverage between Larson and Little. Huge. Would vote delete on Little based on the presented sources. SportingFlyer talk 16:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I would also argue that Larson was involved in three elections, received coverage about his conviction (from an out of state paper), and his admissions brought disproportionate coverage to himself. Enos733 (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
More like a huge disparity in editing activity. Nathan Larson seems to have dropped out of the congressional election out in August and nobody bothered to update his article. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Did I mention that coverage presented for Little is skimpy for a senate candidate?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Did you forget to mention all those other California Senate candidates who had an article in the Times of Israel? Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Morgan Ginsberg: Did you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? The consensus has determined the subject does not pass notability guidelines. Please find something else to write about. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Since I was called: Patrick Little had a brief campaign which brought up a lot of well-earned outrage in the international press. There was a poorly done poll which incorrectly concluded he had 18% of the vote in California; not only was he disowned by the California Republican party, he ended up getting, what, 1.35% of the vote when all was said and done. As far as I know, his senate campaign was quickly forgotten after that. Has he made the headlines since his failed senate campaign? I don’t see that. Samboy (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

RE "The Senate election is over for him. " Indeed. So he has even less claim to notability now than then. I guess I got pinged here 'cause I partook in a long ago AfD. I think my comment there is more germane than ever.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Vote X sockEdit

It looks like my threat to phone the library up and speak to one of the staff tipped them over the edge. I learned that trick from James O'Brien's radio show, where a UKIP voter was angry because a school in North London had set up a prayer room for Muslims. O'Brien got a studio staff member to phone up the school to ask them; the school said politely, "no, we have never had a prayer room". The caller got upset after that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather typical for them to either start immediately with utter nonsense (e.g. I am a misogynist, and the "evidence" is that I badmouthed Whatamidoing, Erik Moeller, and Jorm), or they (in rare cases- start with some possible story, which get more and more unlikely with every post. I do like the idea of a library full of paid vandal reverters though. Fram (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Why I have never donated to WikipediaEdit

Bullshit like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polydichloric_euthimol&action=history and several other occasions where I have put considerable time and effort into researching an edit, they have been reverted with shallow or no explanation and I am sick of it. It does not give me the slightest bit of faith that this organization will treat my money any better. Shame on you. Featherwinglove (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Featherwinglove: (talk page watcher) All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. You did not do this. Generally, as an encyclopedia, content that fan sitish on the one hand and that limited in scope on the other would get redirected to the main article. Feel free to add it there if you have a reliable source unconnected with the subject. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
So instead of asking me to do that or doing it yourself, instead of tagging the article, or leaving it as a simple stub (there is not much to the topic), you delete my work. Once, this happened literally WHILE I WAS DOING EXACTLY THAT on a much more significant article and I literally had an edit war with you guys while I was checking sources!!! Fuck right off if you think this a good reason to be dicks to your contributors. This will almost certainly be the last time I ever log into my Wikipedia account, you assholes. Featherwinglove (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Featherwinglove: Actually, if you look closely, you'll see I've deleted nothing. Just explaining what has happened and why.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you denying your revert of an article creation? Are you literally insane?? Are you literally denying reality right in front of me??? And if you expect that doing so is going to encourage me to make any further contributions of any variety to Wikipedia, you're even more insane than that! Featherwinglove (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Featherwinglove: Wow. I am not Fram. Are you unable to tell the difference between his sig and mine? Did you not see the "talk page watcher" template with which I started the post. I think you are aware that I am someone else 'cause you posted to my talk page. I suggest you calm down. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you claiming to be the "Fram" on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polydichloric_euthimol&action=history ? I'm speaking to Wikipedia admins in general, not you in particular. And why should I calm down when hours of my volunteer work made as a gift to this site and the public are summarily reverted? Usually while I'm still doing the work!! If you want me to calm down, explain this damnable hypocrisy. Featherwinglove (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim is only an editor (a third party if you like) trying to offer you some advice. He is not Fram, I am Fram. Your version of the article[31] hardly involved hours of work and is still available in the history of the page, and my edit is something any editor could have done and didn't involve any admin tools. "leaving it as a simple stub (there is not much to the topic)" is a good indication that we shouldn't even have an article on this topic. Adding a link about it to Outland would be a better idea. Fram (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

VixraEdit

Thanks for dealing with that loon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. People who get upset when they counter resistance against there editing should get some patience and guidance; people who only come here to attack others as if this is some lowly part of the social media should not be tolerated for too long though. Good riddance. Fram (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Avanur Sreekanteswaram TempleEdit

Corrected. Book Ref.:Temple of Thrisoor District; Author:S JayaShankar -- Rajesh Unuppally 10:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's just a directory of all temples, and indicates that this one is probably 15th century, not thousands of years old? Fram (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
What else need to remove that 'Article for deletion stub' -- Rajesh Unuppally 12:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Present your arguments to keep the article in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avanur Sreekanteswaram Temple. Uninvolved people will look at the article and your and my arguments, and decide what to do with it. Fram (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Let them discuss and resolve it fast.-- Rajesh Unuppally 13:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It usually takes a week, and if not enough people have participated, it may take longer. Why the rush? Fram (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

An rural localityEdit

Sure, I need to correct this, but how do you produce a search that gives 107 instances? I tried usual wikisearch, and it does not produce anything useful, at least not in the way I tried.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

With quotes: [32]. Spotchecks show that not all 107 are your edits, but most are. Fram (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, will correct these within a few days.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Accidental thankEdit

I just dropped my finger tiredly onto my phone: the thank system on mobile is really bad interface design. PamD 16:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There are worse things in life than getting an accidental thank you :-) Fram (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of The Power of MuzikEdit

Dear Fram

Please could I request an undeletion of the page The Power of Muzik as I would like to be able to edit the content so as not to infringe on any copyright. If that is not possible, I am prepared to add the copyrighted text into public domain.

Please let me know what the best way forward is.

Thank you. Shaiksyasya (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting the article in your own words, with information from reliable, independent sources showing that this charity is notable. Copying the text frrom the website of the organization is too close to being a promo page / official website for the organization, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fram

I'd like to rewrite the article in my own words, but I'd need to be able to access the deleted material as I don't have a draft. Shaiksyasya (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

MFD close needs an AdminEdit

A non-Admin closed this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Draft:Cedric_Tylleman and I can't figure out how to unclose it. You participated so maybe you can finish it up. Two pages need delete and SALT. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

forget it. Another Admin got them now. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FYIEdit

This. Best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...Edit

I just wanted to say I'm feeling you on this. The "kid's gloves" for women approach has become a real bugbear for me over the last few years. Things really started to kick off in this respect with (probably well-intentioned, but definitely offensive) "observations"--made at talk forums discussing inclusion concerns--suggesting that the reason for the our gender gap is because Wikipedia has a "too rigorous and argumentative" culture that "turns off" female contributors, who apparently can't be expected to have the same stamina for editorial disputes.   My partner says it's always obvious when I have come across a comment like this when editing, because I make an exclamation that is is a combination of "nnnnngghhhh" and "the sound of a scooter accelerating" and my eyes roll to the back of my head like I'm having a seizure. I can well imagine that's an accurate description, because talk about completely misunderstanding the problem.

But it continues to be a regular argument advanced in some spaces on this project to this day. Ritchie at least has the defense of being able to claim (and I think it's a dubious claim but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as it could just be a one-off comment for all I know of him) that he was just trying to notate spaces likely to attract acrimony. But the general implication, that women won't contribute if men don't pull their punches a content dispute in a way they otherwise wouldn't for a fellow male editor, resurfaces time and gain. I'm betting I'm developing a reputation as a WP:CIV stick in the mud in general, but these comments straight-up incense me. Snow let's rap 20:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some people would like to introduce the concept of "safe spaces" on enwiki, and extend it to articles as well (different notability standards for women?). Of course some rules and boundaries are needed, but not with the implication that some groups are inherently incapable of tolerating some things (and presumably incapable of, in this example, using strong language themselves?). I once had a "fuck off and die" directed at me here, and if the editor involved hadn't swiftly self-reversed, I would have taken that further. But not for the "fuck off" part, but for the wish that I would drop dead, even if used idiomatically. And like I tried to explain to Ritchie, "fuck off" is not a personal attack, it says nothing about the person it is directed towards. An admin who can't even understand the difference between incivility and personal attacks is more of a problem than an occasional "fuck off". Fram (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, NPA or CIV violation, I tend to think that most uses of "fuck off" (at least insofar as they occur in the context of a dispute) are inappropriate in any serious work environment (including volunteer work environments). But regardless of the standard, it should be applied without bias--with the presumption that women are less capable of absorbing a (non-gender specific) insult most definitely being a bias for these purposes. Snow let's rap 10:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

DREdit

After discussion on my talk I have taken a page to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_November_6#6_November_2018 Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Required notoficationEdit

Mt Washington Fire Protection District - Random DeletionEdit

Hello. I Am Curious Why You Decided To Delete The Page I Recently Created, Noting That It Infringes Copyright Is VERY Incorrect, As All Sources Were Correctly Inserted Under The Correct Licences As Well As Having Permission To use Said Photos/Links. There Is No Other Explaination On Why The Page Was Deleted.

Ive Spent Near Weeks Editing/Making That Page, Just To Watch It Go Down The Drain. The Least You Could Do Is Give Me 48-Hour Notice On Why Your Deleting It, But Rather You Delete It Instantly. Just Wow.

FlyingPanzer (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 6. We don't let copyright violations stand after they are discovered, they are deleted immediately (well, most of is do, but that's a different story). Fram (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion process of Dias Plot articleEdit

Hi Fram,

http://www.pmpml.org this is reference and source website for the article and " " " FVW9+9M Pune, Maharashtra" " " is the Plus Code for the same you can check it on [[Google Maps]]. Albert Deccan (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't claim it doesn't exist, the problem is that it isn't notable. Train and metro stations are usually considered important enough to be included, but bus stops usually are not included (some really large ones are, but many bus stops are really nothing but a small shelter. You need independent sources about the bus stop (e.g. news articles) which have more than passing mentions or routine coverage (not "Dias Plot is closed temporarily types of announcements", but actual articles about the stop, its architecture, its significance, ... Fram (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

SorryEdit

Sorry for my mistakes. I have seen the french traduction on several articles of Flemish Belgian municipalities and I thought that that was the rule on english Wikipedia to put the traduction for the three official languages of Belgium when it exists. --Huguespotter (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sega Wii Peripherals listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sega Wii Peripherals. Since you had some involvement with the Sega Wii Peripherals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

DeletionsEdit

Feel free to delete any stub you don't think notable. You don't have to template me, I'll trust your judgement. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:. Okay, thanks. If you ever feel that I have done such a deletion incorrectly, please let me know. I'll only do it for things where I can't establish notability (like here), or some of your very old copyvios (if the copyvio remains in the current article). Fram (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Go for it!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

your qyEdit

Actually, I simply forgot. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

In appreciationEdit

  Patience Barnstar
Thank you for your patience during the AfD debate over the individual BLPs comprising Australia’s women’s field hockey team, and in particular for graciously affording me the opportunity to present a case for inclusion. Atsme✍🏻📧 07:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Please restore the edits that you reverted...Edit

Please do so. They are not canvassing....they are notifications to the rest of the community about a particular discussion. — fr+ 08:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A request for people to vote for a proposal is canvassing. And like I said, with so many proposals out there, getting everyone to post their favourite proposal to e.g. the administrator's noticeboard is not what we need. There is a general pointer to the community wishlist at CENT, people should be smart enough to find the proposals they support if they are so inclined without getting extra "vote for my proposal" spam all over the place. Fram (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Fram. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Help please regarding BT Group articleEdit

Hi Fram,

I'm reaching out to you because I see you're an admin who deals regularly with copyvio issues. The page BT Group which (I think) has an average of >1000 page views per day has been blanked due to a copyvio introduced back in 2010. Having read the copyvio instructions now on the page, I'm not sure wikipedia is going to get license for material that is now only held on a web archive. I have a coi as an (albeit lowly) employee of the company, so can't be involved in any effort to re-write the page. Therefore, I wondered if you could please review the situation and let me know what the options are? If not, could you put me in touch with an admin who might be better placed to help? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's seems like a rather complicated one where multiple editors are already busy. You can always contact User:Diannaa, she is one of the best we have for dealing with copyvios. Fram (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me at Diannaa. She has resolved the issue. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK rulezEdit

I'd think that you know that if someone nominates an article for their student for DYK, they have to perform a review, using the same account. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and then they have to vote in the AfD, and they get their students to clean up the articles they created using their main account, and so on and so on. Fram (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Only the account reviewing the DYK can say he did so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I heard you the first time. Fram (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Did you hear my question about the notability of men's parking space? You didn't answer, and I am bad in mind-reading, sorry. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't think it is in any way useful to discuss the merits of another, completely unrelated topic or article to see whether a specific article should be kept or not. It's bad enough having to deal with people supporting their friends with their alternate account ("ooh, harassment, such a problem, but I use it in AfDs or to edit articles I first created with my main account anyway, because I'm so inconsistent and don't really care about the consequences of my actions, so please vote for me!"), or people who think churches should get special treatment because we should respect churches (especially western, catholic ones, but no, we have no bias!), or people who don't get the need for independent sourcing and continue to harp on about church related sources as if they add any notablity to the subject. Fram (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a church deserves different treatment, but believe that our concept of the holy "independent reliable sources" is wrong, and the hype about the parking space is only an example. Back to article writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hardly a hype. If only people or organisations affiliated with something have paid attention to a subject, then it isn't ready yet to be included here. If we abandon that concept, then there is no reason to e.g. not include biographies for everyone and their dog based on their personal websites, which would change us from something resembling an encycopledia to an indiscriminate (and unmaintainable) webhost. Fram (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

RefDeskEdit

Thanks for pitching in. this diff seems to have sneaked through (looks like two editors hit rollback at the same time). DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the pointer. I think I got them all now, but I might well have missed a few bits of vandalism. Fram (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your arbcaseEdit

Hi Fram. I've removed the Arb case all together. Simply, there were repeated comments about a real life named individual which were clearly over the line. I have no idea about the truth of them, but they have no place on wiki, let alone on an Arb case request. In addition, you weren't requesting an Arb case, you were looking for a soap box. That's not the place for that. Now, if you want to talk to me personally about the issues, feel free to email me worm.that.turned gmail.com or the committee as a whole. If you want to talk about it here, that's fine, but just be aware that similar violations will be removed and may well lead to you being blocked. WormTT(talk) 14:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

And you couldn't just give me the chance to rewrite the offending bits? Anyway, I have posted it again without the bits I presume you find objectionable, making it a rather ridiculous "there's something bad but I can't tell you" story which will be easier for arbs old and new to ignore probably. Please restore the replies I already received (I don't think these contained anything objectionable), and the list of parties. Fram (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I considered that, but given the soapbox point of view. Well, I'll just reply there. I'm currently going around removing similar statements by yourself elsewhere. Do you happen to know of any places besides AN, the question page, and the arb case? WormTT(talk) 14:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to go through my contributions. That's apparently how we are supposed to know about ArbCom decisions as well. Fram (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help. I've restored the stuff you couldn't, and have no problem with GdB's username being included, just not the accusations that you were associating with him. WormTT(talk) 14:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, somewhat pissed off at people feeling free to unban such an editor, but others not being free to explain in some detail (with evidence!) why this was such a spectacularly bad idea. As far as I know, you have found all my mentions of the specific accusation. Thanks for restoring the replies and so on at the Arb Case. If there is anything else you think needs removal (from a BLP POV, not from a stupid waste of time or "soapbox" point of view), feel free to contact me. Oh ,and for the record, let me assure that while I perhaps from a strict policy view shouldn't have included these claims, I don't make them lightly. I've had (and caused) my share of problems over the years, but I don't think anyone can seriously claim that I make up stuff about others to win a debate. Fram (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lucky LukeEdit

Hi Fram,

I see you undid my revision on the Lucky Luke page, regarding publication history.

What prompted my change was actually a post on Le site de Lucky Luke facebook page where it was pointed out that the first Lucky Luke story premiered in the french version of Spirou magazine no. 443 which came out on the 10th of october 1946. The story later appeared in the belgian version of Spirou (Almanach Spirou) in november or december 1946. If you check my source (Archives of Spirou magazine online) you can find the story Arizona 1880 on page 4 in Spirou no. 443 with a publication date 10. october 1946.

Kind regards, slubbislen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slubbislen (talkcontribs) 10:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The usually reliable site bdoubliées doesn't list Lucky Luke in that issue of Spirou, so I'ld need a better site than the ones you provided to convince me (I'm not saying that what you claim is wrong, only that it needs a very good source, not a website where anyone can post a Spirou and at worst swap pages to make it look as if LL is older than usually claimed. Fram (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You have a valid point. I guess this puzzle will remain unsolved for some time to come. 82.221.53.156 (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

NoticeEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry MerryEdit

  Happy Christmas!
Hello Fram,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 20:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please trim your statementEdit

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 2000 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, please obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.

Please also keep in mind that the purpose of this phase is to present evidence to the arbitrators. It is not to engage in back-and-forth with other parties or to persuade them to adopt your point of view.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 23:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hiya!Edit

I really don't trust many wikipedia admins of late, like right now I have just reported about an issue I had to ANI with one. There are all these policies on wikipedia, do admins not read them all, I really don't know why admin's threaten the regular editor with a ban simply because an editor wants to make a point. O yes, go on about the disruptive editors, but what about the disruptive admins? Oversight needs an overhaul!! Govvy (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Festive greetingsEdit

Please stop following me around; please read WP:MODERNPLACENAME; please have a lovely Christmas. GiantSnowman 12:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you followed me to Jacquemijntje Garniers and not the other way around, you are once again being hypocritical. Please stuff your festive greetings up a turkey. Fram (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Err no, it was linked from the main page as a DYK. Once again you fail to AGF! GiantSnowman 09:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Any other DYKs you edited the last few months? Fram (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I see you replied to this question at the evidence page instead of here, using this very question as evidence of bad faith (and apparently much worse than what you ever did, judging from your tone), and using even an edit you made after this discussion as evidence of your common gnomish edits for DYK. It looks, from your actual evidence, that you do this about once a month otherwise, so your edit at this article might be an unlucky coincidence. Fram (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't see your reply until yesterday (as I don't watch your talk page; I only came back for the ARBCOM diffs), and thought it better not to respond to you given your attitude. I'm unsure why you are continuing to assume bad faith re:DYK. Someone very active there - such as @Gerda Arendt: could perhaps confirm that I do indeed edit DYK articles on a frequent basis (see eg, 1 January, 20 December, 28 November, 20 October, just from articles that they have created/promoted that I can easily recall). Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I review DYK articles every day, as opposed to actually editing them. GiantSnowman 10:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Fine, so it was just an unhappy coincidence. Fram (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I was called. Here are festive greeting, - perhaps take some of the rules (Ray's Rules) wrapped therein to you heart, both of you. Confirming that GS is active, specialty formatting of dates and places of birth and death in many many articles I watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Fram (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, User:GiantSnowman, can we agree that I didn't follow you to Jacquemijntje Garniers (which was your reason to start this section, but I had edited it the day before your first edit to it already), but that you didn't follow me to it either (since you regularly edit DYKs, and this one was a DYK as well), and that this sideshow was an unhappy coincidence we both interpreted the wrong way? Fram (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, lovely - a bit more civility from all sides will benefit all. GiantSnowman 15:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy 2019Edit

 
The Hill Country (1913) by Walter Elmer Schofield, Woodmere Art Museum.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

-- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:CivilityEdit

It still assume good faith if your nicely sending level 1 warning to User talk:Kippering after you reverting his troll. His edits that change the archive size to 2k, is absolutely qualify for level 2 (assume no faith). However, out of his more than a dozen troll edits and may be half dozen undo by other user, not many user sending warning to his talk page. Matthew hk (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice (added party)Edit

At the request of the arbitrators, you have been added as a named party to the GiantSnowman case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Anandavalleeshwaram Sri Mahadevar TempleEdit

Can you discuss this to merge --RajeshUnuppally 07:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

My unsolicited opinionEdit

Clearly the other arbs don't support recusal, but that doesn't mean that they like the behavior. In my opinion the rest of the arbs are now going to treat you somewhat more favorably. I have not looked at the evidence myself and nobody cares what I think, so I am not expressing any opinion as to whether the charges are true, but I do think that the pointed "questions" show an appearance of bias.

My suggestion is that we all drop it for now (clearly more comments are not going to change the arbs minds, and the issues have already been raised in a clear and forceful manner), watch for similar behavior in the future, and if needed make an issue of it when he comes up for reelection. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Unsolicited opinion always welcome here (bar a very short list of people where I can do without their opinion anywhere). Yes, I was planning on dropping it for now, I've had my say and enough support by non-arbs (and some arbs clearly have misgivings about at least some actions by AGK). I'm just curious what, if anything, he is going to spin as workshop (or decision) proposal out of the total lack of evidence about me which followed his passionate plea for evidence of misdeeds. And like you say, I'm also curious how he'll behave in other cases. If this one is representative, his tenure will be a trainwreck, but we'll see! Fram (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete requestEdit

Hello I realised I needed to create a different version, could you speedy delete Persecuted In Search of Change Loved150 (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean, I needed to create a different version? I am not going to delete that page only for you to create another version which I then have to AfD anyway. Fram (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean could you delete it. I really have no intention of creating pages about it or books again Loved150 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I have speedy deleted it. Note that if you are the same editor as User:Ohmy45 (who created a previous version of the same article), you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia any longer and should request an unblock of the Ohmy45 account instead. Fram (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Not at all do I know Loved150 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ThoughtfulEdit

I appreciate the assessment you've placed here. Rare to find neutral clarity in a case where arbitrators like AGK have already usurped significant procedural issues. Stopped by to say thanks, Lourdes 01:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like it how some people try to use a genuine complaint to add unrelated, unproven, excessive grievances. I'll not comment on AGK again here :-) Fram (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


Loose Cannon ProductionEdit

Why has this page been marked for deletion? CyCySputnik 13:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Because the company isn't notable, it hasn't received indepth coverage in newspapers, mainstream magazines, ... Sources I can find are fan fora, wikia, and other interesting but unreliable sources, or passing mentions (it gets mentioned in one book of essays, but without any explanation or additional information about it). Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Omni artEdit

Hello! I like what you did by redirecting Omni art and creating a single AfD. Out of total ignorance, I wanted to ask if this is an accepted practice, or is it somewhere on the bold scale? Serious question, as I would like to try it myself should the need arise. It's a good strategy where a (possible) promoter of bogus articles has a little garden of WP articles.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It is somewhat bold, that's why I mentioned it in the AFD nomination. I didn't realise that I would AFD the main article when I made the redirect or when I removed some sections, the totality of the problems only struck me when I kept on looking. Fram (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

AWBEdit

Thanks, I was unaware, I'll remove those two bits of code from my AWB. GiantSnowman 08:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem, we have many rules and no one knows them all. Fram (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC archived while unresolved??Edit

Hello Fram, we were both involved in the discussion about Authority Control that started on 2 December. It went to RfC where there was considerable participation but then suddenly it was all archived to this subpage without any resolution of the questions. What happened? Is there, or will there be, any closure? I feel like I've just wasted a whole lot of time and energy. Please tell me it's not so! KokoPhantom (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've dropped a note at the administrator's noticeboard asking if someone can close this, but these things sometimes take way too long, as not many admins (me included) close these. Fram (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of European automobiles is for my own benefit (and potentially others)Edit

Hello Fram, HizppaN here, regarding your proposal for deletion of my timeline, I did it for being informative... I know it doesn't seem that vital or highlighted, but ever since I saw the Timeline of North American automobiles ohere, I saw inspiration to create my own pages. So that is the reason why I created the page for Timeline of Japanese automobiles and recently the European timeline. Is there any chance of you being able to retract that proposal for deletion? Because I wish to fill the European timeline all the way through as I am a huge car fan, and wish to note down many of the Italian exotics and so forth... even the Group B homologation cars... thank you...

Hi. There seem to be way too many European cars to make this list somewhat manageable. I'll change the ProD into an AfD discussion to get the input of others instead. Fram (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand why you did what you did... but regardless I don't want the page to be deleted, in fact I wish for the page to exist (regardless of whether it's manageable or not). But if it comes down to the overall verdict... I'll respect the outcome. Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks. I'll not fight it if the consensus is that it may exist either, it's not some page which has to go at all costs, just a list I consider problematic in scope. Fram (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect of electionsEdit

Is there policy or precedent for the decision you made to redirect all of those election pages? Was there further discussion beyond this? Will you be doing the same to the mayoral elections in Christchurch, Wellington, and Auckland?--Pokelova (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:N (specifically WP:NEVENT)? These are small, local events, a few hundred or thousand people choosing between two local, often not notable people. That the city later became somewhat large doesn't make the early elections notable. Fram (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
So will you be doing the same to the mayoral elections in Christchurch, Wellington, and Auckland?--Pokelova (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No idea. I do notice that those are the three largest cities of NZ. Invercargill is only #13 on that list. Fram (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"That the city later became somewhat large doesn't make the early elections notable", right? They still have articles on mayoral elections with only a couple thousand votes or less too. As does Chicago.--Pokelova (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't usually go around chasing other articles which may have similar problems (unless they are truly important problems like BLP violations or copyvio). In general, election pages for smallish, local elections (only a few thousand voters, only for a municipality or district or similar) shouldn't have separate pages unless there is another reason for it (if they are otherwise notable for whatever reason). They will usually all have local coverage, detaied during the election period and very summary afterwards, but not enough sustained and sub-local coverage to have a separate article. So I support other pages getting the same treatment, but I'm not going to act upon them myself for now, as my time and patience is limited. Fram (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

AdviseEdit

Hi Fram I would like to request advise from you before I make any necessary contributions. I wish to improve & write further new reliable information on Landless People's Movement (Namibia), Henny Seibeb, Bernadus Swartbooi, Joseph Kalimbwe, Dimbulukeni Nauyoma and George Kambala but sometimes when I try to improve articles, you undo my work despite me putting much efforts in improving them. I thus want to know if I can go ahead and improve these because it's a little discouraging when I do that and you get over to remove my work Loved150 (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Just make sure that your additions are neutral, and are about important aspects of the article you edit; edits which seem like an effort to include some book or person in an article which is only tangentially related may get reverted, as they look more like spam and less like a genuine effort to inform the reader of an article about important aspects of the subject of that article. And always make sure that your additions are wellsourced, e.g. claims that Kalimbwe works for an American newspaper should have a good source (e.g. that newspaper, but not Kalimbwe or someone close to him), or else they should not be included at all. Fram (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright thanks you, i will try find all relevant additional sources for all the listed articles by end of today. Also check if this is a well sourced as a new party Landless People's Movement (Namibia) or I should improve it further? Loved150 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification about an ANI thread concerning youEdit

Sumit RathiEdit

I have given the references of wiki page Sumit Rathi. Please look into this matter and don't delete the page. If you ask for more references I can give. Phantom Lancer001 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI, re MartinevansEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Fram and User LouisAlain. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about translation copyrightEdit

Hello - This question arises out of the current ANI re you and LouisAlain. I don't like to interrupt the proceedings there with this so am asking you here. You left Louis a message while blocking him "Your article Philippe Chaperon was a straight translation of this, which is a copyrighted text. You are not free to translate copyrighted texts (you didn't even provide a link to that text!).[33].I also sometimes translate text from German or French outside copyrighted sources for use in WP. I always cite the source. I asked if it was OK for such translations to be more or less literal or if I should treat my own translation as if it was copyrighted and re-write my own translation in my own words at the Media copyright questions board recently [34]. The answer I received was " if you're translating content you found in a non-English external source into English, then I believe all you need to do cite the original source. Unless you're simply copying-and-pasting someone else's translation of the source, I believe your own original translation would be a WP:Derivative work and you would be agreeing to release it under a free license when you add it to the English article." But now I am confused again because you told Louis "You are not free to translate copyrighted texts". Could you clarify please? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll read it in more detail, but that seems like very poor advice. A translation of a copyrighted text has a double copyright, that of the original text (owned by whoever wrote it usually), and that of the translation (owned by the translator). You can release your translation with a free license, but that is basically meaningless as long as the original is copyrighted.
It's an analogy, so take it with a grain of salt, but when in doubt, apply the Harry Potter test. Are you allowed to translate Harry Potter in another language (yes) and then publish it (NO!). Or if you don't see the connection with fiction; would you be allowed to translate the Encyclopedia Britannica in language X and release it with a free license? Of course not, that would be a copyright violation.
Copyright doesn't disappear when the original text is translated. The advice you received points to WP:Derivative, which states "You may not distribute a derivative work of a work under copyright without the original author's permission unless your use of their content meets fair use or fair dealing.". user:Marchjuly seems to have misunderstood the meaning of this, and his advice that "your own original translation would be a WP:Derivative work and you would be agreeing to release it under a free license when you add it to the Englist article." is wrong. Fram (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I was pinged so I guess it's OK to clarify what I meant. My comment about "your own translation" was referring to adding content found in non-English reliable sources to articles. For example, if someone wanted to add a quote or a summary of content they read in a German book about Harry Potter to Harry Potter; they could do so per WP:NONENGLISH as long as they properly cited the source and did so in compliance with WP:COPY, MOS:QUOTE, etc. However, since the original content is in German, they would almost certainly have to translate/paraphrase/summarize the content in their own words into English. If they then added their translation to an article, they would be agreeing to release it under a CC-by-SA 3.0 license just like any other content they add to an article. FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that someone could simply translate an entire copyrighted work from start to finish into English, and then add that entire that translation to an article; this almost certainly wouldn't be allowed per WP:C-P. So, if that was unclear, then my apologies to Smeat75.
Now, if Smeat75 feels that Philippe Chaperon is Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article, then perhaps one can be written; it would, however, have to reflect content summarized in Smeat75's own words, and the sources cited (regardless of whatever language they are in) would have to satisfy WP:RS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
No,my question had no reference to Phillipe Chaperon and I certainly have never created a whole article from a translation, just a few sentences or paragraphs in articles about French operas or operettas.Smeat75 (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

For scrutiny, precision and community serviceEdit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
It says here: "The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service". Well, if the barnstar fits ... Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Philippe ChaperonEdit

I don't suppose there's a copyvio-free version of this in the page history? I certainly don't ant it as copyvio, but as I don't speak French fluently, it'd be helpful to have something to start from. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 04:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I've restored an old version (by you!) which seems copyvio-free, I hope this helps! Fram (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Voceditenore is the brave soul to dare to expand that stub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closedEdit

An arbitration case regarding GiantSnowman has now closed, and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:

  1. He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
  2. He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
  3. He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
  4. He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
  5. He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
  6. He may not use MassRollback.js

Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed

NicknamesEdit

Yes, thanks for the heads up - that's the right MOS I was after! With Aguero, he is not widely known as 'Kun Aguero' though (in the same way that we have, for example, Bunny Berigan) - he is commonly referred to as Sergio Aguero. It's like having a lede saying 'David "Becks" Beckham' or 'George "Dubya" Bush' or similar. GiantSnowman 09:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is his shirt name, and seems to be used widely enough (though not as often as his real name). I wouldn't support moving the article (unlike things like Peyo or Hergé, which have to be at the pseudonym), but having it in the lead seems a small effort compared to the worldwide supply of sources using this name[35]. Fram (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and for what it's worth, Dubya is in the infobox, and Ike is in the lead of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Fram (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Kun is mentioned in 'personal life' section. I have no issue with it being mentioned in the lede (edit to follow), but I still don't think it should be as part of his name. GiantSnowman 09:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your work on cleaning up those Italian Museum articles. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019Edit

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views and/or to add new topics in the discussion. WBGconverse 04:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As in the (hidden) comment; I disbursed this generic call for participation to editors based on the statistics of WT:FLOW. Can you point to other venues; where Flow was heavily discussed (any RFC et cetera)? WBGconverse 05:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I try to stay completely away from Mediawiki and the like, and only interact with WMF people here when absolutely necessary. A consultation which starts with "the status quo is not in scope", is not a kind of consultation I want to participate in, certainly not when conducted by people where the two previous iterations have produced something clearly inferior to the status quo. I'll take a look at the enwiki page, but I'm not optimistic. Fram (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

12 years of adminshipEdit

Wishing Fram a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit


Do you *really* think 4 minutes is a long enough to reach each a consensus about an AfD?Edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aisle_information_for_Coles_(Burwood,_NSW)#Aisle_information_for_Coles_%28Burwood%2C_NSW%29

You have completely subverted any trace of due process for this AfD and have simply taken the law into your own hands.

I hope other admins who read this dig deeper to see how you've completely abused your position of power here and respond by reprimanding you appropriately.

It may be that these articles are not encyclopaedic. But there is certainly a grey-zone which needs to be discussed in a formal and appropriate way in order to clarify policy. You also know this, and you know your response to this matter was completely inappropriate and not well supported by policy or guidelines.

Obviously, I will be escalating this matter.


Best wishes


Vitreology (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Vitreology how many other really stupid pages have you created lately? If you escalate this I fully expect you will be sanctioned. Looks like something I'd tag A7 as unremarkable business or G3 as vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making threats and personal attacks. I am working to improve the Encyclopaedia, just as I'm sure you are. We all have different visions for the project. As an editor, I'm entitled to a fair appeal process, the same as everyone else. I suggest you consider whether A7 or G3 would be an appropriate response to my appeal, given it's abundantly clear that I'm seeking to clarify (and improve) a grey-zone in Wikipedia's list notability guidelines. Vitreology (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Vitreology, you are free to raise this at Deletion Review (WP:DRV) or at the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN or if you consider it really urgent WP:ANI). You may do well to listen to Legacypac though, as I don't think you'll find a sympathetic ear if you complain about the speedy deletion of those two pages. They were not in a grey zone at all, they were extremely clear candidates for deletion. I don't know why you think that these were notable subjects, the aisles of that specific shop (or most shops for that matter) are not really the likely subject of attention in serious sources. The general topic, of the layout of shops to maximize sales (with e.g. candy or soda at the counters) is a notable, well-researched topic. This wasn't. Fram (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being polite.
If they were such "extremely clear candidates for deletion", why did you resort to using [[WP:IAR]?
You know as well as I do, the guidelines to not adequately address articles such as this. Please believe me, I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm looking for evidence-based clarification - and if the policy and/or guidelines need to be updated to adequately address these kind of articles, then that's what needs to happen.
BTW, there are large numbers of people who think this concept is a fantastic idea [1],[2]. Each day, tens of thousands of people use the information I presented in that article, which would have been a fantastic navigational aid.
The question is whether Wikipedia's policy / guidelines stipulate that these navigational aids are encyclopaedic or not.
Kind regards, Vitreology (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I used IAR because the speedy categories are for common misguided types of articles, e.g. people writing about themselves or their band (where they or their band aren't notable). Your articles were highly uncommon misguided articles, so they didn't fit a predefined category (I considered A7, but then you would probably have complained that your article wasn't about a business but about the aisles of that business or somesuch). There are no policies or guidelines that need clarification for this type of article, WP:N and WP:NOTDIR are more than sufficient. That such pages may be useful for some people is not really an argument. The opening hours of local shops are useful for some people, the directions how to get from the train station to the swimming pool are useful for some people, and so on. Fram (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Upon rereading WP:NOTDIR #7, I agree that the policy does in fact state that these sort of lists are not appropriate. I agree to leave the matter as is. However, I still object to the way you handled the AfD, it was really brash. It would have done no harm whatsoever to provide other people with more than 4 minutes to comment on the matter. You could have handled it better. Nevertheless, I accept that I was in the wrong, and I won't take things any further. Kind regards, Vitreology (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The only problem with the four minutes is that, human reaction times being what they are, it is regrettable that it wasn't four seconds. If there were a bunch of editors who were creating lists of supermarket aisles we would have a bot that nukes then in a second or two or an edit filter that would prevent the article creation before it happened. Thankfully, editors creating lists of supermarket aisles is a rare occurrence, so an immediate deletion, explaining to the editor what he did wrong, and blocking him if he persists is the appropriate action here. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
-4 seconds even :) if there's a reason for actually having the discussion, it's that G4 will apply subsequently. Unless it's substantially different...but then, how different can a list of aisles in a supermarket be?! ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Obviously you haven't been to many supermarkets. Do you agree that this list is substantially different to the previous list, to the extent that G4 would NOT apply? [1] Vitreology (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
                      Trollometer 
   
   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10
   ___________________________________________________
   |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
   ---------------------------------------------------
                                          ^
                                          |
   
   Excellent troll. The Trollometer registered a 7.9!

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I have nothing to add except I watched a documentary once about how supermarkets arrange goods on shelves and all the research that goes into it, eyelines, differences in male/female shopping etc. Was strangely fascinating. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Weightlifter Luo XiaominEdit

Hello, I was just wondering why the page Luo Xiaomin was deleted in regards to to A7. She currently holds the junior world record in the snatch for the women's 59 kg category[36]. Hamma085 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oops, perhaps a bit too hasty on that one. The article had no claims to notability at the time of deletion (no results at all), but I should perhaps have looked a bit further? i'll restoire it now and let you work on it. Fram (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I was in the process of adding that information. Thanks for the quick response! Hamma085 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Gator Bowl broadcastersEdit

Hi - I'm about to revert a deletion to the above noted page, as the deleted content didn't get moved anywhere, it's currently inaccessible. While I have no strong opinion on whether bowl games should or should not have stand-along broadcaster / media coverage pages, the content shouldn't be deleted (I assume that wasn't the intent).

From the comment you left, it seems there's some history to this subject, which I'm not aware of. I've noticed that about 75% of the 40-ish bowl games have their own broadcaster / media coverage pages, so it would be a chunk of work to merge them all. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I should also clarify - the change made yesterday was to exchange content between List of TaxSlayer Bowl broadcasters and List of Gator Bowl broadcasters, no new page was created. As the bowl name has changed over the years, pages with both of those names already existed (one a redirect, one with content), so the swap had to be done by an admin. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
No content was deleted, it was put in the history where it is accessible. And the previous deletion discussion is linked from the talk page. Fram (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Belfius Art CollectionEdit

If you want to update the list of works in the Belfius Art Collection, have a look at the Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/belfiusartcollection/ By the way, many thanks for starting this article. 141.96.0.8 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Nepalese architecture has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Nepalese architecture, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your addition of {{unsigned}} on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 6207; A Study in SteelEdit

Hi Fram, just to point out your addition of the {{unsigned}} needs a bit more info to come out like it should. I have corrected it for you anyhow, as it seemed to have caused a minor bit of confusion as I thought it was a bug with the bot. Thanks Nightfury 12:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, I rarely use that template. I'll try to take more care in the future! Fram (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Copy Writing"Edit

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The items on the page I was editing did not have copywritten materials - I was placing words that the person, of the page, wrote. I would love to know how you verify if something is content that violates the copyrights.

Unless specifically stated otherwise (or very old), all text published by someone (book, website, ...) is copyrighted and may not be copied into Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Furthermore, we need to present a neutral point of view, using text from independent sources to write about someone: we are not the place to reproduce text they (or their company, their PR agent, ...) wrote about them. We are an encyclopedia (sort of), not a place to promote things or people. Fram (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

White nationalist terrorismEdit

Thank you for the rollback!!! R2 (bleep) 15:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

An anti-portal barnstar for you!Edit

  The No Spam Barnstar
The closest thing to what is needed to recognize the fight to clean up the portals to nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Of Page (Brandon Lee Taylor)Edit

Brandon Lee Taylor is a page of public importance, as he is a buzzing artist and also a known associate of Youngboy Never Broke Again. Why did you delete the page? If it is due to credibility, we were not done with the page. We need sleep, you know. Please add the page back to wikipedia, as it is an important thing to display. We are a website of information, and displaying useful information may be hard when you delete the pages before they are fully formed. Bee Mack JGR (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please check WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Autobiography. As long as reliable, independent sources (like newspapers or established music magazines) haven't given significant attention to an artist, they don't belong on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice strategy. Extend a discussion for another 3 weeks everyone thinks has passed hoping more votes against come in, then supervote it against the will of the majority. Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Brabbit45: I had a quick look at the (deleted) article. I would go further than Fram and say that multiple unsourced accusations of criminal behaviour against a living person do not belong on Wikipedia, full stop. See WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPCRIME. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well we are still working on the page, can't go that when it is deleted. It would be nice if @Fram: gave time to put the article back, or at-least an archived version that is editable. As he was recognized, significantly, by some major media outlets. Even then so, being a juvenile, his cases were not that popular. (This was before his rise to fame.) All we need is some time to work on inserting the sources, because they do exist. Brabbit45 (talk) 4:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: @Fram: Although we do respect the decision, which is meant to keep wikipedia safe and reliable, we would like to keep it professional. If you can, please send us an editable version of the deleted page and we will revise it and send it back. If you deem Wikipedia worthy, then you can upload it back. We feel the importance to upload information for public eye, not of recognition but for the people who want to know more about this specific person... As we do with all artists, we are just a small group who loves stalking people, (no not really,) and we relay information to the public. If you have multiple articles from different outlets, Wikipedia is the site to look at, as it does bring all of that together. We want the same as you, to keep Wikipedia a safe and reliable place to find information on any given subject or person(s).

No response? What's the move with the page? @Fram:

Quick copyvio questionEdit

Hi, quick question - if somebody has copy and pasted the text from one article into another one, with attribution in individual edit summaries but nothing on the talk page, that's basically a copyvio and should be stamped on ASAP, right? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No, in theory the edit summaries are just enough. Still a bad habit and better to indicate it at the talk page as well, but edit summaries are considered sufficient! Only when there is neither do we really have a problem. Fram (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Experiential Interior Design" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Experiential Interior Design". Since you had some involvement with the "Experiential Interior Design" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Magicverse PageEdit

Hi Fram,

Why have you deleted the Magicverse page even though it had plenty of references and sources. You could have deleted the Futurism website link only. Ahivarn (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Your page was written by copying lots of text from other websites, which is a copyright violation. Wikipedia articles need to be written completely in your own words, not by copying (or slightly changing) text from elsewhere. The information needs to come from good other sources, but the way you express this information needs to be your own. Fram (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you undelete it or atleast give me the source wiki and links which I gathered after much hard work. I'll write in my own language. Thanks and regards. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahivarn (talkcontribs) 10:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources were

Return to the user page of "Fram".