User talk:Fram/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

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?[1] "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: Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dirk Martens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucianus. 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. Wikipedia: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^Talk 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^Talk 15:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I request you to look at this [2] 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 ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 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 ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 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).([3] 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 ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 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 ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 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 ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 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/Archive 34,

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 Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

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

DYK for Dirk Martens

— 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 Wikipedia collections tool

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia page, please fill out the following http://goo.gl/forms/ZyYQm6uu7e form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia 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) ^(talk): 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) ^(talk): 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{T C} 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 ^{T C} 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 ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 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 ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia 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

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T128478

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 ^{T C} 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 ^{T C} 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 ^{T C} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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 • ^hasspoken 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Fram, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 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 ^{(speak to me)} 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ([4]), redirected to original Maxwell's thermodynamic surface by DVdm on 19 March 2016 ([5]).

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Violation of WP:NPA. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia: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, [6] 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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia: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. [7]. 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^(talk) 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 ^(Problems?) 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 ^(Problems?) 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: [8]. Montanabw^(talk) 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 [[List of minor planet discoverers#A. Lowe]]
• and the edit-comment @creating #REDIRECT of [[Minor planet|MP]]-discoverer to [[List of minor planet discoverers|list]], also see [[User:Rfassbind/Mapping minor-planet discoverers|description]]

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 [[List of minor planet discoverers#A. Lowe]]

{{Astro list redirect comment}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lowe, Andrew}}
[[Category: 1959 births]]
[[Category:20th-century astronomers]]
[[Category:Canadian astronomers]]
[[Category:Discoverers of minor planets]]
[[Category:Discoveries by Andrew Lowe|*]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:People from Calgary]]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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)

[9]: 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 [10]. 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/wiki/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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Notability is a stupid criterion because of its subjectivity, and because it militates against Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia to use their database and provide feedback: see Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)