Like, who is this dude? Who the hell even knew him to put him in that article? Ya know, it's the secret billionaires that are really scary. Anyway... take it easy. MostlyTexasArticles (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Graham. The first revision of "Hedgehog", in March 2002, was created with the edit summary "transferred Hedgeog to correct spelling -- doubtful as to usefulness". There's no sign of an article having existed at the title "Hedgeog", and there isn't an adjacent edit by the user (JHK) creating a redirect at an old title. What do you think happened here?  — Scott • talk 11:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Scott: That one's listed at my user subpage for these things; search the old deletion log for "Hedgeog". Graham87 12:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I should have known you'd have spotted that already - and hadn't seen that old deletion log before, somehow. Nice one, as usual.  — Scott • talk 14:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Question - it strikes me that the old deletion log should probably move to Wikipedia:Historical archive, do you think that makes sense?  — Scott • talk 14:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Scott: Naaaaah, I think it's fine as it is ... there are the other deletion logs to consider, plus all the other old logs. IMO their current titles are quite natural for linking and usability, and I don't see the point of changing them. Graham87 14:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough and exactly why I asked. I've added a see also to it for Category:Wikipedia obsolete log pages.  — Scott • talk 14:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

one way to get annoyed with very very slack editors - wandering through the accumulation of articles that never really got adequately tagged -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unassessed_Australia_articles - over three thousand of the buggers - in most case no attempt to clarify anything other than australia - sigh... probably geographically and terminologically challenged. JarrahTree 16:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

indeed - along with the pervasive sense of irony that exudes from some of the more bizarree conversations in this zoo - it all makes it something to have a holiday from at times to breathe less fetid air JarrahTree 16:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Although I don't want to move it myself, there is no apparent reason for Afro-Eurasia to be currently move protected (and there are plausible other titles). I believe you were the admin who move protected this several years ago, presumably due to vandal threat; Wikipedia:Protection_policy suggests I contact you here. I suggest this be moved to nonprotected status. Cheers --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@LukeSurl: I just imported an edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, I didn't do the original move protection. The user who did that was NawlinWiki, in response to pagemove vandalism by JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp. For what it's worth I don't see any practical upsides of unprotecting the page from moves, despite the reduced threat of page-move vandalism now ... moving a prominent and well-established article like that should really be done using the requested moves process, and such a move request could be controversial and would therefore need the input of an admin. Graham87 01:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the unblock request at User:Jdm280, it seems reasonable to me - it was some very minor vandalism a long time ago. Would you be OK if I unblock? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Sure; go for it. Graham87 12:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Several users agreed that Opern- und Schauspielhaus Frankfurt should be moved to Oper Frankfurt, only, one user then did something which doesn't look like a move but a lot like cut and past. Can you perhaps do it propoerly? Sorry, I made more edits before I even noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I've history-merged the page. @Grimes2:, please don't do cut-and-paste moves in future. If you cant move a page using the page move function, either use the requested moves page or ask me for help. Graham87 13:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham, - fixing links - a LOT! - Thank goodness that house is not only the best opera house but also rather close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham. I didn't know that. Grimes2 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

One more, Graham, a bit from the former article will go to (now redirect) Schauspiel Frankfurt. How do we do that? I'd hate to just take it as if I wrote it. Attribution how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Just noting where you copied it from (with a link) in the edit summary would be fine. You can use {{copied}} on the talk pages if you like, but it's probably overkill here. Graham87 15:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Graham!! I’m Dr Mel, wiki volunteer since 2004. Over the past several years I’ve been working with Dr Kirk Adams, president of the American Foundation for the Blind: https://www.afb.org/about-afb/leadership-and-staff/experts/kirk-adams

We’ve been talking for years about how to connect blind and deaf-blind communities with the incredible opportunities to be part of the free knowledge movement. Meaningful volunteering versus meaningless distractions from depression and boredom. Especially for the thousands who are stuck on disability status and excluded from the workforce.

And this past month has had some big milestones! We’ve been making plans to create a thematic user group called wikiBlind. I’ve just become an official Wikimédia Strategy Liaison, representing San Diego, California and the other communities and people I’m connected with. And I’ve just gotten back from the WikiSummit in Berlin which was entirely focused on the strategic plans for the future of human knowledge and Wikimedia’s roles within it. Out of only 200 people, there were 69 countries represented by their user group and chapter leadership, along with board members and senior staff from WMF. Truly mind blowing.

As you are the most visible of the blind Wikimedians, and an expert far more than we are on all things wiki, I wanted to bring you into the convo asap to get your perspectives. What’s the best way to reach you off wiki? Email me? I’d love to get you introduced to some of the other amazing peeps I’ve been working with!

Thank you very much for all you have done and continue to do! DrMel (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. You give me a warning, that I spam wikipedia! Did you check the link? It's videos library made by perfusion for perfusionist and its FREE!!!! ANY BODY CAN WATCH AND LEARN for free... in ours program taking best doctors from biggest medical center on the world. I'm more people will learn from it, then more people survival heart surgery. Think about that!

Best with your work! Mskrydal (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Why the recent undo on the Electrode page regarding "skin/flesh"? You called it "Counterintuitive" and thought it would "Surprise readers". Is my understanding that electrodes are very commonly applied to skin, such as in medical settings (measuring heart rates, brain waves, etc...) incorrect? What am I missing here? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.141.98 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is about electrodes. In medical environments, electrodes are very commonly connected to people so that, yes, skin, tissue and flesh becomes part of an electrical circuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.141.98 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 22:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Graham87. You blocked User:Ifyobim and User:Ebeleokiche61 indefinitely. I cannot see in their user contributions anything that may have warranted an indefinite block. May I ask why you block them for ever editing Wikipedia? Thank you, --Gereon K. (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(watching:) indefinite doesn't mean "for ever", just "for an undefined period". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

By definition. Ok, Gerda. But unless the blocked person is not actively appealing the block it is for ever. --Gereon K. (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That's the idea: force an interaction. One appealed. I looked at the contribs: both look harmless, but strangely similar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem in this case it that both users take part in an women's edit-a-thon at a Nigerian university and since the IP is blocked now the whole edit-a-thon cannot edit. --Gereon K. (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

How about saying so on the administrators' noticeboard, or talking to an admin who isn't asleep? Floq? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to get up to speed when the clock is ticking. @Gereon K.:, do you have first-hand knowledge of this edit-a-thon, or are you relying on info from the blocked editors? Is there a Wikipedian or professor or Event Coordinator or someone who is running this? It looks like Graham was asking some of these questions at the blocked user's talk page, but hasn't received an answer today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: User talk:Olaniyan Olushola#Concerns about disruptive editors from your editathons, https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/University_of_Nigeria,_Nsukka/Nnamdi_Azikiwe_Library_(May_8-9,_2019) and Wikipedia:Geonotice#Art+Feminism_2019/University of Nigeria, Nsukka May 8th,9th 2019. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Olaniyan Olushola and Gereon K.: Because it appears time-sensitive, I've unblocked these two accounts as a stop-gap measure. Crossing my fingers that Graham87 isn't highly annoyed, since it appears he is aware of the edit-a-thon and kept the blocks in place. My only rationale for, essentially, temporarily over-ruling is that Graham may not have known about the IP block preventing everyone else from editing. Both editors appear to be good faith editors who might be unintentionally disruptive, so I'm hoping the clear warnings I've left on their talk pages helps. Graham, if you feel I've over-stepped, I apologize in advance. Just trying to do what I think is the right thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • One final thing: since I may or may not be around when Graham comes back on line, it should most definitely not be considered wheel warring if Graham re-imposes the blocks. Graham appears to know a lot more than me about what is going on, so long term, I'm deferring to him, I'm just acting short term. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I still can't see what caused the block though. Looked rather harsh for stereotype placeholder edit summaries, that is why I was asking if there was something that I could not see. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They seemed a bit harsh to me too, to be honest, but Graham is one of the most level-headed admins we've got, so I have this sinking feeling there's more to this I don't know about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in here Floq, I saw the thread but didn't really have the ability to dig into it. –xeno^talk 21:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Floquenbeam:and @Gereon K.:, I am super excited about the decision to remove the IP Block. The IP Address Block has materially disrupted the workshop. Sincerely, the two editors are newbies and are willing to learn. This is the first time that I will be joining the University of Nigeria for an event, yes they have a lot to learn about Wikipedia.Truly,@Graham87: has been an extremely patient person because of the event that led to the action see here. It might be difficult to know that @Adenekanfauziyah: do not have any relationship with @Ifyobim:. The former is a librarian at Federal University of Agriculture see here while the latter is a Librarian at University of Nigeria, Nsuka see.https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/University_of_Nigeria,_Nsukka/Nnamdi_Azikiwe_Library_(May_8-9,_2019)/students here]. Initially, when I saw Graham's comment I thought the two users are participants from our workshop at at the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. But, I later saw from today's event that they are two different users with nothing to link them together. If I didn't personally supervise the two events I won't be able to distinguish between the two users. I quite understood some of the observations raised by Graham. The two users having been contacted by our team, they will be very cautious when next they are editing Wikipedia. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gereon K., Gerda Arendt, Floquenbeam, Xeno, and Olaniyan Olushola: I'm sorry about the inconvenience I caused. What a crazy comedy of errors. Floq, I'm fine with the unblocks. Olaniyan, it appears that you tried to notify me about the problems caused by the block while I was around last night (my time), but the ping didn't work because you didn't sign your message. I wasn't willing to unblock these editors earlier until I knew what course they were part of and who, if anybody, was supervising them, and @Kaizenify: didn't know the answer to those questions. (And because they didn't, that raised my suspicions even further).

I'll admit I'm relatively harsh regarding blocks; I've seen all sorts of weird and wonderful editors/sockpuppets over the years and many of the pages on my watchlist are there because of vandalism that's stayed unreverted for a long time. That's the case with the Mahalia Jackson article, where I found Ifyobim making "grammatical edits" that were anything but grammatical]. Not only did their use of misleading edit summaries (which weren't automated) raise my suspicions, their changes of date formats (again with misleading edit summaries) heightened them even further. I'd never encountered a good-faith editor interested in changing date formats before; they're usually sockpuppets like Worm of Cans. I wish there was an easier onwiki way of telling that a user is/was part of an edit-a-thon, like a user page notice or an onwiki link to their user/talk page. A Geonotice just won't cut it because it's only really visible to people in the area where the event is located. Graham87 03:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Should a history merge occur at Ellen Gruenbaum to fix the problem outlined in the following? I think so and am hoping that you will work your magic if you agree.

• A discussion here (permalink) described the issue with no resolution.
• A new user created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Ellen Gruenbaum with a series of edits on 24 April 2013.
• The draft was declined on 8 May 2013 and lay dormant until 23 January 2014.
• A second editor independently created Ellen Gruenbaum on 13 September 2013.
• A third editor developed the draft starting on 23 January 2014.
• The third editor then moved the draft to Ellen Gruenbaum after deleting the article at the target.

The edits from the deleted article should be restored to history. I believe there is no overlapping history so a merge should work ok? The history would appear to show that the second editor overwrote the draft on 13 September 2013 but a comment on the talk page could clarify that. What do you think? Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Sounds reasonable to me, if only because the September 2013 version *was* actually in the article namespace and was the live article at that title for some time. I've done the history merge. Graham87 10:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I work in a scientific laboratory in France and I have to make a conference summary video that took place in my university. I would like to use the audio file mentioned in the title as soundtrack. Is this interpretation free of rights and how to quote it at the end of the video? Thank you very much, Nice day to you, Joëlle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:660:6302:5:1c04:467f:cb2e:21c9 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've replied re File:Bach - Brandenburg Concerto 6 - 3. Allegro.ogg on your talk page. Graham87 08:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Columbian Exchange article. I was a bit overwhelmed with all the changes Hubo Wang was trying to make and their disrespect for the existing text.Regularuk (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

[1] I'm guessing you meant to type 20 for the current month. I changed it to that. Enigma^msg 16:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

28bytes would make it 21, then. Enigma^msg 17:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: Ta, oops! I'll update things more later on today. Graham87 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Graham87,

Hope you're keeping well. In January 2014, you placed a "This section needs additional citations for verification" tag on the "Mechanism of action" section of the Wikipedia article "Penicillin". Since then, several Wikipedians including myself have added citations to each of the paragraphs in this section. If you're satisfied that the original problem has been resolved, can I ask you to remove the tag or give me permission to do so? Many thanks for your time.

All the best,

Freight hopper (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Admirable work, Graham, but very longhand. You're like a bureaucrat by nature, without the tools. Have you thought about requesting a bot's support? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the other workhorses of the page: Moe Epsilon and Pharaoh of the Wizards --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller: I've discussed this somewhere else ... can't find the thread partly because I'm not in my usual location ... with MusikAnimal. A bot would be cool, but I generally don't mind this gig unless there are lots of admins to desysop at once or there's lots of drama (e.g. the recent Fram mess). Restorations are easier to deal with than desysoppings. Graham87 09:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The thread trail starts on your talk page. Graham87 09:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well. I am both exceedingly consistent and exceedingly amnesiac. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

As Graham points out from the previous discussion, the only issue would be notes of previous accounts and the such, and exact "reasons" for the desysop unless the bot was intelligent enough to gather the reason from the log itself. Otherwise, I'd be all for as little human interaction as possible needed or a log the bot can create so we don't miss entries. In an unrelated note, I am slightly miffed with myself that I edited your talk page archive linked above; since it's dated almost exactly one year ago. — Moe Epsilon 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Graham and Moe Epsilon the issue is about notes regarding previous accounts with exact reasons.If a bot all we do we do then it is fine.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the right time to thank you all (and others I haven't pinged) for doing this unlovely and normally unrecognised work. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand what they are, but constantly adding and updating them is a form of disruption in my opinion.--Biografer (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Biografer: As it says on the appropriate page, they're used by the mobile interface and app to help out with searching. RexxS could probably explain further. I don't use them myself, but they're useful to others, so we should keep them in. This thread is regarding this edit summary of mine. Graham87 01:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, OK. But we never used to care about bloody apps, and apps existed for a long time. Why do we should care now? In fact, I installed the bloody Wikipedia app, just to see if it makes a difference. It really doesn't. Besides, if I remove a couple, you all will insert 10 times more. Point for the argument?--Biografer (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Besides, I already talked to @RexxS: regarding it once, but our discussion was mostly about vandalism prevention, which this thing doesn't really do. It doesn't even help. Maybe you can all just ignore it and pretend like nothing happened?--Biografer (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but the thing is is that the app doesn't even allows me log in. Perhaps, I need to log out from mobile Wikipedia in order to log in into an app? Either way, I unistalled the nuisance, and now use only the mobile version, for searches of various articles. I do my editing on my laptop/desktop. Another question, do anyone knows an approximate number of how many people use Wikipedia app and who?--Biografer (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Biografer: Ah, I noticed that discussion; I therefore can't think of much to say to you about this subject. If you agree to stop removing short descriptions in contravention of Wikipedia norms, I'd be willing to drop this. I don't know the answer to your questions. Graham87 01:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, here is the thing, I installed that app again and logged-in somehow. Here is what I found: Both versions (App and mobile) provide short descriptions automatically to almost every article. For example, I looked into some articles that don't have short descriptions, for example, Our Bright Future. Both versions say that its a 2008 studio album by Tracy Chapman. No short description needed. So, if everything is fine as is, why bother inserting short description? Do you understand what I am saying?--Biografer (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Biografer: The short descriptions the app is getting are from Wikidata. These will be discontinued fairly soon, in favour of having them on the English Wikipedia. Having them on here is much better because we have much better anti-vandalism methods. Graham87 02:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But that is where I am confused. How do those short descriptions help us against vandalism? I talked about it with RexxS, and I guess I am still failing to get the point here. How do they help us? Like, RexxS brought an example that if somebody will write that Bernie Sanders is a Jewish politician then we can easily revert it, but how do we know that a vandal added that? Does short description templates ping admins with Help! I am being vandalized? Not to mention that not every article is being vandalized.--Biografer (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

As for vandalism and short description, personally I see no improvement in that area. For example, one vandal edited short description itself of one of the metals, wrote something on the lines of metal is a piece of shit. That short description remained like that for a whole day. So, I don't see the benefit of them. I am all in support to get rid of Wikidata, but then we need to get rid of those short descriptions too because as my example above shows, they are not useful. Unless, you or RexxS can prove me otherwise...--Biografer (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Biografer: Yes, short descriptions can be vandalised here too, and yes, vandalism can take a while to be reverted here as well. But that is much much less likely to be problematic here than on Wikidata because we have a much better anti-vandalism system than they do. Also, prominent articles here are semi-protected here to greatly reduce vandalism; that doesn't happen as often on Wikidata. Graham87 04:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Biografer: You seem to be under the misapprehension that the English Wikipedia community asked for, or instigated, the use of short descriptions to display on the mobile platform and the app. We did neither. Those descriptions, displayed as subtitles and in searches, were forced upon us by one of the WMF development teams who thought they would be a good idea. Not only that, but they decided to take the short descriptions from Wikidata, even though they were displaying them on English Wikipedia content.

All that I and others have done is lobbied to be able to bring control of those descriptions back onto the English Wikipedia. When the Wikidata description is vandalised so that the subtitle for a Wikipedia BLP reads "loves dick", how is someone viewing that on their phone supposed to know how to fix the problem? Bear in mind that over half the page views on English Wikipedia now come from mobile devices. The short description template on English Wikipedia overrides anything on Wikidata, so at least we have a fighting chance to keep vandalism in check by editing the article here. I am astonished that you are so hostile to our efforts, because the alternative is to allow editors and vandals on another project to dictate content here. Is that really what you want? --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: And if someone forcing you to do something, you need to think and object if its ridiculous. From what I know, we are all humans and we have a brain of our own. WMF development team assumes of us as cattle which will bow to them no matter what. Besides, they are paid employees and we are not, do we really need to bow to their wishes? As soon, as we reach 2 million I will put this on to a debate. It is appalling to think that this tiny template will minimize vandalism.--Biografer (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Now for the Graham87 reply: This is exactly why I am against short descriptions. We already have massive tools here to revert vandalism. We don't need additional templates and clutter Wikipedia with them. We already have an instance with Persondata. Consensus was convinced by false representation that that template would collect dump and will be "euphoric step" for Wikipedia. Guess what? We were brainwashed with this BS for 8 long years, only to realize in 2016 how stupid we really were. We already have enough invisible templates such as {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use mdy dates}} as well as {{Use Canadian English}}, {{Use Indian English}}, {{Use British English}}, {{Use Australian English}}, {{Use American English}}. We also have the visible once such as {{Eastern Slavic name}} and the like and a whole bunch of maintenance tags, which are far more helpful then this {{Short description}}. I do applaud for the use of visible templates such as templates that display the current squads of a sport, the events, etc.--Biografer (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicating content does not "bring back control". Wikidata is no less editable than an English Wikipedia template. To the unsuspecting user, a revert like this looks like pointless edit warring, because it's not clear what purpose it serves: is the template supposed to override the central description in order to add "and guitarist", or is that some side effect, or maybe it's something else entirely? Nemo 16:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Correct on pointless edit warring. This is exactly my argument. By putting this short description template we definitely are not a step ahead of vandals, but our glorious consensus want us to believe that it is. Read my above statement on Persondata. Its the same BS all over again.:(--Biografer (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: The short description template is not duplicating content. The whole point is that it can be different and does not change when the Wikidata does. It provides the ability for an editor on the English Wikipedia to control what readers see on the app and mobile platform version of English Wikipedia articles. No matter how much vandalism subsequently occurs to the description field on Wikidata – and there's plenty of it – once we have the template in our article, any Wikidata vandalism is unseen by our readers.

"Wikidata is no less editable than an English Wikipedia template". Maybe, but how does the unsuspecting user know how to fix the childish vandalism they see beneath their favourite article's title? How do they know they need to go to a different site, find the entry for their article and change the description field (which itself is not intuitive to the first-time user)? If somebody vandalises the short description template here, they can edit that in the way they are familiar with, in the place where they would expect it to be. You'll never sell the whole "fix it on Wikidata round-trip" for these cases, because keeping the descriptions on Wikidata has no benefits. None. Zilch.

@Biografer: So what have you done to ameliorate the effects of the WMF devs' decisions? Nothing. At least some of us here have worked to provide a means to combat problems, while you've simply provided obstructionism and carping. We do indeed have massive tools here and an army of keen patrollers looking for problems to fix. So why on earth are you fighting so hard to source the content from another project where they neither have our massive tools nor a sufficient patroller base to make even a tiny dent in the vandalism that goes on? Don't you understand this simple equation?

Short description template = content sourced from Wikipedia; No short description template = content sourced from Wikidata.

There is no alternative. And have you still not understood that for mobile users and for articles that use annotated links, the short description template is a visible template? --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: And have you still not understood that for mobile users and for articles that use annotated links, the short description template is a visible template? - I did. I guess I forgot to mention that one article that I wrote here recently on an Australian orthopaedic surgeon, his description without short description says Australian orthopaedic surgeon. What I am trying to say is that even without the template, the articles are stating the correct information. Do you understand my reasoning?--Biografer (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no alternative. There is. You just being told there is none, but there is. As soon as we will reach that 2 million articles with short descriptions and wave Wikidata goodbye, you will see that we actually have an alternative. ;) We are not doing "fix it on Wikidata round-trip", I got it, it wont be possible. So, my proposition was to get rid of both Wikidata and Short description. We might propose this template for deletion after WMF will be satisfied with our ability to handle it ourselves, because we just need this template for a show. I see no other reason for keeping it.--Biografer (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Biografer: thank you for your reasoned response. I'm glad that the article you wrote has a useful short description taken from Wikidata. What I'm trying to say is that if a vandal changed the Wikidata description to bone cracker from down-under (or something obscene), then whoever spotted that on the English Wikipedia would have to find where the vandalism occurred on Wikidata and fix it there. I'm pleased that you're confident enough to do that, but put yourself in the shoes of an editor who has no idea about Wikidata. They would be quite stumped about how they can sort that out.

Now, the alternative scenario that I'm peddling is to put a suitable short description in the article ourselves, in a short description template. We could go with Australian orthopaedic surgeon, or (as Australia is a big place), maybe we would write Orthopaedic surgeon from Perth, Australia, or whatever. In that scenario, the childish/obscene vandalism on Wikidata never affects our article: our readers don't see it because they still see Orthopaedic surgeon from Perth, Australia. But if someone vandalises the template text here, any editor can quickly spot it and fix it in the article text directly. Plus, we have Cluebot here. It's not that the template prevents vandalism – I wish it did, but nothing does – it's that it moves the fixing of the vandalism back here, where it is far more manageable. I hope that makes more sense now. --RexxS (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Another point is that people watching the Wikipedia article would see the vandal change the description on their watchlists. They would not see changes that occurred at Wikidata (unless they enabled an option which would flood their watchlist with junk). Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: And what if that information is not present? The thing is, is that I write such articles, which no vandal cares. I don't know, maybe its the neutrality factor that I write it in? The only times when my articles were vandalized was when somebody tried to push COI and created a resume out of an encyclopedic article. I reverted, wrote to them, since then nothing happened. Speaking of COI, it is a form of vandalism that no short description, not Cluebot will revert or inform us about. :( So, maybe we see different form of vandalism? I do follow and revert other suspicious changes, but even with short description on, it will be a while before it will be reverted. Here is what I did once here: I wrote an article on an academic before people piled this project with short description templates, in March 2017. I was very happy, until in June, one of the subjects employees (because I mentioned her name in the article) decided to edit it. I reviewed it, removed some peacock words and unsourced content, done. The next day she edit it again, this time she rewrote the article as a resume. A template appeared over that article, and was forced to return 2 months later in August and clean it up. Since the time I removed resume like content and restored to the verified version of November 2018, nobody edited it (other then some bots). :)--Biografer (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: How? I use the watchlist a lot, but most articles I write about are so not news worthy that no vandal cares. :) Read my last reply to RexxS to learn why.--Biografer (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer this conversation to take place somewhere else now, if it has to take place at all. Graham87 04:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Graham87 
I understand why you claim "soap boxing" I live in that town and I was compiling a list of businesses. The first four I posted have either local historic symbolism or are used as land marks when people visit town. I was going to be adding another 4 or 5 today. 

Should I be leaving out the addresses? Should I leave out the websites? The information was factual without advertising. 

Thanks Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joethekempokid (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

How can you explain that mention is advertising when it is all over Wikipedia? check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchogue,_New_York This page mentions a brewery - Which is a land mark for the town. Just like the things I wrote about east patchogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joethekempokid (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC) @Joethekempokid: You cannot use Wikipedia as a source.--Biografer (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Biografer: Please get off my talk page. Graham87 23:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry what? Since when did talkpages became owned?--Biografer (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Graham87! When I was going through this user's most recent contributions last night, I wondered if I should just block them, but I dithered because they hadn't had as many warnings as is recommended. I'm brand new at this admin thing, and this would have been my first block. How did you decide to go ahead and just indef? I don't want to ignore what is a clear problem, but I also don't want to jump the gun. Any advice appreciated! --valereee (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: Oh, I'd forgotten you were an (allbeit new) admin yourself. The recommendations about the number of warnings are really designed for potentially good-faith users and are often ignored in practice. I tend to block registered accounts for vandalism/spamming if (a) that's all they've done and (b) they've continued to vandalise/spam after one or two warnings, especially if their bad edits have occurred in several editing sessions as they have here (over fifteen months!) With registered editors there's much less possibility of collateral damage with blocks than there is for unregistered users. Graham87 02:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured it was something like that, just wanted to check my own feeling on it. Is there less possibility of collateral damage because you aren't blocking an IP, which might be for a public computer? Sorry if I'm being dense! --valereee (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

ETA: sorry, didn't mean to ping you to your own talk page! --valereee (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yes, and on IP's, the geolocate tool will tell you what type of IP it is. The previous block log of an IP can also be a good guide to its behaviour. And never mind about the ping ... it didn't work anyway, presumably because it was on my own talk page! Graham87 09:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)