Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steel1943 (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 6 March 2018 (→ANI notice: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Community Wishlist

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

Considering that I was close to getting you blocked for your role here in the Flow debacle (and considering the effort it took to get Flow finaly disabled here later), and the problems you had with communicating with the enwiki editing community (communication in the sense of listening to what people had to say and responding to it in a meaningful way, not just repeating the WMF talk over and over again, or worse pretending to listen but do the WMF will anyway) and that e.g. some really terrible Community Liaisons are still active despite years of problems in their role, I don't think it is really fruitful to repeat my complaints once again. Just follow WP:VPT for a while and you will see a lot of my complaints pass there. Or look at some contentious Phabricator tickets or Meta Flow pages and the way some community members (from here or dewiki) get shooed away for venting their frustration after polite comments get ignored again and again. The last time I actively contributed was at the 2014 Community lisaisons product survey, and that experience was so frustrating (and only confirmed by later encounters with WMF products and their (WMF))named defenders) that I don't spend any more time there. Fram (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@DannyH (WMF):. I forgot to express in my previous post that, while I don't think us discussing this is useful, I appreciate you making the effort to come here. Anyway, just look at the current discussion at VPT about the Wikidata descriptions to see the problems in discussing things with the WF on too many cases, the unpleasant surprises on has when comparing what was promised (turning off a "feature") with what is actually done (turning it off in one place only, leaving it active with the exact same problems elsewhere without any indication of this), and the trouble of getting some WMF people to actually read what people write, instead of the rosy-tinted things they want to read. How they concluded from my comments that I believe that "feature" to be "a step in the right direction" is beyond me. Fram (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Borderline racist attacks

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

The user got blocked at WP:AN3. That should be enough for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I wasn't online to take any action at the time. Fram (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Years of the 2nd century in Asia

Category:Years of the 6th century BC in Asia, Category:Years of the 5th century BC in Asia, Category:Years of the 2nd century BC in Asia and Category:Years of the 2nd century in Asia are now empty and liable to be deleted, following Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_29#Ancient_periods_by_continent. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Yoga Vidya Gurukul

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

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

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

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

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

We really appreciate your input!

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

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

Warning

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

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

ANI 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 Disruption at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand. Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Melun

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

You are referring twice to the same category, so your question doesn't really make sense. Fram (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you didn't, I see. "d'Espinoy" means "Of Espinoy", "of d'Espinoy" is a duplication which doesn't exist. The category "Princes of d'Espinoy" should be deleted. Fram (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, i know what it means, but is it correct both different titles are owned by the house of Melun? See Lords of d'Espinoy--Carolus (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

you did not answer my question, so i kindly ask you to replace the article, the sources are very clear there is nothing wrong with the title. And reply to my question above, otherwise i will delete the whole thing, again you do not show respect for others.--Carolus (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"he sources are very clear there is nothing wrong with the title." Allright, then please show me a source using "lord of d'espinoy" or "prince of d'espinoy". Fram (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no "both different titles", "Prince of d'Epinoy" doesn't exist. I have moved it to Draft:Lords of d'Espinoy as the title is totally wrong, and the list of lords is quite wrong as well. Hugues III is the son of Isabeau. This book, old as it is, gives perhaps the best description, better certainly than the sources from 1724 or 1730. Please first work in draft space or in your sandbox to research all these problems before putting these things into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not create Prince of Epinoy, but eSpinoy do not hold me respnsible for other peoples errors.--Carolus (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You created the "Lords of d'Espinoy" article, and you moved the category: "Carolus moved page Category:Princes of Epinoy to Category:Princes of d'Espinoy: correction of the name". Please don't lie. Fram (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

No, I just think that you are once again getting highly disruptive. Once again, please show me a source using "lord of d'espinoy" or "prince of d'espinoy". Fram (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I left a message on the creator of Guillaume de Melun, Prince of Espinoy, if you can accuse him of creating princes that don't exist. Fine, your game.--Carolus (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw your message there. You don't seem to have understood anything of this conversation, do you? I never said that "Prince of Espinoy" doesn't exist, even though Prince of Épinoy is the most common form of the name. I said that your distinction in two categories was wrong, and that the name of your list and of your category (the one you moved) was totally incorrect, like I said right from the start: ""of d'Espinoy" is a duplication which doesn't exist." It is either Prince of Epinoy, or Prince d'Epinoy, but not the Franglais you invented. Fram (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are even not able to write my name without mistakes, then my point is proven.--Carolus (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Carolus Carolus Carolus. Can you now provide these sources for "Lord of d'Espinoy" or "Prince of d'Espinoy"? Fram (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Gone" but not forgotten...Domdeparis (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons is much easier, so not realy "gone".--Carolus (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Humm looks like you are already getting a few interesting conversations on you talk page there...happy editing! Domdeparis (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Closure request

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

ellinks

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

Yes, we have that category (dubious whether it is a feature though). So? Having that category is not something that helps our readers or editors. Many thousands of articles don't have an official website on Wikidata, many thousands have a different website here, so what? What is important is that we have the website, not that we can compare something here with something at Wikidata. Using the template is preferred by you and a few others, not as a rule. We have way too many enwiki-Wikidata comparison categories as it is, arguing that is preferred that these get populated is only reinforcing this circular reasoning. We need to show the correct information on enwiki, and there is no reason to believe that using Wikidata will help with this in general. Fram (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparing with Wikidata is a way to control whether we display the correct data. Comparing with another Wikimedia site works as a control for both sides. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparing with Wikidata is much more time consuming than simply following the link. Furthermore, the way you add most of these website links, you don't compare with Wikidata, you replace with Wikidata, which doesn't work as a control for both sides but removes changes to the the link from our view, relying on another wiki which much less active editors to somehow do a better job in keeping these links correct. This is a step backwards, not forwards. Fram (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

D You have got to be kidding me. Wikidata has far fewer editors than enwiki (make sure you don't count the supposed Wikidata editors who are just editors on some wiki who e.g. move or delete a page, these get counted on Wikidata as well despite never editing there). Vandalism on Wikidata gets hardly reverted. There are loads of edits on Wikidata, but the vast, vast majority are mindless repetitive tasks, not people actually looking at individual issues or at the edits others make. Fram (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Related Wikidata changes to a Misplaced Pages articel can be shown in your watchlist as far as I know. So every Misplaced Pages editor is potentially a Wikidata patroller. Am I wrong?

-- Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If you had actually read my post, you would have seen this already. Many Misplaced Pages editors have enabled this option and quickly disabled this again to keep their sanity intact. Fram (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Strategies for improving the descriptions

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

No problem. I thought that, now that the WMF comes with an actual proposal, it is best to get widespread participation on this (it wasn't really hidden but not extremely well publicized either), and I think that the more extreme positions are by and large already present in the discussion. But it's hard to be sure when and how to post it, so I have no problems with your revert. We'll see how others react, if no one can be bothered to readd it then it probably didn't belong there (yet). In any case, thanks for letting me know. Fram (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, any time. You make a good point. I'm thinking hard about this, I'll make another post soon, either here or on that page. My gut tells me that this is a more explosive issue than any I've seen in the last 10 years. And this is the WMF we're talking about, so that's saying something :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

More extreme positions? I didn't even suggest killing wikidata with fire yet! Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Heh. Just want to be clear that I'm not saying that Wikidata stuff does or doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages, in any context, or that anyone is being unreasonable. I'm actually not sure what I'm saying. I'll figure it out. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, what I'm saying is that i've been watching this stuff for 10 years, and I can't sit on the sidelines any more, because of the gravity of this particular issue, but also because stuff like this seems to just keep happening. I'm batting around some subversive ideas with people. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Got it. There are a few WMF people I'm comfortable talking with; I'm going to try to impress on them how serious the situation is, and where I think things might be headed. If that doesn't work, I'll talk with Wikipedians about a kind of escalation that might be effective and fair. What I'm doing might take a while, so don't wait for me ... please feel free to re-post at CENT whenever you think the time is right. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

In my view the next step should be a tightly focused RfC confirming that what we said in March applies to the apps and if they still won't take the descriptions down, then I intend to seek indefinite blocks on en-WP for the WMF employees who are responsible for the decision not to withdraw. What they have done violates WP:Bot policy, WP:CONSENSUS of the en-WP community, exposes us to BLP and V violations, and breaks the fundamental deal of the entire movement (we write, WMF publishes). It is a sort of constitutional crisis in my view. The WMF needs to back out of making content decisions. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, if there were two RfCs going on at the same time, one similar to the one i'm suggesting and one similar to yours, i'd probably vote in the first one and avoid the second one. You might ask around about what kind of RfC people want to participate in. Having said that, I know you guys will do a good job with this. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The March RfC showed that we do care about it. The problem with the descriptions on mobile became visible to us; we were just unaware of the apps. The WMF's decision to force the description into all articles is as radical as Putin just taking Crimea. This cannot be allowed to stand. The en-WP community taking the kind of measures you suggest is just surrendering to an abuse of power that never should have happened. I am still hoping the WMF wakes up and backs off without the community putting yet more time into this. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That first sentence sounds like you agree with me (I may be misunderstanding). I'm sure that Wikipedians care about any text that appears to be Misplaced Pages text, regardless of what server the text resides on, including so-called page descriptions. I don't know how strongly Wikipedians feel about the app that recommends Misplaced Pages pages. If mobile Misplaced Pages pages are going to start showing descriptions at the top (a random selection are not showing page descriptions, at the moment), then I'm proposing that one of the options in the RfC should be that we do a number of things that would effectively get text that comes from Misplaced Pages rather than Wikidata text into as many of those page descriptions as possible, as soon as possible, and make Misplaced Pages the place where all the editing happens. That's not everything we could possibly want, but it's a reasonable step to deal with the thing that people seem to be concerned about at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we are not discussing the same thing. There are two main ways WMF has used the brief descriptions. They started using it as a navigation aid, to show what is at a link. They kind of crept from doing that, to actually adding it to the top of Misplaced Pages articles. They did that first in the android and iOS apps, then in the mobile view. Due the March RfC they removed it from mobile (so you will not see it there), but they did not apply the RfC outcome to the android and iOS apps where they were doing the same thing, since 2015. So there is a) navigation-aid, and b) mini-lead in articles. I have been focusing on (b) - the actual intervention by WMF in content, and indeed as the first thing people read when they get to an article; it is a high impact thing, and meant to be. I am a bit troubled by the navigation-aid use (which is also high impact, but is not directly intervening in content) but am not focusing on that now... Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then the point I'm making about not seeing it at the moment is irrelevant ... I'll strike that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

several people have suggested that the en-WP community should find one way or another to accommodate the WMF's demand for brief descriptions at the top of WP articles. I do not find that sort of interaction with the WMF to be acceptable. What you and others have proposed deals with the problem that the WMF created; in my view we are not doing ourselves any favors by leaving the deeper governance issue unaddressed - -namely their creating the problem by overstepping and refusing to step back.

fwiw a similar overstepping thing ~appears~ to me, to be happening with the anti-harassment team. Please see here. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you that bad things are happening and something needs to be done about it. I could be wrong, but I think Wikipedians might actually like the idea of having a short description for as many pages as possible, and might want to display this description, maybe not where the WMF wants to display it, but somewhere prominent. Just the awesomeness of having a short description available for popups might be worth the time invested (unless people tend to get hot under the collar arguing about proper descriptions ... but I don't want to just assume they will or they won't, I want to see it in action). You see my problem? I don't want to write a manifesto on the evilness of the WMF in forcing page descriptions on us, only to find out that we actually like page descriptions. It might come across as an out-of-proportion response to a fixable problem. Other problems may need a manifesto, for all I know. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Short descriptions might be useful. I have no interest in manifestos. I do have an interest in correcting the specific overstepping by the reading team here. The two are completely separate things. The WMF needs to step back and undo their overstep. If editors want to discuss creating short descriptions that is great. The only place the two intersect, is in the WMF's demands, which I reject. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you live with an RfC that as one option has something like my proposal, and as another option has something like yours, with the addition that if they do what we ask, then we will make a good-faith effort to see if a program of Misplaced Pages-based page descriptions is desirable and possible?

They are separate things. In my view we best handle them from the foundation up. We get the WMF to step back. Then we can see if the enWP community wants to try to give the WMF what they are demanding, and if the WMF will accept what we are willing to give them. It is so important to move with procedural clarity. Screwed up governance leads to endless repetitions and wastes of time. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If you go that way, I recommend having a discussion (it doesn't need to be 30 days) that verifies that the community still wants now what they wanted back in March. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Changed my mind, I can't recommend this with or without a prior discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That is what I wrote above -- In my view the next step should be a tightly focused RfC confirming that what we said in March applies to the apps and if they still won't take the descriptions down, then I intend to seek indefinite blocks on en-WP for the WMF employees who are responsible for the decision not to withdraw. First the RfC on short descriptions on the apps. If they say "OK, we will take them down" then we can go on to your suggestion. If they say "no", then I will want to take the indefinite block fork. I understand that you and others might still want to run with the "what shall we offer them" RfC. But the first one should be the "yes/no" to the wikidata-forced-into-WP discussion. (heck if people actually say "yes it is OK", we will all be done! That would surprise me but you never know) Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Terriffic Dunker Guy

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

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

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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

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

Copyright abuse question

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

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

Well...

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

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

Lascar (volcano)

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

Yes, I'm writing my message for the WT:DYK page as we speak (with pings to the involved persons). Fram (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Commented on WT:DYK and remedied some issues that were pointed out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Hello Fram:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Misplaced Pages, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLEAN

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

Request for Arbitration

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

WT:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs#Magic_word

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site

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

About ScorumME

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

Hhhhhkohhhhh there's also blocked user:ScorumCom, which renamed from account user:ScorumComBot. I also submitted the issue to WMF-legal for trademark concerns. The website scorumcoins.com / scorum.com / scorum.me was claiming to "partner" with Misplaced Pages. Alsee (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: Thanks, I have already reported on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ScorumCom, and now the case was closed. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD

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

Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request archived

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Richard Morris

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

Question

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

I don't think most of them really care what they are importing at all. Quantity is their only concern. I am not clear on what the laws are on importing databases wholesale, I seem to remeber that there were troubles in different countries in repeating or importing e.g. timetables (transport), TV schedules, Nielsen sales reports, ... The distinction between "the individual fact is not copyrightable" and "the compilation of facts is copyrightable" may well be lost on Wikidata. I haven't looked into this any further, I had and have plenty of reasons to reject all Wikidata data anyway (up to and including the Authority Control probably). Fram (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's kind of the problem. Wikidata is essentially a giant database. While individual facts are not copyrightable, importing an entire database into another database certainly is a problem (in the EU) as databases have protection on creation there. In the UK its a bit more subtle - a wide database compiled of publically available info from say the electoral roll (purely as an example) would almost never be protected. But likely a database/list compiled from public information that has significant 'effort' involved in its creation can be protected. If wikidata editors are importing other databases whole without considering this, I think there is a legal issue. Functionally the WMF has protection regardless, but consider the situation: An EU Misplaced Pages editor uses data from wikidata that has ultimately been imported whole into wikidata from an EU-protected database by someone else... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@OID, the legislation to which I assume they're referring is the Database Directive, which is one of the most misunderstood pieces of legislation of recent times; it explicitly weakened data protection requirements in the EU to below the previous Berne Convention standards. The key phrases are by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation and no other criterion may be used by Member States; this means that if some original thought went into the database it's automatically protected (e.g. "London Pubs Named After Sort-Of-Famous People"), but if the database is purely a collection of information (e.g. List of pubs in the City of London) it's explicitly uncopyrightable. If all you're doing is importing something like the catalogue of the Bibliothèque nationale, and the data being imported isn't annotated or sorted to the extent of constituting an original work, you don't need to worry; Wikidata has many issues but this isn't one of them. Assuming by "the other place" you mean Misplaced Pages Review, this wouldn't be the first time they were talking crap about something they don't understand, and it certainly won't be the last. (The "short descriptions" issue—regarding copyright of individual entries in a database when some actual original thought has gone into them—is something different; in that case, the fact that it's come from a database is a red herring as the copyright issue is no different to if Wikidata were taking the first line of the Misplaced Pages article, or the descriptions from books' dustjackets, without attribution.) ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

EJustice

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

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

Motion: Crosswiki issues

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:

(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Misplaced Pages is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.

(B) To allow the English Misplaced Pages community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.

(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Misplaced Pages that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).

(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Misplaced Pages for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.

(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.

(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.

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

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

RfC?

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

@Dank:

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

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

When?

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

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

The "When" questions are things that a broad range of Wikipedians will understand, but they might not make it to those questions if they don't understand the "Where" questions. What would you think of condensing those to a single "When" question, along the lines of "After Misplaced Pages policies are in place regarding where to use Wikidata (for instance, it might appear here but not there, here but not there)"? - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the "where" questions, I'm just anticipating that we'll need more than one RfC, so we don't need to do everything at once. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I try to take some distance from the whole Wikidata thing, which is toxic and brings out the worst in some people. Fram (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:MOSMETRO stations

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

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

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

User:TastyPoutine, fixed

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitino_(Moscow_Metro)&diff=814322701&oldid=805173525
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:MOSMETRO_stations&diff=prev&oldid=814323150

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

ANI Experiences survey

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

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

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

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

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Unesco WHS template

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

Example? The RfC was at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?. Feel free to suggest all improvements you feel are needed. Fram (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been complaining for many years, without the slightest impact. The information given is mostly useless bureaucratic nonsense of no interest to readers (and available by a click from UNESCO), and no important information on the site is given - date, purpose, culture, style. Its a triumph of anal cruftish train-spotting over encyclopedic information. At least keeping Wikidata out of it is the right move. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to somewhat improve it in general, by e.g. removing the UNESCO region ("Europe", "North America", that sort of thing) and instead adding, where appropriate, the actual size of the protected area, which in some cases gives a better idea of what we are dealing with. The other things you would like to see are less usable in an infobox. Fram (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that on La Madeleine (where I guess you saw this), the old version e.g. duplicated the website, coordinates, and map from the infobox right above it. I have removed the location, image and caption as they didn't add anything to the actual la Madeleine article either (removing parameters is much easier now than with the earlier version of the infobox though!) Fram (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I saw La Madeleine from this. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That's also possible of course ;-) Fram (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

WTF!

So your work is just to delete content anyhow?

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

Seasons' Greetings

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

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Authority control

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

TPS here, it probably has no current point. But because the article had Persondata before, it was migrated. It might have been relevant previously, but since that template was deleted, we don't know what it said even in the previous revisions. I cant see any of the current links have any use at all - they just appear to link to database entries that contain the same or less info than the Misplaced Pages article. Probably qualifies for removal under WP:ELNO. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I did remove it and then had second thoughts, thus reinstating the thing. Even after all the years I've been contributing here, I fear the wrath of Andy Mabbett and my ability to control my temper when faced with it! Is the overall point something akin to a worldwide social security number for every person who someone, somewhere thinks is of note? I can see massive scope for errors, eg: I recently had to contact Google because their top-right infobox doo-dah for Jean Alexander was showing her as the author of books such as Russian Aircraft Since 1940 (it still does!) - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Essentially Authority Control links an article to a number of external databases. The database link is generally taken from wikidata. Its entirely subject dependent on how useful it is. For some article subjects its an invaluable tool. For others its completely pointless. And it can vary over quite a wide range in-between. The common errors are as you have found, where wikidata contains incorrect information regarding the external database link/data. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

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

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

Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan

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

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

"Blues from the Apple" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Wikidata ...

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

But it's The Future of Misplaced Pages! How dare you criticize this, when enwiki also has errors? Either singlehandedly make enwiki error-free or accept everything the WMF and some enthusiasts propose and support, no matter how much of a step backwards it would be. Fram (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Findagrave is a user generated site and fails RS, so anything ultimately sourced to it should be removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, but some people at enwiki think differently, and some people who have been sidelined at enwiki but now are very active at Wikidata take the position that basically any source is acceptable, and that it should be kept as authoritative until a better source is found, and then it shouldn't be removed but "deprecated". Fine, that's their choice, but then don't expect me to ever accept Wikidata as a source for anything on enwiki. Some (but too many) people are using Wikidata as a tool to circumvent the higher standards at enwiki (even though they are too often not applied here either), and this doesn't seem to be a problem for many Wikidata-enablers here. Basically, when they choose quantity over quality right from the start (e.g. by mass importing data from all Wikipediaversions), they doomed their future goal of being a datasource for Misplaced Pages. Fram (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Japanese people who conserve Article 9 for deletion

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

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

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

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018

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

Its a good thing...

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

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

ANI

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fram and incivility at your service.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Help Needed!

I need help with this Page.

Google International Space Station

Grateful for all help,

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

Could you check me...

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

The first one isn't a problem, as you are actually fixing an issue and because it is in userspace. The second one is also mainly in userspace, with occasional articles and categories thrown in, and is cleaning out an actual maintenance caegory, so again it doeesn't bother (although it is less useful than the first task). Still, if people would come to your talk page and ask you to stop (with some reason for their request), then it is best to stop and try to work things out of course. But I can't see you getting into trouble with these tasks. Fram (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For the second one, I'm only using AWB on the ones in mainspace (and categoryspace). I don't care about userspace pages in that category since they don't affect mainspace or categories (other than the maint category). Thanx for the work you do. Just curious, how long is IB's ban this time?Naraht (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

1 Week. Fram (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

ThanxNaraht (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

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

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

Wikidata icon

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

Detroit, Michigan

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

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

I wasn't thinking of reversion as a deterrent, but more as a cleanup of edits that decreased article quality according to our standards. If I do make any reverts, I'll do it very gradually, so as to avoid watchlist clutter. Thank you for the advice. Lepricavark (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Carolwood Pacific Railroad DYK

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

Couple notes

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

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

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

If they had shown any interest in discussing her many editing problems, I might have taken a different view. However, someone who constantly removes all critical posts from her talk page immediately and only keeps the positive things, and at the same time shows no signs of improving her actual editing habits, is beyond hope. She had been blocked before, nothing has changed, so she is now blocked again. Whether that Villa should be a redirect or deleted is not really much of a concern to me, it is a non notable subject and unlikely search term (whoever is interested in it will look for Lee, not the Villa, as the starting point). I'm off now to start a copyright contributo investigation... Fram (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I typed this before I saw they were blocked, for whatever that's worth. Besides that, if whether it should be redirected or deleted isn't your concern, then you should probably let someone else be the one to decide whether to nominate for deletion, because that's something AfD nominators are supposed to be concerned about. As to whether they're receptive to your advice, well... I'm sure so youd better stop complaining about it surely helped to set things off on the right foot, and give them the impression you were giving honest, important, and well-meaning advice. GMG 15:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

My "honest, important, and well-meaning advice" was this, after which they at first continued to edit war about that source. Quoting a final reply as if that was the start of our interaction is probably also supposed to be "honest, important and well-meaning" advice? As for that AFD, I believe deletion is best and hence have nominated for deletion. If others feel strongly enough about it so that it ends in redirect, meh, I won't let any sleep over it. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't nominate it for deletion though. Fram (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Antics

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

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

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

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

Arbcom request

• Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your statement at arbitration

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Populating_article_descriptions_magic_word

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

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

I have started my stopwatch to time how long before the WMF reply saying why they are not going to do it, or why they cant, or that the great God Marduk has forbidden it etc.... I'm betting 'technical' considerations preclude doing it at this time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing technical, they just won't do it unless we populate 2 or 3 million descriptions first "for the benefit of the readers", which suddenly are the thing the WMF cares about, and we (the editors) obviously don't. Fram (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Trivial bot request to populate desc with first sentence of the article. Ironically if it was targeted at BLP's, it would instantly make the short-descs substantially more compliant. Granted that's a terrible short desc which should ideally be one-to-five words. But if people want to play arbitrary hurdles... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

William Foster Nye

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

I did the deletion and commented upon it at RAN's talk page, with clear examples of remaining copyright violations. Changing "and" to "-" or something similar brings down the Earwig percentage by a lot, but doesn't remove the copyright violation at all. Fram (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This was a contested deletion. You should have WP:PRODd IT. You violated WP:Before. There was a 2% chance of a violation per Earwig. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the policies. Copyvio trumps contested. I have shown at RANs talk page some of the clear copyvios remaining after your rushed cleanup job. Earwig is just a tool, good for exact copies but quite easily fooled by even very minor rephrases which don't solve the actual problem at all. Fram (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There was no copy vio and no close paraphrasing. You deleted based on an alleged copyright violation. Your expansive, new and novel Procrustean approach is clearly outside of policy. WP:Before violated. Article could have been improved and expanded. The mere coincidence of proper and trade names doesn't make this a copy vio. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Then bring it to whatever dispute resolution board you prefer to deal with this. The bolded parts in my statement at RANs talk page are not a "mere coincidence of proper and trade names". Fram (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I would also note that you left a notice at here at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 's talk page, and he is currently blocked from editing. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

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

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

Sander.v.Ginkel

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

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

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

Mail

Nomination for deletion of Template:NYRepresentativesHeader

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

ANI

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

Well, I've had further discussion with the WikiProject in question. They have no problem with the ANI edits being done until a bot is coded. I'll ease up for the day. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:22, 27 February 2018 (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 Request for desysop of Fram. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)