Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 28 September 2016

If I have deleted a page you contributed as a copyright violation, but you are also the copyright holder for the original text, you can find more info on how to resolve this at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Mellie Uyldert

Thank you so much for your contributions to this page. I can't seem to find links to any of her work. Are you aware of any places to buy or online concordances?

Thanks again :)

Mammynuns (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Everard t'Serclaes

Howdy. Could you move Everard 't Serclaes to Everard t'Serclaes? The latter is the correct spelling. Thanks! Oreo Priest 09:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I moved, and restored the history of the t'Serclaes page (which was actually older than the wrong name page). Fram (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks again. Oreo Priest 09:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring comments

I kinda remember your opinion about refactoring comments,(WP:REFACTOR) I wanted to know if you have warned other user about misinterpreting sources and WP:COPYVIO, and the user refactors that warning/message on their talk. Are they allowed to do that? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Normally not, no. They can remove messages, they can change the header, they can move the position of the message, and they can make purely cosmetical changes (if you have a message with a big "stop" image, they are probably allowed to remove that image. But that's about it. Anything that changes the meaning or tone of a post made by someone else is basically forbidden. I don't know what situation this refers to, so I'm talking in general here. Fram (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

Hi Fram, I created the page Joseph Thomas M. today and I have received a message from you saying it appears to be in the list of pages to be deleted. 1) If I remove the achievements section since I do not have a certificate for the same, will the page still be under the list of pages to be deleted. 2) Will my work on Sandbox appear to other users? Thank you in advance. Ankitha Shetty (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ankitha Shetty

Hi. The only way to avoid deletion of the page is to provide reliable, independent sources discussing Joseph Thomas M. and his own work directtly (not simply mentioning him when discussing some movie, but really giving attention to him). And the intention of a sandbox is to provide space to develop articles for Misplaced Pages, not to work as a free webhost where you can have an article on someone who isn't notable enough for a real Misplaced Pages article.

You are invited to join the deletion discussion and give your opinion there. Fram (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My page about the Las Angeles rams was deleted and it was written to contact you to get a copy of the page that was deleted. Can you please send me that info? Thanks DjCoffen (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing there worth undeleting. All interesting info for Misplaced Pages can be found at Los Angeles Rams, promotional info on where and how to register for season tickets is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Fram (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Farm, Mr. Vinit is an active politician in Bharatiya Janta Party. He is very closely associated with the Ministry of Shipping and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in the Union Government of India. Ersiddhartha (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

His page is at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Vinit_Goenka Ersiddhartha (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing policy

On multiple occasions, if somebody continuously tells that you are violating WP:CANVASS when have notified other relevant board or any other user who has edited same pages, then goes on to label their views as {{canvassed}} What has to be done in this situation? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A) Consider whether they may have a point

B) Take it up with them on their user talk page (politely of course)

C) If A and B fail, and the claims really get disruptive, the raise it at WP:ANI. However, if is e.g. restricted to one AfD discussion or the like, and you get the impression that the claims don't unduly influence other voters, then you can simply state your disagreement with the canvassing claims in the discussion, and leave it at that. Sometimes (mostly) ignoring works better than escalating things, but sometimes thet leave you no choice.

I have not looked at your talk page or any discussions you are currently involved in, so the above is a generic reply. Fram (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall notify you, if the problem persists. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Montgomery County Toll Road Authority

What do you want me do to? Make up stuff? -- I gave credit for every piece of information that was used on the page and was working on additional information when you deleted the page -- I have to use pre-existing information to say when it was created as the information is only found on their own web pages. (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Misplaced Pages"> | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 20:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have recreated the page with NO COPYRIGHTED information, thus no HISTORY since you deem that to be copyrighted material (that is the only place that I can think of that had any copyrighted material and in which I had a citation for everything that was used) -- (<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Misplaced Pages"> | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to rewrite the information in your own words, not simply copy it (hence the "copy-right"). You can have a history section, and use the source you used previously, but only use it for the information, not for the actual sentences. Write, don't copy. Fram (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Kumpen

On 4 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Kumpen, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that racing driver Anthony Kumpen, winner of the 2014 NASCAR Whelen Euro Series season, works for a bicycle maker? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Kumpen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Kurtis 09:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. Fram (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've sent a follow-up. Kurtis 09:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Replied!

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Hahc21

Hi Fram,

I writing to let you know that I have moved one of your comments to the candidate's talk page. Please note that the question page is reserved for only questions and the talk page is best suited for comments and discussion about the candidates. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know! Fram (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

a little history

about a recent stub, Stripped Classicism that you tagged. I created that bit of nonsense while doing other stuff because I discovered that the term "stripped classicism" (with or without capitals) was used in several other articles, frequently appearing as a red link. I then went and found a web site that had a pretty good definition of the term and used it as a reference. Imagine my surprise when the reference got knocked off by, I believe, a bot, with the explanation that the site I had used was a "banned by wikipedia" one. I, innocent that I am, did not even know that such things exist. Now off the computer and into my life, I live with my 92 year old mother and she lives in what I call "shamanic time" so when ever she chooses to get up, I get up. (Except between midnight and 7 am, at which point she is on her own). So, after starting the article and getting my one source rejected, I was on to other things. O will try and spend some time on it today and will not remove any other the three tags you added until at least minimally meeting their requirements. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, bots, can't live with them, can't live without them... It is no big deal that the article is unsourced for now, do it in your own time and all is well... Fram (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor diety User:Lockley has beat me to much of this. Carptrash (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

MianAbdulHaseebPTI

Hello my dear hope u r doing good . i just want to know that why Im not allowed to add my profile on wikipedia , and if its allow so what is the right procedure to do so Pls help me in this case thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by MianAbdulHaseebPTI (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a platform to promote yourself (or your party, company, club, ...) Articles should be about notable subjects, written in a neutral voice and based on reliable, independent sources. User pages can have some personal information about Misplaced Pages editors, but not as much or as promotional as yours: it should be mostly about your Misplaced Pages work, your interests, ... And of course, user pages should only be created by Misplaced Pages editors: if your only work on Misplaced Pages is your user page, then you are not using Misplaced Pages correctly, you are not helping Misplaced Pages but only yourself. Fram (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixing a copy and paste move

Hello. Is there anyway you can restore the history of Moana (disambiguation) by adding the revision history of Moana between 10:59, July 27, 2014‎ and 11:47, June 12, 2008‎ (its creation)? And anyway to delete that same period of history from Moana, so that it looks like an article that has only has revision history between 11:02, July 27, 2014‎ and now. And the same for the talk pages too. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Done! (Admins have a nice tool to help us do this, otherwise it is a lot of work...) Please check if it is done correctly though. Fram (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be. Thank you and apologies for creating work for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it's no big deal. I'm glad that I can do something that satisfies you both though :-) Fram (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Good work

That was good work finding and documenting misuse of the administrator WP:UAL. NE Ent 19:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Without your intervention this sham would have gone unnoticed and our community would be worse off. Thanks for defending our integrity. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced Tag

I have added several references to the If I Was a River (album) page. When and who can remove the WP:Unsouced tag? Thanks for all of your work on Misplaced Pages BuffaloBob (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As soon as an article has a reference (preferably a reliable, independent one), you are free to remove the tag. Looking at that article, it has seven sources and two external links, and they seem to be good sources, so there is absolutely no reason to keep that tag on the article. Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Master of the Baroncelli Portraits, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capilla Real. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Kekauʻōnohi

Can you move Kekauōnohi to Kekauʻōnohi? Thanks.

There were some problems with such a move a while ago, and I then have said that I'ld prefer a WP:RM, as I am unable to judge if this is a correct move or not. Fram (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu

Hello Fram. I understand and appreciate your pointing out the close paraphrasing in Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu. However, I need to point out that this is actually limited in scope and does not warrant a complete deletion of all my additions to the subject over months since not all the content I added was affected by this, and most of the added content was actually an improvement to the encyclopedic content and not affected by close paraphrasing. For you to take the stance that it is indeed a pity if a lot of work has crept into it, but it's better safe than sorry. We are now aware of these four, but chances are that there are more of them, and that not all of them would be corrected as you did here is unfortunate and unfair. It is either there are more of them or there are not, and as I had pointed out in that discussion, of the four instances you mentioned I am not responsible for the third one while the fourth is the description of an image which might fall under WP:Limited. In any case I understand your concerns. Still the issues and extent involved are not so grievous that all my contributions (and those of others which you refer to as collateral damage!) to the article over months must be deleted. According to WP:DCV If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page. And WP:PARAPHRASE says Your approach may vary depending upon the severity of the concern... It is important to discuss your concerns with the contributor. Many people who paraphrase too closely are not intentionally infringing, but just don't know how to properly paraphrase. It might help to point them to this essay or to the references and resources listed here, which include some pointers for proper paraphrasing. My concern is that the content of the encyclopedia would be significantly reduced by simply reverting the article to a version from 2012 (the easy way out) instead of rewriting or copy editing the offending passages which would have been the better solution. The extent of the problem did not require blanking, the close paraphrasing template would have sufficed in this case and rewriting could have been done on the spot by you or you might have notified me to do it. All I am asking now is that you take time to copy edit the article as it was and address the few close paraphrasing issues that you have identified, or if you cannot find the time, give me a chance to do so myself. Imo your revert to 2012 is very harsh and somewhat inappropriate under the circumstances. It is also not in the interest of the encyclopedic content. As I have requested from you at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#GA with copyvios in Queue please at least take out enough time to correctly identify a version of the article prior to the addition of my close paraphrasing which would adequately do justice to other contributors to the article. Thank you for your time. Ochiwar (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy reply, but no. If there is one instance of copyvio / close paraphrasing, then rewriting or removing that part may be sufficient. Having found multiple instances, chances are that there are more undetected ones as well, and therefor I will not undelete the page. It took already quite a long time to find these violations, as these checks are not easy. Having noticed that indeed one of the copyvios predated your edits, and that the very first version of the page was already a copyright violation, I have now completely deleted the page. You can now start from a clean slate, without having to worry about your or older copyvios or close paraphrasings. Please be aware that the image description, which you believe is not a problem under WP:LIMITED, in reality still is a violation and needs to be rewritten as well (or given as a straight quote, but please don't overquote). Things like "a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu", which you copied straight from the source, are things which can easily be rewritten. Fram (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I knew I could count on you. A clean slate is so much easier. Ochiwar (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping?

I saw your reference to your having pinged me in a discussion about Oversight and the Australian shooting. For some reason, I did not receive any ping. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I pinged you, but afterwards I rev-deleted the whole section (as oversight took way too long to happen); perhaps this undid or thwarted the ping in some way. Fram (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Luc De Vos

On 16 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luc De Vos, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that "Mia", a song by Belgian musician Luc De Vos which was voted "best song ever" three years in a row on Studio Brussel, gave its name to the MIAs, the Belgian Music Industry Awards? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luc De Vos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Man Haron Monis

Man Haron Monis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As you seemed to be concerned about the WP:OUTING yesterday associated with Talk:2014 Sydney hostage crisis (I noticed your extensive revdel), you may want to take a look at this. Dwpaul 02:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. There is at least one topic about trying to play the guessing game. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I rev-deleted this as well (not only that section but an older one as well!). I created an edit notice to warn people about this, let's hope it helps. Fram (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem and thank you for responding quickly. I was trying to work out how to use the IRC and did not notice any changes until I could not see the issue anymore. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the talk page notice. However, I think it would be better if you were to put, "if any" as a qualifier. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, done. Fram (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, I meant "which Misplaced Pages account, if any", but that's OK. StAnselm (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion at Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy)

Fram, could you please drop by Talk:Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) and speak some sense? Many thanks. Shem (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment

• Hi Fram. The above relates to Richard Norton. I hope you'll agree that it's a good idea to give him another chance. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Careful

You should know that edits like this make it awful hard to expose the admin evils that we all have likely seen mentioned. And what am I to do if ever I need diffs to tear your good name asunder? Show something like that? You have a lot of integrity considering your caste. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:EngFram/sandbox

User:EngFram/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:EngFram/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EngFram/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Sir, I created this article and was tagged for speedy deletion because there was another article of the same name which was deleted because of lacking sources or other issues before I joined wikipedia but my article has reliable sources. Can you check the matter. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 10:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Béguinage

Hi. Would you consider moving Béguinage to Beguinage (no accent?). The latter is the English name, and another editor requested it on the talk page, and I'm inclined to agree. Of course, if you think that this is controversial enough to warrant a proper discussion, we can do that too, but I suspect nobody will object. Your call, really. Cheers, Oreo Priest 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be using the common English (as found, for example, here, here and here). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't editing at the time of the first request. Done now. Fram (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

I wish to know why the article Victor Mochere ( https://en.wikipedia.org/Victor_Mochere ) was deleted. Please tell me if it can be reinstated? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMende (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ziferblat

Hi Fram, should Ziferblat be deleted or not? Crookesmoor (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are you?

Someone remarked on the DYK discussion page recently that the standard of hooks must have improved because few had been pulled recently. I don't think this is the case. There are still problematic hooks but they are getting through undetected because the main DYK critic, you, is taking a wikibreak. I hope this is only temporary and that you will soon be back keeping your eagle eye on things and picking out the errors and inaccuracies that others miss. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote

Hi Fram. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Misplaced Pages. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Misplaced Pages's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (96th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Misplaced Pages researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually

Pichi no Shiro de Rokkuman to Pati is NOT a hoax, it is real. 67.82.89.253 (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6140 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Fram,

I hope you're okay. I haven't seen you edit for over two months now. Please let me know if you're doing okay. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm.. agree with Whatamidoing. Fram you are missed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedians

Just a note that you have been added to this list. If you return to editing or you do not want to be on this list, feel free to remove your name. Liz 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

So many times whenever I had any difficulty or any doubts, I used to think what you would've done if you were in my place. After thinking that way, I always found that I had a new idea. The way you used to evaluate the merit and validity of claims, was in itself amazing. You are not anymore with us for a long time now, but you will continue to serve as a source of inspiration. Thanks again for your contributions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:11th-century establishments in Germany

Category:11th-century establishments in Germany, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:7th-century BC establishments in Iran

Category:7th-century BC establishments in Iran, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:1803 disestablishments in Germany

Category:1803 disestablishments in Germany, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Backlinks to deleted pages

Hi Fram, I noticed that Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2011 was deleted by you in Dec 2014, but there are still several red links to it in other articles. Please would you remove those links when you have time, as recommended at WP:CFDAI? – Fayenatic London 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to see this. Unfortunately, Fram hasn't edited in a few months, so I don't think he'll be able to attend to this anytime soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Newyorkbrad. I've removed the links now. – Fayenatic London 18:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The administrator instruction for categories do obviously not apply when deleting articles. Redlinks should only be removed if they don't point to a potential valid article subject, not because of some misguided bureaucracy. Fram (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Frammy

Why do you remove hoax articles? Just asking. 67.82.89.253 (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ballpoint pen artwork talk archive

Hi Fram, I noticed you'd deleted the archive page noted above (this is long ago). Possibly because I'd created it incorrectly? Regardless, I'll soon be making major revisions to the Ballpoint pen artwork article itself, and I'd like to archive the existing talk page talk (which is outdated) to make way for new notes. It's been awhile since I've tried to create a "talk archive" page. Can you direct me to the instructionals OR can you maybe take a minute to create it so I can then start archiving the old-talk and add the new? Thanks for this much of your time. Penwatchdog (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Penwatchdog,

I'm sorry to say that Fram suddenly stopped editing at the end of December, and nobody knows what happened to him.

I checked your work at Talk:Ballpoint pen artwork, and it looks like you were successful. I added an {{archive}} banner to the page. (It's one of those things that is nice but not absolutely required.) Also, since Fram isn't around to answer future questions, then you might want to bookmark the Misplaced Pages:Help desk. The editors there are happy to answer questions like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I think I was successful. Thanks for your attention and sorry for any time-suck it caused; no need to reply to this, cheers friend. Penwatchdog (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Gloving

Despite the article being nominated for deletion, and the result being delete, it still has not been deleted. Do you know why? 79616gr (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

79616gr, Fram has not actively edited with this account for six months. You're likely to get a better response directing your question to another editor or admin. Liz 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:1865 establishments in Vatican City

Category:1865 establishments in Vatican City, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:1965 establishments in Guyana

Category:1965 establishments in Guyana, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How to lose weight listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to lose weight. Since you had some involvement with the How to lose weight redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Find sources AFD

Template:Find sources AFD has been nominated for merging with Template:Find sources. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

News

Hello Fram. I hope everything's OK with you, wherever you are. If you're still reading this I thought you would be interested in this. Best wishes, BethNaught (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fram is back! I had been so worried. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So glad to see that you're still around. BethNaught (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (also to everyone else who left a message. I'll probably not start editing again anytime soon, a number of reasons have made me thoroughly disappointed with WP and made me wonder why I kept spending time on it. My possible opinion piece for the signpost is just about one of those things, I'll not point to the others as that would include pointing at individual editors as well as pointing out the dysfunctional organization and wrong priorities of both enwp and the WMF (even though slowly but steadily Lila seems to improve some things there). But I'm still around and in good health, so no need to worry about me. Fram (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you're fine, but sad to see you're disappointed. Hopefully you can still see the all great things about Misplaced Pages and not just the bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreo Priest (talk • contribs) 10:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Signpost piece was excellent. pablo 10:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to see that you're well, Fram. Please do pay a visit to Wikipediocracy at some point, your critical eye towards WMF engineering is widely appreciated... Carrite (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I too am glad to see you back here, albeit on a limited basis, and hope to see more of you. I understand the reasons for your current feelings about Misplaced Pages, but pointing out flaws and striving for improvement is in itself a valuable role to perform. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Re bad DYKs

There's a lulu on the de.wiki; the writer is defending some really rotten scholarship (and, yes, this is the tactful description) on the grounds that his neologism, along with a slew of almost completely imaginary facts, was "seen by BIGNUM of people." Would you know anyone who shares your concern for crap DYKs on the German wiki who is reasonably bilingual? Past the "zum links" and "noch einz" level, my German skills are severely wanting. Anmccaff (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Good article, bringing the most deficient section of the main page to more general attention is a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes User:The Rambling Man, though a current non contributor making people who put in the effort feel like shit is a site problem too as it might put off contributors. While we do need to be more careful with the hook facts, you could tear into most articles if you really scrutinize them hard enough, and I'm not buying that the average DYK has more errors than a stale old article. An encyclopedia is meant to be a summary of all existing knowledge, but it's a very difficult thing to do well, because sources themselves are inconsistent. We do need to try to be as accurate as possible, and that's where I believe we need a group of editors who are actually paid to do what Fram did at the signpost, but to quietly go about it. I believe we need people employed to check facts/sources on a regular basis, and to go far beyond what the average volunteer might bother to check. Generally I believe wikipedia is likely to be as accurate a resource as any, and I can think of several cases where readers have pointed out errors which are actually given in the sources and the article improved to point them out. Recently I used a biography to cite films which were the highest earning for a studio in the 60s; it wasn't long before somebody actually spotted the error and that one film wasn't from a certain studio. Sources are often also riddled with errors too, which complicates it. it's not purely editor incompetence and let's not forget rhat we're all volunteers. Above all we need contributors, we don't want to deter people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's never contributor incompetence, it's reviewer and admin incompetence. A contributor, especially a new one, doesn't necessarily know what to aim at, but some of the detritus that makes it to the main page, despite being "QPQ"'ed and then promoted and then moved (by three different "competent" Wikipedians) shouldn't result in the error rate we see. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks / Civility blocks...

Have always been subject to the will/whim of the passing admin, even when clearly and unambiguously obvious. An Arbcom who are unwilling or unable to enforce civility on the most serious offenders weakens the ability of admins to enforce it or even discuss it. The fifth pillar has been a joke for years now. Saying that, welcome back! :) Hope the break has done you some good! Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:EngFram/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Catflap

Thanks for the permission; I've told him that you're all right with the idea, so I'll unblock him immediately if I discover that he wants an unblock to join the Arbcom case, and I left a "note to other admins" asking them to do the same if I don't find out immediately. I didn't ask when shortening your block of him, since it was a matter of a few hours, but I didn't figure it would be particularly helpful to issue an outright unblock (especially as someone might argue that I was WP:INVOLVED, since I only blocked the other disputant) without checking with you first. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Fram. I already thanked you for your actions on Turkey at AN, but I wish to extend you a more personal thank you here. Your actions resolved this problem and I am grateful for that. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  14:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the great care that you took to discuss this matter with me before taking any actions. I will be sure to refer all matters to you, knowing that you will be certain to enforce our verifiability policies carefully against individuals who include falsehoods in articles. Given my profound degree of involvement in the situation before the question arose, I will also be careful to refer other situations to you, rather than taking actions myself. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I see you are still continuing your maligning of reputable editors. I assumed AGF and did not ask for further sanctions against you at AN. But you seem to not have a WP:CLUE despite multiple people telling you that you are definitely wrong in your position toward longterm reputable editors. Please cease your campaign of personal attacks and WP:DROPTHESTICK at last. Δρ.Κ.  20:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, you write something like "further agitation will be ignored" and then get annoyed when action is taken without your input? --NeilN 02:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see my note and accept my apology for profoundly mangling the situation. I modified protection at Turkey, but only temporarily, and it's now back to the way you left it: it was the only way for me to put an "I was wrong" statement into the protection log. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, thank you. I hadn't reacted to your earlier statements because it didn't seem helpful at the time. Some time for cooling down and reflection are usually enough, and I'm glad that was the case here. Fram (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Block request

Mind blocking someone for me? 204.17.197.5 has been editing since the beginning of the year, and aside from a couple edits of pure vandalism (telling us that the population of Chattanooga, Tennessee was less than 0.1% of what was found at the last census), all edits are intended to add random nonnotable people to notable-people sections of US community articles. The worst is at Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, where this address has been causing problems since January with stuff ranging from this to this. I've reverted some of these edits, and as I can vaguely imagine someone doing this cluelessly, rather than as a means of intentional vandalism, I'm not going to be doing anything myself. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

About Hayley Matthews - courtesy notice

Hi Fram,
I have re-created a page you deleted. I am confident that it is about a different person than the page you deleted.
Pete "cricket tragic" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, it's a different person. Fram (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Flow/Developer test page

You probably should restore Misplaced Pages talk:Flow/Developer test page. It looks like deleting it was a test? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I explained (more than a week ago) on WT:Flow that I no longer can restore it (as a Flow page), one of the many flaws in Flow as it is deployed now. I pinged the WMF people about it, but no reply. Despite their claims that no, Flow isn't dead, it clearly is going the way of the dodo. I dout many peole will look back on it with affection though. More like the reaction most peole have when you mention LiquidThreads, despite some initial enthusiasm. Fram (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#October_2015

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#October 2015

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2.2 of the Richard Arthur Norton (1958 - ) case is struck and replaced by:

2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:

Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.

Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.

Other editors may move pages created or substantially edited by RAN, but only if they explicitly take responsibility for any copyright violations on that page.

This remedy may be appealed after the later of 6 months and when all draft articles he has authored, in his userspace and in the draft namespace, have been verified free of copyright violations and moved :::to the article namespace by other editors or deleted. In order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the :::Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.

Any article or draft article created contrary to this restriction will result in a block, initially of at least one month and then proceeding per the enforcement provisions. The article or draft article :::may be speedily deleted under criterion G5 by any administrator.

Any page moves made contrary to this restriction may be enforced by blocks per the enforcement provisions. The page move may be reversed by any editor able to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

List of aircraft by tail number

Should the list not survive the AfD, would you have any objection to it being moved into Project space as a sub-page of WP:AV? Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, if it is useful for the project, they are free to use it there of course. Fram (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

TAP

Hi Fram. I just got an email from TAP asking me to explain what I thought got him in trouble in his RfA. Normally I would help, but I'm slammed for time. If I send him here, could you answer some questions for him? - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You may send him here, but I don't think I have much to add beyond my oppose statement at the RfA. Fram (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I won't send him here, but thanks for your input at RfA, it was very helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

List articles

I've had a look at your "contributions" page and it seems that your main activity on Misplaced Pages is proposing List articles for deletion. Is there a Misplaced Pages consensus that so many List articles should be deleted? Biscuittin (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just like there is a consensus that we should have so many list articles... I'm going through the thousands of list articles we have, and don't bother with the vast, vast majority, only proposing for deletion those few that probably shouldn't be here (I even skipped rather ridiculous subjects like lists of British Railways sheds, to stay with your area of interest). Most of the time consensus seems to be on my side so far. Sometimes opinions are split, but even then I don't seem to be the only one thinking that some list or another should be deleted. Fram (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions. (1) Why do you call List of British Railways shed codes a "ridiculous subject"? I created it but lots of people have expanded it so it is obviously of interest to them. (2) If you look at my contributions page you will see that I have edited a lot of articles other than railway ones. I get the impression that your main "area of interest" is in deleting articles. This is very discouraging for newcomers to Misplaced Pages. Biscuittin (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of these lists I proposed for deletion were years old, only a handful were recent, so only a few newcomers will be affected. And please don't confuse my current activity with my general activity over the years. As for the ridiculous subject, yes, that's my opinion of it, but as it is of interest to enough others apparently, I have not nominated it for deletion, shaking my head in disbelief though. 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WT:DYK

So nice to see you back on the talk page! Yoninah (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know whether I'll be back a lot, it is a bit disappointing to get three problems (of varying seriousness) in one go, but the communication on the WT:DYK page has been friendly, so that at least is good. But no matter if I will post again regularly or not, I do appreciate your post here! Fram (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We all need to vet things more...I freely admit I am good at Big Picture stuff but my eye for detail is lousy at times. Hi, actually I could use your critical eyes (or any other TPS). One annoying thing about being made coordinator of Misplaced Pages:Featured article review is I can't really opine or fix if i am going to close them. So I need some folks to cast their eyes over the list and decide whether the articles should be kept or demoted. I want to try and clear teh decks for more noms from Misplaced Pages:Unreviewed featured articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

NFL broadcaster lists

Fram, I just voted in the AfD that you started regarding broadcasters for the Buffalo Bills Toronto series. Here are two more categories of NFL broadcaster articles, including, multiple subcategories, that bear further close examination:

• Category:Lists of National Football League announcers; and
• Category:American Football League announcers.

Please let me know if you're interested in nominating more of these articles for AfD, or if you have any questions about them. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• • I'll probably nominate some more, I have already nominated multiple broadcaster lists for prod and AfD so far. I'm just afraid that a multiple nom will run into trouble as they may have varying degrees of notability. Fram (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Understood. Until the precedents are well established, it's probably better to stick to one-article nominations. Very few of these are going to survive critical AfD analysis. Most of the ones I just examined are sourced to the TV networks or stations that were hosting the games in question, i.e., no independent sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Fram, I'm sorry to bother you with this, but you're one of the few users I've interacted with that I know to be an admin. Anyway, the thing I'd like to ask your advice about, without prejudice, is a run-in with another user. When I suggested he might bear the three-revert rule in mind, s/he responded by blanking the message and calling it a "personal attack" (see here). I could just let it blow over, but in the meantime the same user is actively pushing half a dozen AfDs on articles about recipients of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (which is not something I'd ever heard of, or edited on, until I came across the AfDs), and at the same time thinning the content of the articles to make deletion more likely, which rubs me up the wrong way. I don't want to get drawn into an edit war, but information that should be in articles is vanishing (if the articles should be here, which the AfD will decide). Editing to add: the reason I mention 3RR is the three reverts over the space of 2 hours here, where s/he also characterises my protests against this manner of proceeding as a "personal attack". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reinstated your comment and left a friendly warning for the editor involved, I hope that will suffice. If he knows a bit about me, he'll be aware that I'm not trying to protect the Queen's Award articles, but I did try to stay out of the AfDs beacuse of my history with the creator of the articles. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

comments on user pages

Would this be considered a personal attack . Calling someone Javert. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He was warned to stop doing this in December 2013 by an arbitrator during an arbcom case against him. He has now done it again at least twice (the one you pointed out, and one other instance I found). I have given him a last warning, if it continues further action will need to be taken (but I can't block him as I'm involved with him in general, not in this incident). Fram (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hello Fram. I come asking for advice and perhaps collaboration. You may be aware of an RFC to remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast. Rebuffed for being external to the project, I have drafted an RfC in my userspace here and I request your comments. I never could match your clarity, both of thought and expression, as regards this matter, so I would like your input: is it worthwhile proceeding? would it backfire? would it pass? If you think it worthwhile, your collaboration as a co-proposer would be greatly appreciated. If you think I am come too early, and it is not yet the right time - well, then I will reconsider giving the deed time to been seen and heard. Faithfully, BethNaught (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC) (please ping me)

Hey

Hi, Fram. Can you take a look at this: User talk:Bagumba#Possible SPI. I think it needs a second look from someone more familiar with the previous editing history than me. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Two questions about Flow

Hi: I saw at the WikiProject:Breakfast RfC that you consider Flow a security hazard. I haven't heard that before; could I ask you what the concern is? Also, in that discussion I don't see mention of Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions; I thought that was also Flow - is it some other experimental thing? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse/questions isn't Flow, it's standard Misplaced Pages but with a template to make posting new questions slightly easier. Perhaps you are thinking about the French Misplaced Pages, where they have something similar in Flow. As for the security hazard, per WP:BEANS I'ld rather not discuss this too much, but suffice it to say that with a very easy edit anyone can make, I succeeded in breaking Echo for many users for quite a while. There are other major problems as well, concerning spam, deletion of truly problematic content, and other types of vandalism which will be a lot harder to find and to remove from sight than it is now. The flipside is that it is also much easier than now to simply remove complete pages from sight (by non-admins as well), and much harder to restore them in full. Just like with VE, I don't think the WMF has done any destructive testing (what can a user do wrong with it), only some constructive testing (if I use it correctly, does it do what I want it to do), even though that as well is seriously lacking. Fram (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More FUN and SURPRISES from Flow!

I hadn't checked Village Pump in ages. Perchance, I did today. I just had a somewhat interesting experience trying to parse some badly mangled English in a new post at Village_Pump_(technical). I then had the extremely interesting experience of discovering that it had been posted by ME a few hours earlier. My brain a-sploded. I went to the page history to double check - yep page history also showed me as posting it. I eventually figured out what happened, but OMGWTFBBQ.

I figured you'd also find it ...interesting. Linky linky. Alsee (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I had seen your Village Pump post, and thought that for some reason you wanted to post the MfD there as well. If that wasn't your intention, then it would be good to know whether it is a Twinkle problem or a Flow problem. Certainly not good but entertaining. Fram (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I missed your reply until now. (No ping.) It's a fluke that I stopped by again. Anywho... the explanation was that Twinkle tried to post a notice to the page creator's talk page. Flow pages don't have a normal record for page-creator. Somehow Village Pump Technical got listed as the creator's talk page. Weeee!

Which leads us to the newest Flow surprise. I just nominated another flow page for MFD. Did the creator-notice land at Village pump again? Nope. Because Flow.

This time it landed at Wikipedia_talk:Flow. Alsee (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A technical point

I appreciate your careful analysis of the round the world disabled sailing folk. I wonder, though, if you are aware that there is a difference between those starting in Australia and ending in Australia, thus "just" going round the challenging southern ocean sector, a HUGE feat in itself, and starting and leavingreturning across the official start/finish line from Lizard to Ushant. The chap you quote is well worthy of his award, but it was, surely, a different and much shorter trip, however arduous. Both can be considered circumnavigations, of course they can, but one misses out the north to south and then the south to north Atlantic sectors, both vast areas of ocean to cross. Fiddle Faddle 10:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Find any solid evidence for both and you may have a point. The claim made so far was not that one wasn't global and the other was, but that one was nonstop and the other wasn't, which obviously wasn't true. The record by Lauwers was recognised by the WSSR, although the category is now discontinued, and his distance of 21620nm matches the WSSR requirements as outlined in Around the world sailing record, and doesn't seem to make it a "much shorter trip". To get the WSSR approval, he had to cross the equator, going as far north as the Canary Islands, so doing a lot of the Atlantic as well. It may not be the same route as White had planned, and thus not the Jules Verne route, but it doesn't seem to be a much shorter or easier route at all. Fram (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the answer has to come from all the folk at the DYK page, really. If consensus is that it does not fly, then fly it does not. I feel he is interesting enough to make the front page, but, if we are fair, this is an ephemeral part of Misplaced Pages, and only worth getting mildly exercised about, front page or not. I proposed it because I created the article and felt he was sufficiently interesting. My hooks were, obviously, inaccurate, for which information I am grateful.

In the interests of transparency, I have met White, for about an hour, in Dartmouth, when I boarded his boat at his request as a staff member of the harbour authority, and showed him to a berth in weather that would have made it challenging for any solo sailor to moor, let alone one with the use of solely one arm. I tried to find him here and found him to be absent. Searches showed him to be notable, perhaps even special. Whether he merits the front page or not is not for me to judge, just for me to request. There is a point when it would be seen as pushy to go further. Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Overall revision of List of minor planets

Hello Fram. For the last couple of weeks I've been revising the extensive series of List of minor planets#Main index, removing self-redirects, updating data, page-syntax and the usage of templates, as well as renaming some pages, all with the intention to have a consistent, updated series of lists. As I see, from late June to July 27, 2009, you were merging/deleting (and/or) redirecting about 200 subpages into the main-list pages, and you reverted some later attempts to reinstall some of these subpages with the rationale "Subpages are not allowed in the mainspace". Since then, more lists have been created (up to number 450,001–451,000), following your example of not using subpages, with all data for a thousand minor planets contained in just one main-list. So far so good...

While I don't have an opinion about the usage of subpages, I do care about consistency. You deleted (sometimes redirected) the supages in the range of 192,001 to 212,000, while a total of 1,920 subpages (for the minor planets with number 1 to 192,000) still exist. Since this is a large number, I'm offering to assist you in the merger as much as I can (I've updated and revised all these pages by now). In the meantime, I will reinstall (create and amend redirects) of 80 subpages for the numbered minor planets in the range of #192,001 to 200,000, to have a clear transitional point where consistency breaks (i.e. the usage of subpages). Please support me in my efforts to improve this rather troublesome series of list and to make it as useful and consistent as much as possible. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 10:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't edit Misplaced Pages as much as I used to, and don't see this as a useful use of my limited time (also the reason I stopped merging these subpages, it was too much effort). While I think reinstalling the subpages isn't a good idea, I'm not going to fight over it. making a bot request to merge all of the subpages into the lists may be the easiest solution, if anyone is willing to take up that task. But I'm glad to hear that my example has at least been followed by the newly created pages :-) Fram (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thx for your immediate reply. I absolutely understand your point of view. Unfortunately, even the best intentions lead to inconsistencies if they are not fully implemented throughout the series. Inconsistencies, are poison for any (semi-)automated update procedure; and without such automated procedure, it is impossible to maintain a series of list with nearly half a million entries. As for the suggest bot request, I will consider to make one (as soon as the list are ready). It would be very helpful if you could give me a link to a wiki-guideline where the deprecated usage of subpages is mentioned, so I don't need to argue with other editors about it. Thank you, Rfassbind – talk 11:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Subpages#Disallowed uses "3. Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." Fram (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Fram. I plan to remove all subpages from the List of minor planets#Main index next month. I'm now looking for an admin to delete the 2,000 subpages after I have merged the pages. Would you be so kind to do that? Rfassbind – talk 23:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, just let me know when you have finished and I'll take a look. Thanks for all the hard work! Fram (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm now ready to merge the subpages, but I will wait a few more days to receive some feed back from other editors. I guess the edit-history of all supages will be lost? Also, using what links here, I see that that the subpages are heavily linked to, however, mostly from the user namespace. I will let you know when the merging of subpages has been done. Cheers, -- Rfassbind – talk 23:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Just finished the merger of subpages in List of minor planets#Main index. Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 02:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, great work. Do you want me to take a look and delete the subpages where needed and possible? Fram (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, from my point of view, deleting the subpages from List of minor planets/1–100 to List of minor planets/199901–200000 (exactly 2000 subpages) would be consistent with your edits from July 2009. The Category:Lists of minor planets by number could be used to double-check whether all subpages have been deleted. Also, if you seem fit, the task page merger of subpages could be linked in your deletion comment. What really bugs me though is the fact that I will receive about 3,000 deleted edits to my edit-count (I presume I'm not the only one who judges someone's credibility by his/her deleted vs. total edit-ratio). Well, I guess I have to take that one for the team... Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 12:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of deleted edits is nothing bad; anyone who does e.g. new page patrolling and tags lots of pages with a speedy deletion tag correctly will have lots of deleted edits, but that will only increase their credibility. Having pages you created and that are afterwards deleted is sometimes a problem, but otherwise no one cares about deleted edits really. Fram (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, since these are merged, I can't simply delete them. I'll redirect them instead, that way they will no longer show up in e.g. "random article" and the like. Fram (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice work Rfassbind! FYI, if y'all want, I am available to help #R the 100s pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to help! It's a rather tedious job, which luckily only needs to be done once. Fram (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure Tom, if the subpages won't be deleted, then you're definitely the most effective editor on wikipedia to handle the 2,000 redirects. Thx to the both of you, Rfassbind – talk 15:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

On it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All 2000 subpages are now #R'd & standardized.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you, great job!! Fram (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching that error in the lead of List of places of worship in Woking (borough). I had missed that when going through the lead, which I wrote some time ago. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, it is a remarkable mosque but that claim was just a bit over the top :-) Fram (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

BOOM!

	The Destruction Testing Award
	Thank you for your enterprise with regard to the demonstration of Flow's design flaws. BethNaught (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's the first time I have gotten this award :-) Destruction testing on Flow is quite easy, but then again, the same was true for VisualEditor but the WMF couldn't be bothered anyway. It's probably their motto! Fram (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Old links

What old links? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It is the result of a move of a talk page archive. Why would you change the target? "Old links" aren't necessarily onwiki, of course, and the link in that edit summary is one. There is a clear connection between archive 3 and 10, there is no link between archive 3 and 4. No idea why a WMF functionary felt the need to change the correct target of a two-year-old redirect to another one, probably there is nothing better to do wrt WMF-community interaction. Building confidence, one edit at a time! Fram (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the clear connection between archive 3 and 10? The edit summary on it said that 3 was re-pointed there because that was the then-current one. It was temporarily and accidentally used by the bot, because 3 was empty. The actual "clear connection" IMO is that the VEF archives for the first half of 2013 were named for their month. It's not "2013, third one we used"; it's "2013, month of March" – when no actual feedback was archived. If you go to 2013-1 and find January's comments, and 2013-2, and find February's comments, and then 2013-3, you are not going to expect to find comments from July and August.

While it's conceivably possible that someone might theoretically follow an old URL, it is certainly true that I actually do step through the archives in order when I need to find a particular old discussion, and having ended up on the "wrong" archive page several times recently as a result of this redirect, I decided it was time to fix it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The clear connection was that it was moved fom 3 to 10. The only error was that the redirect wasn't autmatically created during the move, but added afterwards, but the end result is exactly the same. Perhaps you could better spend your time fixing actual errors caused by VE instead of messing with nearly three year old talk page archives? That you lose some time because you can't get your head around non-chronological archives and don't understand the cause of this, is peanuts compared to the time we all lost fixing VE problems and explaining them (often fruitlessly) to you. Anyway, I'll give you a helpful pointer to fix your problem without messing with the old archives: Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Feedback/header. Happy? Fram (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dirk Martens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucianus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hai, I request you to check this article Untitled Mammootty Madhupal Film. A user has created a purely promotional article based on an unconfirmed rumoured film. Obviously production has not yet started and no chance in near future as per reports. Unofficial reports about the film came only few days ago and the user (I think a fan) has created its article immediately. I also found similar other article Thoppil Joppan. --Charles Turing (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Encore Consumer Capital listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Encore Consumer Capital. Since you had some involvement with the Encore Consumer Capital redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. /wiae /tlk 23:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sort redirects

In your edit of 10:23, 15 January 2016 of À la mode, you reverted my deletion of a long comment with my edit summary "redirects do not need long comments to prevent listing on Special:Shortpages", with your edit summary "Undid revision 699838666 by Anomalocaris (talk) Sort redirects do, actually...". I do not know what a "sort redirect" is. Would you kindly provide a link to a page where this is defined, or explain it here? And if your linked page doesn't explain why sort redirects need "help" to avoid being listed on Special:Shortpages, please explain that here as well. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, typos, always annoying. I meant "soft redirects", not "sort redirects", apologies for the confusion. Misplaced Pages:Soft redirect has more about these. Template:Long comment already includes in the examples of where to use it the wiktionary redirect, which is the most common type of soft redirect. Fram (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Why can't I create a page for my son who is soccer player for the Olympic Developmental program Region III team of the United States? Thanks.

Please let me know thanks. E Ferro (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Block

Hi Fram, Bit random but after taking a break I've came to my senses and realized not only was my early closures actually disruptive but I was extremely lucky to be unblocked after the first cock up!,
Anyway I just wanted to say a big thank you for not only unblocking me but for also trusting me too - It muchs alot so thank you,
Could I ask tho can I still close Snow Keeps where there's literally 4/5 !votes or more ? (I don't plan too just yet but I wanted to ask so I know)
Anyway Thanks again, Happy editing :), –Davey2010 14:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically, it wouldn't be a violation. But I would consider it very unwise, since any disputed ones would cause serious problems for you. Staying away from closing AfDs for the near future is your safest route. Fram (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

True but for the time being any disputes (no matter how obvious the outcome is) I would probably reopen anyway but as I say closing any snows won't be for a very long time yet - Anyway If I stick to closing a few 8th day ones there shouldn't be any problems, But anyways thanks for your help in dealing with all of this mess!, Thanks, –Davey2010 15:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I request you to look at this and the diff below the template. Is this acceptable behavor? Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

IBAN

Can I request an IBAN from you so Lugnuts stop harassing me or do I have to goto ANI? He went after me again on my talk page with User talk:Bgwhite#Another edit. Threatened with ANI again. Told I was doing a 3RR when I wasn't. The edit he complained about, the bot did exactly what the edit summary states. It's related to a problem that was the subject of the talk message right about Lugnuts'. I kept asking him to stay away from my talk page, but he kept writing. I asked him on his talk page to stay away from me and he reverted me as a troll. He is accusing me of covering up my errors. I've pointed out WP:OWNBEHAVIOR to him multiple times (see User talk:Lugnuts#Stub spacing as another example). I don't want to go thru this every time I touch one of his pages that he "owns". Bgwhite (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for his bad AWB edits one, two, three, four. He's tag-teaming the page with his own account and bot/sock account. I asked a polite question on his talkpage and was met with abuse. I've pointed out WP:CIVIL to him multiple times. I don't want to go through this every time I come across one of his bad edits. Lugnuts 08:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out, when you revert, the article goes onto the CheckWiki list again. You were blind reverting. That is not 3RR. You've threatened me with ANI and done insults. "Look forward to seeing you at ANI when you fuck up again" "you seem to have difficulty in basic reading skills." You've said I was covering up my errors. I've asked you multiple times in different discussions to stay away from me. You cannot understand when I say don't write here anymore. None of the edits were bad, but you refuse to understand that. Fram understood it. As I've stated multiple times, you keep doing do as I say, not as I do. Please keep him away from me. Bgwhite (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As per Legacypac's edit right above this discussion and Lugnut's block log, this is standard practice from him. I don't want to get wrapped up in his continual drama. Bgwhite (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

All I wanted was for you to explain exactly what your bot was doing. Not some smoke and mirror of it being "approved" to do so. You seem to be unable to communicate in a civil manor, which has also been pointed out to you by another admin. Lugnuts 09:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I can't impose an IBAN on my own, that needs consensus. I was considering posting an IBAN request between Legacypac and Lugnuts, and now this. I hate the kind of problems caused by editors who do a lot of good in some areas and are a real problem in others. Neither completely banning them nor letting them continue unchecked are productive solutions, but every intermediate solution tends to get complicated. If he does post again at your user talk page, it may be best to bring him to ANI. Just make sure that the edits he complains about really are doing something useful (like removing those invisible characters, which are a pest).

Lugnuts, I have been wrongfooted by these "remove invisible characters" edits before as well. They don't seem to achieve anything in the diff or the rendered page, but they are nevertheless useful, since these characters can unexpectedly mess up things (like with that filename discussed on BGWhites talk page, which didn't turn up in searches). You seem to be looking for conflicts at the moment and not so much interested in genuine problems. Please stay away from Bgwhites talk page and reconsider your approach to Legacypac and to things like AN discussions (e.g. your edit to WP:AN#Massive CFD backlog), where many of your posts are not helpful at all. And drop the personal attacks completely (and the complaints that someelse can't communicate in a civil manner, you reap what you sow).( and previous earlier edit summaries on that page) Edit warring over Rocks in My Pockets is just silly.

If this goes to WP:AN or ANI, you will both get scrutinised, no matter who starts it. I think it will end worse for Lugnuts than for Bgwhite though. Oh, and Legacypac, if you feel the need to get involved in that hypothetical discussion, be aware that you probably won't come out very well either. Fram (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not the edit that bothers me, but the complete lack of a civil response from a so-called experience editor on what it actually does. And then reverting four times to prove his WP:POINT on that his "bot has been approved". So that gives him freedom to make these edits without explanation? Very odd. Lugnuts 09:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have responded about this on Bgwhites talk page as well, but basically, you can't expect that an editor whom you have called a troll twice two days before on your talk page suddenly will be friendly if you post a polite (or faux-polite) question on his talk page. The lack of a civil response didn't come out of the blue and wasn't unprovoked (not saying that your troll comments were necessarily unprovoked, there probably is a lot of backstory here I haven't discovered yet; but acting surprised about his response is not really convincing). Fram (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Those were due to the fact he was actually trolling my talkpage. His very first reply to me flagging up his questionable AWB edits was, of course, abuse. I'll stay away from him, but no doubt others will now be aware of his edits and will be double-checking them too. Thanks. Lugnuts 09:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I'm happy to move on, and I won't interact with this editor again. I'm still concerned about some of the AWB edits, but those can be addressed through the bot approval process, if needed. Thanks. Lugnuts 09:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Fram (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Fram,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Misplaced Pages project for ten years or more.

Best regards,  — Scott • talk 11:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dirk Martens

On 8 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dirk Martens, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dirk Martens published the first edition of Thomas More's Utopia in 1516? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dirk Martens. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

I know I am not allowed to, but I edited your comment. Hope you don't mind. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

That kind of edits by another user, to correct links and so on, are generally allowed (correcting typo's depends on the "receiving" editor, some welcome it while some don't like it). In any case, I'm glad you corrected it, I didn't reread my post as I'm getting tired of spending time on communication with WMF employees (well, that's a bit unfair, I know a few very likeable ones who usually give straight answers and admit errors when necessary, but there are too many of the other kind). Thanks! Fram (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I am 100% certain that at least 3 WMF employees are nice and sensible people in real life. Unfortunately there are many problems with the rest of the WMF... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I try to avoid all comments about people here in real life. Probably some of the WMF people I despise onwiki are nice enough people in real life, and perhaps some of the good ones here are scum in reality. I restrict myself to how they act onwiki. Fram (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification about disabling the Misplaced Pages collections tool

Thank you for using the collections feature in Misplaced Pages beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Misplaced Pages page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Misplaced Pages Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jovial junket

I and others have been critiquing the current Featured Picture – see WP:ERROR. We seem to be stuck on deciding what to do about this as there's little precedent for pulling an FP. As you're often interested in such cases and have admin rights, please take a look. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be more accurate: criticising, not critiquing. And not assisting in fixing the problem, just bleating about it. But no change there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Research help

I see you have hidden the template while the deletion discussion is in progress. How are we supposed to know what to discuss if the template displays nothing? • • • Peter (Southwood) : 15:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw your comment at the TfD, and have added the look of the template to the template page itself (actually in the documentation, but you can se it when you open the template under discussion). Hope this helps! Fram (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I still don't know what it should look like. • • • Peter (Southwood) : 15:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Research template

Fram, maybe it is better to show the template (possibly with a link to the deletion discussion) on the articles, just to show people how disruptive and useless the display actually is. I TfD'd it while it was being added (and the bot got blocked shortly after by s.o. else), with the choice to show the TfD.

I can't see this as nothing else than another attempt from WMF to sneak something past us and using the Misplaced Pages community without broad consensus and discussion. Do the individual members of the WMF really not communicate with each other? This is not building up more trust after Flow, SuperProtect and MV... --Dirk Beetstra 04:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I've reverted to that version, let's see if another WMF'er (with their WMF account or their standard account) reverts again... Fram (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I just had a look how it now looks like - and figured out that it now misrepresents itself as a general reference of some kind.

Sigh, I get a handful of copy-paste responses that do not address the concerns, and when I then copy-paste a request to address the concerns .. It is of utmost importance to keep this alive, while now people outright !vote keep while stating that it is not aimed at improving the article. --Dirk Beetstra 07:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

People. I am a WMF staffer on the side. I am first and foremost a Wikipedian and have been since 2006 (or 2008, if you go by when I really started editing). I've also already pointed out that I've been supportive of the Wiki Library since before I or they joined the WMF. If I'm editing from this account, it means that it's my own personal opinion, divorced from anything the WMF would want me to think and say. As such, I'd really appreciate not getting lumped in with the dark side. I didn't suddenly lose my personal thoughts, feelings, and opinions when I started editing their blog. Thanks. Ed  07:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have too often seen (other) WMF'ers who just happen to support WMF efforts with their non-WMF account. There's one in this discussion who was also about the last remaining supporter of Flow deployment on some Wikiprojects here, without any decent, rational arguments. After a while, one tends to dump every person with the same dual position into the same pit of doom, even though (admittedly) I haven't seen that kind of behaviour from you before and your argument about supporting the Wiki Library makes sense. Fram (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Fram, for understanding. As you might have surmised from my tone, you're not the first to assume that I lost all free will upon becoming a staffer, and it gets awfully frustrating when your personal opinion is discounted because of your day job. As an FYI, we're strictly warned against making any WMF comments (or !votes) with our personal accounts; it's a big red line, legally speaking. So it's pretty safe to assume that if you don't see the (WMF) at the end, it's a personal opinion—in the case you mention, it's very probable that they personally felt strongly about Flow.

Heck, if you want my personal opinion on that specific topic, Flow isn't great, but talk pages in general suck. Not having any sort of technical knowledge, I couldn't tell you what the answer is, but I wouldn't be jumping in to destroy a trial of something the WMF cooks up. It might be (probably would?) be worse, but it's worth the shot. More data on all of these things is a good thing, IMHO. Ed  08:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Current events pages. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wythenshaweshank

You are making allegations against this editor without any proof.

Withdraw them.

Best wishes. 78.151.27.61 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but thanks for asking. Feel free to take it to the appropriate place if you feel the need, you probably know the way already. Duck when you see a boomerang arriving though. Fram (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Brian Shaffer

I wondered if you had an opinion on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Disappearance of Brian Shaffer. No-one else at that noticeboard appears to be interested. MPS1992 (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for La finta pazza

On 5 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article La finta pazza, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that upon its 1641 premiere in Venice, the opera La finta pazza was performed twelve times in seventeen days? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/La finta pazza. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Vanden Gheyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Nieuwpoort, Belfry, Aalst and Asten

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Tintin

You're interested in Belgian comics, right? I just noticed that Adventures of Tintin was the top read article on Misplaced Pages and so have been looking into it. Perhaps you can help... Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Five million people"

I'm not particularly inclined to get involved in the case, but regarding "I got a sense of accomplishment from knowing that over 5 million people would read it" there's a reasonable AGF explanation. If the Main Page gets about 15 million views per day, and the DYK hook was up for 8 hours as they usually are, than around 5 million people potentially read the hook (even if very few of them clicked through and read the article). There are, obviously, a lot of legitimate concerns here, but I wouldn't consider that particular claim as one of them; mistaking "visited the main page" with "gives a shit about the content of the main page" is a category mistake a lot of people considerably more experienced than Wikicology regularly make. ‑ Iridescent 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The WMF just imposed VE as the Primary editor for all new users

Log out. Make a new account. You only get one edit link. That link forces VE to load first. (Which the Product Manager EXPLICITLY told me they wouldn't do.) After the "Primary" editor finishes loading, the popup rather firmly pushes new editors to stay in the VE default to "Continue editing".

I'll see if I can get a constructive response on Phabricator. Hopefully it wont be necessary to start a Pump Proposal to declare & change the "Primary". Alsee (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I added a section to the Village Pump Technical Single-edit topic. Alsee (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The incompetence (to give the AGF option) of these people is staggering. Fram (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

After working on the VE goal for years, it's become a point of religious faith that VE helps new users. Any the hard data to the contrary just doesn't sink in. Quarterly reports and stuff open with chant-like recitals like "helping engage more users than ever before". Of course when when it comes to defining concrete success metrics for individual project steps, every goal is defined as increased use of VE. (A.K.A. cannibalization of wikitext editing.)

VE has become the tail that wags the dog. I'm not sure how much you've heard, but they are creating a new-and-improved <gallery> and plan a new-and-improved <references> because VE chokes on them when they are inside templates... based on the utterly brilliant presumption that we won't wrap the new versions inside new templates. And they want to invent new "hygienic templates" so VE won't choke on them. There's an IRC meeting about the new template scheme later today. I may try to attend and question the wisdom of of trying to make wiki easier for the machines at the expense of making it more complicated for the humans.

 You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topics this week are improving transclusion of templates for Parsoid and balanced templates. The meeting will be on 13 April at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Alsee (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my main reason to oppose VE. They are specing countless hours and massive amounts of money on this mnority tool, while for years improvements to wikitext have been ignored (and even implementing the useful VE things into wikitext have been ignored). Their only goal is to make VE the default one and to claim victory, and too bad if that means that the editors on both sides (VE and wikitext) for years have to struggle with a lot of things (like the vast amount of work on templatedata for very little benefit). The big performance improvement they claim for the "balanced" templates, that's only when you open the page in VE edit mode, or always? It sounds to me like the former, which makes this a lot less important (for most editors and all readers). Fram (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there even a consensus that the wikipedia community actually wants VE to be deployed on en.wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra 12:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that one of the RfCs could be interpreted as there being no consensus against deploying this. The subsequent changes (no longer call it "Beta", make it default for all new editors, stuff like that) has just been shoved down our throats basically, sometimes against explicit promises to the contrary. Fram (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that we have so far resisted Flow though. On Mediawiki, there have been already multiple users wanting to rmove Flow from their user talk page. According to the documentation and promises, they just needed to change their preference and the Flow page would be automaically archived (not converted, you can't get rid of Flow completely!). However, even that didn't work and admins had to interfere to get Flow removed from these people... This shit has been going on for years, with VE, Flow, Gather, MeiaViewer, ... with only notifications as some kind of success (although even that has been made worse by Flow). Fram (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That's where I wanted to get .. maybe an RfC to see whether there is consensus to have VE in the first place would be a good thing. And maybe there is no consensus to have it implemented in the first place (which I would not find impossible at all; I doubt that the WMF would be daring to ask the community whether they want VE in the first place) and we can .. ask them to disable it. --Dirk Beetstra 13:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I doubt such an RfC would have success though. Most editors don't care about VE as long as it doesn't create too many errors (it creates more errors than wikitext, but not as much as it did initially), and quite a few want to stay friends with the WMF for whatever reason. i'm not against an RfC, but sceptical that it will succeed. Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have similar doubts. People don't care, and we do see sometimes many WMF-liaisons coming in on these discussions as well (on their personal account .. but if it makes up a significant percentage of the !voters ..). It is likely going to close as a 'there is no consensus to remove it, and there is no consensus to implement it' .. getting the WMF to do implementation RfCs is not going to happen either (as the chances are too big that thén the community will !vote against implementation), so the only way forward is to allow their railroading ..

I did find it funny that this still contains numerous non-VE edits (and some of those being follow up on a VE edit). --Dirk Beetstra 05:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that VE consensus lands in the ballpark of "let people use it if they want to, so long as it doesn't cause problems for people not using it". With a significant dose of "not worth fighting WMF pressure on it". And on the topic of VE-causing problems for non-users, I reviewed a batch of recent edits that are tagged both visual editor and nowiki added. Nearly all of them needed cleanup of one sort or another. If you're looking for work that needs doing, just check recent edit feeds for nowiki-added. For fun, leave edit summaries that you are cleaning up VE problems. It would take several editors solely dedicated to VE-nowiki-cleanup to keep up with the rate these problems appear in recent edit feeds.

Regarding the balanced templates, one general benefit is that it reduces the load on the servers when saving or previewing an edit. It might make saves and previews slightly snappier for everyone, but it's an imperceptible difference and they can just throw more hardware at it instead. I attended the IRC meeting on it and commented at the very end, but it was clear they considered the matter fundamentally closed. They were only interested in discussing how to move forward with it. It's an interesting concept, but I'm seriously not sold on it. It looks like a bad idea to trade off "easier for the machine" in exchange for "more complicated for humans". I'm pretty sure I see odd cases where balanced templates lead to confusing-as-fuck page mangling. They have bizarre side effects on the wikitext. Alsee (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Then we'll need to fight them whenever that happens! As for cleaning up VE edits, I did more than my share after the initial dramatic VE deployment, when nearly all edits had severe nowiki problems (really ruining many articles). After a while, thanks to the Product Manager of VE and the community liaison whose only interest was defending VE (not Elitre, the other one), I stopped cleaning up VE problems. They caused the mess by deploying untested things over and over again, they could clean it up. I have better things to do with my time than that. Like pointing out WMF problems on enwiki, there are enough of those... Fram (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

At village pump the liaison said the WMF plans to ignore this issue for the next week. I really wanted to give the WMF a chance here, but that is not a reasonable or acceptable response. If we don't get some constructive response in the next day or so I'll probably open a Pump Proposal on this. I'll cite WMF stats establishing that VE has zero benefit for new users.

The WMF plans to deploy VE-default at all wikis. (Here's their mw:VisualEditor/Rollouts workpage for it.) I'm pretty sure I can contact Sänger at German wiki to translate and run an RFC there. Fram/Beetstra can either of you translate to any language for posting at other wikis? Or know anyone who would be willing and able to do so? I'm thinking maybe including a section about the WMF making good faith deployments. If wikis representing a majority of editors express a "Primary" editor choice, and the WMF deploys at wikis that have not expressed any preference, then the WMF should make a good faith deployments presuming local consensus is in line with majority consensus.

While I'm at it here is a ping to BethNaught to check this issue, and because the WMF's "We're going to ignore this for a week" makes me want to pull the trigger on the Flow RFC while we're at it. Alsee (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alison Rapp

I would actually (in theory) agree with pre-emptively salting that due to the massive BLP headache it is going to cause when it is able to be created as an article. Its going to hit a GNG in a few days and likely qualify her for her own article. Bear in mind at this point the reliable sources that are already discussing it. Its going to be impossible to police a Rapp BLP due to the various publications that are commenting on it, and the detail they are going into. Its going to be allegations a-go-go. However the disingenous way it has been salted is really not neccessary. "Salted to prevent BLP violations until notability established" should be enough for anyone given the circumstances. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, simply salting it for GamerGate reasons may be acceptable (perhaps, I haven't looked at it in such detail but her name plus Gamergate gives a lot of hits), but not with the reason given and not, preferably, by him. Perhaps another article on the subject has indeed been recently deleted and these are spelling variations, but I haven't found any evidence of this. Fram (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For future reference: after a long period of harrassment (including some people who identify as gamergaters) Rapp was fired by Nintendo from her customer-facing job. She tweeted about it publically, followed a day later by Nintendo making a statement regarding the reason: her having another undisclosed job (sensibly without providing details). She responded confirming that was the reason she was let go, again without confirming specifics. (This can all be sourced reliably from primary sources: Both parties) The speculation and news stories (including at least one from a secondary reliable source - incidentally which is anti-gamergate) are around the opposition research that went on by her detractors that may have led Nintendo to fire her. "Is opposition research justified when it throws up legitimate concerns?" etc etc. The BLP violating material (as it stands at this moment) - if it is true, would be perfectly reasonable grounds for any customer focused company that specialises in marketing to children, to part ways with one of its public faces. Personally I would class any Rapp biography as a BLP1E issue at the moment though, hence my comment that pre-emptively blocking article creation is not by itself a terrible idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's also why I haven't argued for unsalting them, just like I haven't argued for un-revdeling these reddit links. I would not have pre-emptively salted them, but that's debatable. But he should have used the right reasons for it. The Revdels were wrong, but the links were not that interesting or good that I want them to be restored. (And of course in that case the Involved issue is more important still; with Rapp, claiming involvement would be a stretch, that would basically topic-ban Gamaliel from Gamergate which may be a bridge too far). Fram (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

MFD

Fram, your name needs no introduction, though over the past seven years I can't recall at this moment if we've interacted much. You did imply once in a MFD close that I have some decency and intelligence, so I think you are able to see through my sometimes sophomoric antics outside mainspace. Life is truly too short and that is the way I approach Misplaced Pages dramas. Though I contribute regularly to the Signpost via the Traffic Report, I'm not wired into leadership there in any way. And I don't suspect I can solve Gamaliel's battles. But I would ask you to consider withdrawing Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery as it violates no policy by itself. It would be a bad precedent for editorial independence of the Signpost (outside of the application of BLP) to have this deleted. Certainly commentary about the wisdom of the article in comments or other forums, as one sees fit, would be appropriate. Hopefully you'll consider my request. Cheers.--Milowent • 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Fram, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 02:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Length of statement at WP:RFAR in BLP case

Hi Fram, I currently make the length of your statement in this case to be in excess of 1500 words, where the instructions make it clear that "Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words". Can you please reduce the length of your statement to be in line with this standard? If the case is accepted, as it looks like it will be, discussion can take place through the evidence and workshop sections. Lankiveil 05:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram

Part of your evidence submitted at this page appears to violate the policy on BLP. I this evidence is required then it should be submitted to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org . This has been carried out as a clerk action and should not be reverted without express permission from the Arbitration committee. Amortias (T)(C) 21:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence page stalker: not seeing it. Which part? NE Ent 02:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I presume the reddit link. I have asked for an explanation on the evidence talk page. User:Amortias, thanks for the note. Fram (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Tan Sri Dato' Seri Musa Bin Dato' Haji Hassan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tan Sri Dato' Seri Musa Bin Dato' Haji Hassan. Since you had some involvement with the Tan Sri Dato' Seri Musa Bin Dato' Haji Hassan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence over length limits

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is around 863 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Automobile awards by continent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Automobile awards by continent, which you created, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Automobile awards. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

email incoming

Okay, I see two reddit entries. Kotaku looks problematic but they always are for everybody. Wiki seems okay except it links to kotaku? Not sure what I'm missing. --DHeyward (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The ryulong sexual innuendo, I guess, is the reason for the oversight of the one. Seems over the top, but oh well, the main problem is not that we need that link anywhere but at the evidence (it's not the kind of link otherwise needed anywhere), but that Gamaliel was definitely not the person to use revdel on it as he was clearly the focus of that discussion (despite his claims to the contrary). I hope that the arbcom will look at it in any case. Fram (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We must be looking at different threads as ryulong isn't mentioned. I don't see anything sexual, either. Was it a screenshot? Live link looks pretty clean. --DHeyward (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

He was the last commentator, IIRC. No interest in checking it again now, sorry. Fram (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Gargamel

Dang, stop reading my mind. I was just about to put in an RPP extension request.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 11:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A big thanks to whoever invented the watchlist! And thank you for keeping an eye on that article and reverting when needed. Fram (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology

Hi Fram, re your comment at Arbitration talk: I have no idea where to put this, but you can add this one:

• Gibbs's thermodynamic surface, created and "expanded" by Wikicology on 9 Jan 2016 (), redirected to original Maxwell's thermodynamic surface by DVdm on 19 March 2016 ().

In case you are interested, see also User talk:DVdm#Olatunde olalekan (aka Wikicology). Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Fram, I came to your TalkPage to drop a message for Seema Malaka and could not help but notice this message about this problem child called "Wikicology". I have had some frustrating experiance with him in the past. I noticed that he has created lots of pages and was running sort of "adoption and coaching" centre. I have mamrked them for deletion, but few I cannot touch like this and this. I am not very sure what is the use of these pages but am highlighting to you since you were involved in the ArbCom discussion. Your can check his talkpage for the pages I have marked for deletion. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Things like .css and .js (stylesheets and extra personal settings) are usually left alone even after an editor is blocked or banned. Other subpages (with content) can be deleted of course, as far as I am concerned. Fram (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Violation of WP:NPA. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical). Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Seema Malaka

Hello Fram, I reverted your edit on Seema Malaka on AGF because the temple is actually used as an assembly hall and a vocational training institute. If you check the Gangaramaya website, it is clearly written there quote " the ‘seema malaka’ – an assembly hall for monks – in the picturesque Beira Lake and a vocational training institute". I personally feel that the description on their website is not very apt. I visited the temple in May 2016 (both the places) and spent hours there. Seema Malaka, apart from ocassional prayers, is primarly used as an assembly hall and a vocational training institute. How do you suggest we take this forward? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You misread the source, I'll annotate the source to make it clearer.

"a vibrant complex comprising A the Gangaramaya temple, B the ‘seema malaka’ – an assembly hall for monks – in the picturesque Beira Lake and C a vocational training institute." (a, b and c added by me)

The (C) vocational training institute is mentioned lower in the "About" page as "Sri Jinaratana Vocational Centre". The Seema Malaka is (or was) one of the three parts of the Gangarayama complex, not all three of them.

• Hello Fram, thanks for your quick revert. Since you reverted the edit, I will leave it as it is and will write to the temple authorities to get clarity (and if needed, ask them to correct their website). Just to let you know what I saw there A) Gangaramaya temple, which also has big assembly place, museum etc. B) Seema Malaka, which has an assembly hall and a vocational training institute (as a matter of fact the main temple hall is actually an assembly hall). C) Sri Jinaratana Vocational Centre is a concrete building adjoining the lake where big vocational training institute operates. It is closer to Seema Malaka than to Gangaramaya temple. I never said Seema Malaka is "all three of them"; I have physically visited the places and know that they are geographically different - we both are on the same page. The only thing we are discussing is the use of premises. As I had said earlier, "I personally feel that the description on their website is not very apt". Thanks for pointing that out and I will seek clarity from them on this issue. Until then, I wont make any edits on this page (for this subject). I the future, if I am going back the description I originally intended, I will keep you informed. Thanks for the help. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your understanding and patience! Fram (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines including for disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

DYK tweak

Hey Fram, saw you changed the DYK hook for 1973 Kentucky Derby from 1:592⁄5 to 1:59.4. . Can you please change it back to 2⁄5? The reason is because in 1973 races were timed in fifths of a second and the time recorded in those records was in fractional form. I know that the decimal is equivalent, but it looks funny for that historic race. Thanks! Montanabw 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Comment of the Day Barnstar
		For this comment, which made me smile. WaggersTALK 11:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

ʻUelingatoni Ngū

Could you please move to User:KAVEBEAR/Ngu to ʻUelingatoni Ngū? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of user:Messina

Hi Fram, you recently deleted the article Jan Pfeffer by a sockpuppet of the globally banned user:Messina. He is back with the new sockpuppet ShalomR.3 (talk · contribs) and the same article under the different name Johannes Pfeffer. Thanks, Schulhofpassage (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry about your recent move (Draft:Main Page)

Hello! I see that you moved the page I listed aboved. I need some explanation why you have moved this? It was listed on the Gadgets box, but barring discontinuation of the project itself, it shouldn't be moved. - gacelisnothing 07:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the Gadgets box? Fram (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it was listed in the CENT (centralized discussions) box. I have corrected that link. Anything else that needs to be done? Fram (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I will see later what should be done, but for now, you may leave it as-is - gacelisnothing 07:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC) (last edit: 07:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC))

Category:953 sculptures has been nominated for discussion

Category:953 sculptures, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Personal abuse issues

Hi Fram. Sorry to bother you out of the blue like this, but I've recently been involved in a content dispute over at Talk:Elizabeth Dilling with User:Signedzzz, as part of which they have begun posting personal abuse against me (see here and here). I have posted about this over at the administrator's noticeboard (here), although haven't received any responses from administrators thus far. Moreover, a second, independent incident has appeared at the noticeboard regarding this same user's abuse of another editor on another page (see here). While I fully appreciate that I am a partisan player in this incident and thus not free from bias, I wondered if – given that you were the administrator responsible for putting a block on Signedzzz before, again because of their personal abuse of another editor – this might be a situation you would be interested in weighing in on. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Antidotarium Nicolai

On 16 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antidotarium Nicolai, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Antidotarium Nicolai has been called "the bible of medieval practical pharmacy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antidotarium Nicolai. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Antidotarium Nicolai), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Per your previous administrative action, this talk page discussion may be of interest to you: . Montanabw 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin Task: page protected from creation

Fram, may I ask you to create the following page:

• Andrew Lowe
• with the content #REDIRECT ]
• and the edit-comment @creating #REDIRECT of ]-discoverer to ], also see ]

since the page is protected from creation. You're the only admin with whom I discussed a related topic, so here I am. My request is sound. Also see what links here?. Thank you for your help, Rfassbind – talk 09:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Done! Fram (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thx Fram! Could you please amend Andrew Lowe to:

#REDIRECT ]
{{Astro list redirect comment}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lowe, Andrew}}
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Unfortunately, since the page remains protected (from editing), I cannot do these amendments myself. Rfassbind – talk 11:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. The page is fully protected because some people repeatedly tried to create a page for an unrelated youtube-"celebrity" of the same name. Fram (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Lowe

Andrew Lowe has discovered 491 asteroids, which I think gives it notability. I was creating the article in my sandbox when I found out. If you disagree, leave a comment. JerrySa1 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lowe: his notability has been discussed less than a year ago, and the decision was that finding lots of asteroids is not sufficient as a claim to notability for Misplaced Pages. Fram (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thought that was about the celebrity. Thanks. JerrySa1 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Owls...

...Is it really surprising that an animal that has evolved over thousands of years to be a highly efficient rodent killing machine should succeed at it better than humans? :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, of course not. Even so, if one or two researchers had found 8 populations, while each owl sticks to one population, then who is the most efficient? :-) Fram (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well given an Owl's hunting range, I would still bet on the nature's silent winged death... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

True. I don't seem to get through to the hook writer though... Fram (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

As a seeker after accuracy, perhaps you would like to explain where the length of 137mm for this mouse came from. There seems to be a typo in the source which uses the word "both" unexpectedly, mentioning 86mm and a tail of 40mm. I interpreted the first figure as meaning total length because the mouse was described as small, you interpreted it differently but did not check your figures and ended up with 137mm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

: I did check my figures. Fram (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well you need to supply a reference for the length then because it is not supported by the present source. Surely you don't use inaturalist.org as a reliable source? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I removed that one after checking it again (before your post here). Fram (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Renaming articles

Before renaming articles on animals you should consult the relevant guidelines. This means you should reverse the page move you have just made for Notiomys. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Notiomys should become a disambiguation (or a page with explanation on its own), since we also have earlier members of the genus which have now been reassigned, but which were earlier considered members of the genus. E.g. Notiomys valdivianus, but also Notiomys delfini (now Chelemys delfini), and Chelemys macronyx which had different Notiomys names. We don't only deal with current names but also with history. Fram (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Notiomys is back where it should be . Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

LibertyVPS Deletion

Hello Fram, you recently deleted the page "LibertyVPS" as having 'No credible indication of importance'. This company is quite well known among the free-speech community. It provides solutions for free speech organisations in the developing countries where they would be shut down by the government. The company is also well known for the case of defending and hosting a website that released evidence of fraud by the Bermuda police. Which has been numeriously shut down by authorities, until LibertyVPS got involved. https://www.academia.edu/27305142/The_Affect_of_Censorship_on_Individuals_and_Companies_Online It has also been recently mentioned on WND news http://www.wnd.com/markets/news/read/32563004 Would you please consider reinstating the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrydow (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Academia.edu is not a reliable source, it is user-uploaded content. The wnd source is a press release by LibertyVPS, not an article about them. You need indepth sources about LibertyVPS from reliable, independent sources (general newspapers or magazines and the like, not free speech websites or fora) to indicate any notability for the company. Fram (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

— Okay, thank you for your response. If I would find independent sources (newspapers or magazines), would that be acceptable? May I re-submit the article then? Karrydow (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It still may be deleted (or nominated for deletion), but good sources would certainly reduce the cahnce of that happening. Fram (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of entry "Dustycloud"

Hello,

You deleted my page https://en.wikipedia.org/Dustycloud

It was still a work in progress.. can you please reinstate it so that I may continue to build and make it better?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1101entertainment (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a place for neutral articles on notable subjects, not a website to promote artists you represent. Fram (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci

Hi, Fram. I've been talking with Mathsci about unblock conditions on his page, and I think that his answers to my questions (after a bit of a false start) have been very reasonable, especially this bit: I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills. I think he's sincere. Of course sincerity now doesn't preclude backsliding later. But many people will be watching him, and quite a few admins will surely be prepared to re-block if there's cause. And I'll warn him that we may well go straight to to indef, this time most likely permanently, if the problems recur. What do you say? Bishonen | talk 14:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

The main problem I still see (after reading his comments up till Friday and your post here, perhaps things have changed inbetween) is that he still doesn't see the problem with his comments. The "belittling other editors with different skills" (while obviously not a good thing to do) wasn't the main problem, the battleground behaviour (edit warring, even to keep his own copyright violation on a talk page) and the personal attacks (his descriptions of some comments as being about French culture and the like, which indicated that he didn't see the skill of other people as the problem, but the racist or discriminatory position he (alone) perceived in these rather innocuous remarks) were. I still see very little recognition of this, but one could argue that his proposed course of action will result in the right result anyway. I'm not sure about this, but I'm not going to stop anyone from unblocking (assuming he is still blocked by now) or complain about it. If you or another admin feels that his reassurances are reasonable enough to unblock and at least give him another chance, then you/they are free to do so. Fram (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked on conditions as outlined and agreed to here. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

Thank you for your note here and for the way you have handled this. Fram (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hired armed tender Elizabeth

Dear Fram, I resent your deletion notice. It is sanctimonious, pettifoggig actions such as this that drive editors away from Misplaced Pages. Notability is a stupid criterion because of its subjectivity, and because it militates against Misplaced Pages being a repository for the world's knowledge. When I start researching something I don't know where it will lead. In some cases unpromising beginnings have turned up some interesting stories; other cases have been less successful. In this case I have not been able to find anything in the Naval Chronicle, the London Gazette, or Lloyd's List, so it is unlikely that I will be able to do more. Even in the less successful cases once I have done the work I put the article up if for no other reason than that it may prevent someone else from wasting their time. At best it may provide some genealogist a moment's delight. When storage is cheap, deleting the article makes me and possibly others worse off, without helping anyone; that is pretty much the opposite of Paretto optimality. Clearly, your mileage differs. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We have to draw the line somewhere, or everyone can start articles about their house, their boat, their company, their band, the people who lived in their house over the past 100 years, or anything else one might fancy. Thousands of pages get speedy deleted, and many others get deleted after discussion. Your article, while clearly better than much of the crap that gets added every day, falls below these commonly accepted standards. Fram (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I continue to disagree, on a number of grounds. It is my understanding that WP:Ships has adopted the policy that all ships are notable. More broadly, again, given that memory is virtually free, if an article is well done, one should lean towards preservation of the information, not its destruction. One criterion one might use is whether or not the article is by an editor who has published a lot in the area. A second criterion is whether the article cites legitimate sources; I would argue that Rif Winfield is a legitimate source, as is the National Maritime Museum (NMM). Third, one should consider context. Please note that The NMM has asked Misplaced Pages to use their database and provide feedback: see Misplaced Pages:GLAM/National Maritime Museum/Warship Histories Done. I am almost the only contributor to that project. My entries frequently point out where the NMM database is wrong. (I have done the same with Rif.) The reason there are mistakes is not that the NMM or Rif are sloppy, but that Admiralty records are sometimes, and also limited. I can and have drawn on French, Dutch, and Danish sources for my articles. I have also drawn on biographies and other histories. Net-net, when an experienced editor does something, perhaps one should assume that they know something of the topic and cut them some slack. Finally, context is where I have a scientific objection to notability. Focusing on notability is, as statisticians say, selecting on the dependent variable. In a book titled "The Millionaire next Door", two university economists, who should not have made such a rookie mistake, surveyed millionaires to learn what their secrets were. Not surprisingly, key answers were thrift and hard work. I have known a number of thrifty, hardworking people who will never be millionaires; that is not the answer. In the Napoleonic ships area, focusing on notability would lead one to do articles only on ships of the line (because they are big and so important), and vessels that took part in actions that resulted in the awarding of clasps to the Naval General Service Medal (1847). This would lead one to miss, first, a number of engagements where the Royal Navy did badly, particularly when this was due to having made a mistake. Second, something is notable precisely because it is atypical, and focusing in on the notable means one misses the overall story. During the American Revolution, French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, War of 1812, and First and Second World Wars, Britain's maritime trade made it a target-rich environment for its enemies. To understand Britain's strategy means one has to look at a lot of things that are not notable. One cannot understand the Battle of the Atlantic by looking only at big carriers, battleships, and battle cruizers, notable as sinking the Bismark is. One also has to look at boom patrol vessels, Flower-class corvettes, destroyer escorts, armed merchantmen, armed trawlers, and on and on, most of which never even fired a shot in anger. One also has to see what was tried and didn't work. Anyway, I have gone on too long, motivated by caring about the topic. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's why an entry on "hired armed vessels" (or even HAV in war X or in army Y) is necessary, just like, I don't know, an article on "trench digging in WWI" may be a very valuable subject (I haven't checked if we have one or not). I presume you would agree that we can't and shouldn't have an article on every soldier or civilian digging trenches during WWI. That's a reductio ad absurdum, I know, but these help to illustrate a point. That a subject, a group, is notable and essential for a more thorough overview of a topic, doesn't mean that the individual examples of that subject are notable and should all get articles. If all you can say is basically (imaginary example) "HAV X is an example of a HAV. It is noted between 1800 and 1815 and was in the Baltic Sea close to Riga in 1812", then this adds no understanding about the subject of HAVs and their role in the war. Fram (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram: I see that the Iron Law of Oligarchy wins again. And Misplaced Pages wonders why editors are getting thinner and thinner on the ground. (And by at least one admin I know personally.) By all means, let's privilege neatness over information. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk)

Deprodding of Zigma8

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Zigma8, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

PAID

So I never saw a "request", I saw a "suggestion" from you, just like the guideline "encourages" certain actions it is not actually against guidelines to do edits to an article when I am up front about it and I always am. And yes I did not notice that Bank Day was already in the top part of the list, my bad, thank you for catching that. I did not go through all the existing sources, I was given a source for a non-contentious fact, they were members of 4As and I added it, end of story. As for deletion, I have no more skin in that game than a couple of edits so really I don't care. I know COI is bad because "I am likely to do something against the rules because I get paid", but really once the short term gig is done I don't care, and I would not actually take a gig to "save it from deletion" unless the person hiring me could provide me with reliable third party sources to add to the article.  MPJ-DK  11:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: if a guidelines says that "You are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles.", you need very good reasons not to follow this in exceptional cases, not just ignore it and edit like that regardless. Such a text in a guideline is not a "suggestion", it is a clear request. I'll change it for you into a formal warning: you need to make all your paid edits on the talk page of the articles involved, not directly in the articles, as it is clear that too many of your paid edits are problematic and need to be checked. Fram (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"discourage" is not the same as not allowed, yet you claim they are. Because I made 1 mistake in 1 paid edit since your "warning" there is no reason to take a draconian, unilateral action like that. And for what? Adding a source that was basically already in the article? Really? I'm sorry I am not interested in your axe grinding, my focus will be on improving my skills and observance of all written guidelines. Cheers and may today be your oyster and tomorrow be your pladipus.  MPJ-DK  11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't see "not allowed" because there are always exceptions (e.g. you edit the talk page, no one objects in three months, and then you decide to make the edit to the article yourself; or your remove some urgent, serious BLP violation after a paid request (although that edit should happen unpaid, but that's another issue)). The action I take is not "draconian" at all, it is just making sure that you will follow the guideline in letter and spirit, not just in letter. Whether you are interested or not doesn't concern me, it would simply be a lot better for you and your editing future if you followed this instead of carrying on regardless. Fram (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bodmin Borough Police

I was away for a couple of weeks and missed the deletion proposal. I would like to comment that your statement "Every village in every country has or had similar police forces" is patent nonsense, and should not really ever have been admitted as an argument for deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

AC continued

We seem to be talking past each other, and that particular page seems the wrong place for such debate. Someone mentioned a 500-word limit, and you and I are at 4,668 and 4,823 words respectively, with no apparent progress towards understanding each other. So I'll try this page instead.
I do not dispute that Main Page has chronic problems that might be improved by ArbCom. I do not compare the severity of those problems with that of TRM's behavior problems, as there is no need to do so. I merely assert that that and TRM's problematic behavior, which is by no means restricted to Main Page but follows him everywhere he goes within the project, should be handled separately and independently, without linking one to the other. I assert that while intimidation by verbal abuse may result in a superficial improvement to the immediate problem, TRM's habitual use of the tactic is a net negative for the project. It's not just TRM but every editor who follows his example—all believing their judgment is far superior to that of their targets whether it is or not—and it doesn't take much imagination to consider that the behavior drives off or deters a large number of potentially good editors of the more mild-mannered variety. There are other, better ways to protect quality, even if editors like TRM are not capable of them. Thuggery is thuggery even when words are used instead of fists, and regardless of the results. Ends do not justify means, and that's why we prevent cops from just beating the crap out of every criminal they come in contact with. Civilized societies do not behave this way, and Misplaced Pages should strive to be a civilized society.
Address TRM's chronic behavior at ArbCom. Address Main Page problems at ArbCom. Just don't combine and link the two issues at ArbCom or anywhere else. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not very familiar with ITN, so I have no comment on how he behaves there. At DYK, he usually is civil though direct. I don't see a problem of TRM verbally abusing people there, but I do see a problem if TRM would be driven away or stripped of his admin rights as he is one of the few actively working there to maintain quality. As some people mentioned me and/or DYK in the Arbcom case before I commented, and the scope of the case was still very unclear and might include DYK in general as well, I thought it best to give my perspective. As for the word limit, I haven't checked it but are you sure that we aren't at nearly 5,000 characters instead of words? More than 4,000 words really is a lot... Fram (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I did read the results wrong. 832 and 818 words respectively, still well over the limit already. Well I don't claim to follow TRM around, and I never go to DYK or ITN. But, from what I've seen at RD and elsewhere, he is quick to comment in an acrid, condescending, demeaning, inflammatory tone when someone makes an argument that he considers absurd (and that's pretty much any argument that disagrees with his position). Disgree with him once, and you might be tolerated. Persist with one more comment and his tolerance of your obvious ignorance is likely to be exceeded. The strategy is to solve the problem by belittling and intimidating the target into submission, a strategy that is incompatible with a collaborative project and has outlived any usefulness it once had. I and a growing number of others aim to change the widespread use of that strategy, and we can only do it one editor at a time. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

GA delistings

Fram, I was wondering whether you'd mind if I regularized the Talk:Kadmat Island and Talk:Kaunakes pages by putting your delisting comments onto a formal individual GA reassessment for each. This would also allow an Article History section to be started, which will link to the listing and delisting reviews. As it stands now, it's a bit of a mess. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not very good with the more formal aspects of these. Fram (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll also take care of Talk:Sacred Jackfruit Tree while I'm at it. Glad you're keeping an eye out for these. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Detry

On 3 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Detry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that golfer Thomas Detry broke the Challenge Tour record for largest winning margin with his 12-shot win at the 2016 Bridgestone Challenge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Detry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Detry), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Time sink

Hey Fram. Thanks, just a heads-up, you will find that attempting to discuss things with certain users will rapidly become a timesink as the last word principle seems to apply. You're better off just keeping the quality of the main page up. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

True, but I try to get my reply in at least once. After that, it depends on the quality of the responses I get. I'm discussing things with WMF people at the moment in another discussion, so I am used to timesinks and fruitless discussions, but it's sometimes amazing how many people on the sidelines you can convince even if the person you are discussing things with remains stubborn. Fram (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Having dealt with the unbelievable attempts to provide misleading or incorrect information to our readers at the ref desks, and trying to remedy that, I've discovered that timesinks exist across a lot of Misplaced Pages, and that some people are just here for the social aspects. I thought we had WP:NOTFACEBOOK (oo, we do!) but perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Social aspects", on wikipedia? More like the anti social aspects...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 620 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 11:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed evidence provided by an IP, 188.220.246.23, at The Rambling Man's Arbitration hearing and then blocked the IP's account. Would you care to explain? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ban evasion. Note also how IP 188.220.246.23 put his evidence in the section for 86.168.124.54 (whose evidence was deleted repeatedly (not by me) and the IP blocked by Drmies). See the block log for 188.220.246.23, where mine is the fourth block in a month, all for the same reason. should tell you all there is to know. Note the advice there: "Do not engage in their discussions. Do not feed the trolls. Simply Revert, block, ignore. " The editor is banned since 2011. Finally, the "evidence" was about a main page article (so not DYK / ITN / ref desk), concerning edits between the banned editor and FPaS, not TRM. You can still read the evidence in the history, if you think there's something there or if you feel that I have hidden any evidence relating to TRM or otherwise was acting in an involved capacity. Fram (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a reasonable explanation. I just thought it strange that you were removing evidence when I would have expected that to be a job for the Clerk. It would certainly be wrong for me to remove your evidence, for example :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, if the only reason had been "not about this case", then I would have left it to a clerk. But WP:DENY is best done as fast as possible, to make it less interesting for the banned user to continue to post things. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Fram, I'm dont normally maintain DYK hooks - but there was a notice on WP:AN that queue 1 has a hole in it, apparently from your edit; I've commented out this line for now - feel free to address in any way that is appropriate if you want to. Best regards, — xaosflux 15:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Fram. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Adjutant Generals of Illinois has been nominated for discussion

Category:Adjutant Generals of Illinois, 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. Bearcat (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Pax

It has been suggested that we take our differences to Arbcom but I do not think that appropriate. It states there "The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed" and I doubt we are anywhere near that. Anyway, it would be a distraction and a great waste of time when I would prefer to be building an encyclopedia.

I think you do a useful service at DYK but I don't like the way you treat other editors when you find errors. You have been sniping at me for some time on the DYK discussion page. I think some of your statements about me both inaccurate and exaggerated but I have chosen to react little until just over a week ago when I thought you treated MPJ-DK unfairly. My thread "Vanity" could be construed as being a personal attack on you, but your evidence to the TRM case predated that and I consider it was a personal attack on me.

So here is an offer. If you stop referring to me in a derogatory manner at the DYK discussion page and elsewhere, I will stop reciprocating. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"I have chosen to react little until just over a week ago when I thought you treated MPJ-DK unfairly. My thread "Vanity" could be construed as being a personal attack on you, but your evidence to the TRM case predated that and I consider it was a personal attack on me." The thread "vanity" wsa started by you, discussing two examples: the Grobbelaar hook, which had nothing to do with MPJ-DK, and a hook from you from 2014. It's a bit hard to see how that has anything to do with me supposedly treating MPJ-DK unfairly. It looked and looks a lot more like you feeling that you were treated unfairly. My evidence at the ArbCom case? Quoting a clear personal attack by you, which you then repeated in the evidence section as well. If pointing out that you make personal attacks, with evidence of such an attack, is in itself a personal attack, then you don't know what ArbCom cases are about.

With Ritchie333 posting the link to that editor review of yours from 2014, I note that there already you tried to "defend" yourself with utterly irrelevant questions only intended to poison the well: in that case, whether I had a Wikipediocracy account, in this case my status on Jimbo Wales' talk page. In both cases, you decided that a refusal to answer irrelevant questions is admitting that the answer is "yes". If you can't see the problem with that tactic (and conclusion), then there is little hope left to have a meaningful discussion with you. Even in your "pax" offering here, all I see is "you started it" and "you attacked me and I refrained from replying" and similar holier-than-thou statements. A genuine pax offering doesn't read like "I'm better than you, but I am willing to give you a second chance".

Seeing that the problems you cause at DYK go back since 2013-2014 (perhaps earlier, I haven't checked), I do think we are well into the "serious, entrenched and persistent dispute" area.

As for how I treat editors, you can look at e.g. the reaction of MPJ-DK in the "Corrected error in hook on Main Page, then removed it completely as it turns out to be wrong" section: "What the? I'm at a loss for words for such an f'up. Mighty be time to hang up the tights." Now compare it to the reaction of the editor who reviewed this hook. Fram (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)