Talk:Frankie Shaw

Frankie Shaw Misconduct allegations
https://www.wbur.org/artery/2019/01/19/smilf-tax-credit-letter

As of January 2019 there are allegations over Frankie Shaw's treatment of its cast members on the SMILF Show.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/01/frankie-shaw-responds-to-smilf-misconduct-allegations.html

https://www.boston.com/culture/entertainment/2019/01/11/frankie-shaw-responds-to-allegations-of-misconduct-on-smilf-set

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/5-questions-way-showtime-is-managing-abuse-claims-smilf-1172761

Also on some of the articles the As of 2019 the Massachusettes Legislature is calling for an investigation of SMILF's Tax Credits.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/smilf-canceled-by-showtime-probe-creator-frankie-shaws-alleged-misconduct-1177459

An update on the allegations as of MArch 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:B597:547A:254C:E824 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Birth date estimation.
We have two reliable sources giving two conflicting estimations of Ms. Shaw's age:



Both are entertainment-related interviews published by nationally-circulated newspapers this month, and each bears comparable indicia of reliability. I am inclined to favor the Times' estimate and have swapped out the Boston Globe piece accordingly, but I'd be happy to reconsider.

That said, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we may not cite Whitepages.com or Spokeo, and, out of concern for policy, privacy, and reliability, I am strongly opposed even to considering them in making editorial decisions. Rebb ing  23:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Frankie just tweeted that her birthday is 1981, so I used that to confirm the year of her birth. Hopefully this can resolve any question. I believe per BLP the subject confirming their birth year is acceptable. -- Erika aka BrillLyle —Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 29 November 2017‎


 * Erika: It would be if the Tweet were available, but it seems Ms. Shaw deleted it, and it's not archived, so I've restored the estimate based on the New York Times article for now. Perhaps Ms. Shaw will mention it again. I strongly encourage you to consider making archiving part of your workflow: you clearly put a lot of time into finding and adding citations—more than two dozen here—but how many do you think will still be available even five years from now? It's likely that many URLs will break, and some references—particularly those to things like newsletters—will disappear forever. Even when content remains available online, my experience has been that citations with dead URLs usually stay that way, which makes the references worthless to most of our readers. Spend an extra minute and make your efforts last. I submit everything I add to both archive.is and archive.org: archive.is has a better content retention policy—it won't purge content when site ownership changes hands—but archive.org has a longer history.
 * Also, per WP:SIGN, our convention and requirement is that signatures include a timestamp and link to the signer's user page or talk page. Four tildes ( ~ ) should expand to that. Your name (with the "AKA") with a little styling would look wicked snazzy, perhaps like: Rebecca aka Rebbing
 * Thanks for your hard work here. This was in bad need of an overhaul, and you delivered. Rebb  ing  03:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I forgot the tildes in my sig. I never do that but this was an omission. I've got over 50,000 edits so I know how to do this.
 * I don't believe in making a signature colored. But thanks for the suggestion. I've got no interest in that.
 * I'm not sure why the tweet was deleted by Frankie, but I think that it is clear I didn't generate that out of thin air. I have never seen such crazy concern over a birth date on a BLP article. It would be nice to just let this go maybe? I don't know. It seems like it's too much fixation on one fact of the article.
 * The Internet Archive Bot alerts to deadlinks. I am not a fan of archiving and adding tons of extra text to citations. I think it's overkill and unnecessary. Obviously that's your thing but I've got no interest in doing that as part of my workflow.
 * List citation style. I'm not a fan of this. It's not typical so most editors will not edit a page with this style of citations. I am also unsure why you would use it when the citations were not in that style.
 * I am getting a sense of p-ownership over the page. I had hoped to maintain it but I don't want to have conflict or disagreements and I can see from your Talk page that you are disruptive in this way. I am not interested in this kind of drama on En Wiki.
 * I did a ton of work because the page needed to be reworked and updated. And also because I think that it's important to add significant amounts of content to pages that have notable subjects -- along with clean, easy to maintain and reuse citations. This takes a lot of time and energy on my part. As I said before, I would like to continue editing the page but not if you are going to crawl over the edits I've made and rework things that do not need reworking. I'm not trying to have ownership over the page, but what you've done to the page in this recent round of edits is very aggressive and hostile. I would NEVER do that to another editor. This is feedback that I hope you will maybe take and think about going forward. I'm trying to be friendly and respectful here, but I feel very defensive and upset about what you've done here.
 * So I don't know, I will probably stop watching the page and hope not to encounter this style of editing and you specifically on En Wiki. I have collaborated with editors on editing entries in the past, but this is so not that, and I can't really deal here.
 * Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * : I'm not suggesting you made the Tweet up—notice that I wrote: "It seems Ms. Shaw deleted it," emphasizing that I believed you, rather than: "The tweet doesn't exist," which is also a true statement. However, as you surely know, we aim for verifiaibility, and an editor saying that she saw a tweet doesn't cut it, particularly so when the fact in question is relatively unimportant and an approximation can be cited to a reliable source. Also, did you see this tweet?
 * List citation style makes the source text less cluttered, and I do not agree that it discourages editing. No matter where the citations are, an editor is often going to encounter a reference that's defined elsewhere in the page—perhaps even in a different section. With the style I use, they're all in one place—no searching all over to find the definition of a reference used five times—and, since they're alphabetized, they're quite easy to find. Reasonable editors can disagree on which is better, but the citations in this article were list-defined and sorted by name. See.
 * As for the rest: You claim that I'm exhibiting ownership by changing your work, but have you looked at your own actions? I altered a few things, and you responded by accusing me of being "very aggressive and hostile." Yours is precisely the possessiveness that WP:OWN frowns upon. We used m-d-y dates, as recommended by WP:DATETIES, yet you felt the need to change all of them; applying your standards, isn't that "overtly hostile"? Rebb  ing  15:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the rest: You claim that I'm exhibiting ownership by changing your work, but have you looked at your own actions? I altered a few things, and you responded by accusing me of being "very aggressive and hostile." Yours is precisely the possessiveness that WP:OWN frowns upon. We used m-d-y dates, as recommended by WP:DATETIES, yet you felt the need to change all of them; applying your standards, isn't that "overtly hostile"? Rebb  ing  15:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
- The fact that you added unnecessary spaces and changed the citation style on this page into something most editors don't use, and something which is not automatically generated by the Markup Cite editor is just outright hostile. I don't want to go through a back and forth with you on this but I would again ask what motivates you as an editor to rework something that was automated and did not need to be edited. I am going to go for real this time abandon editing this page but I would hope you might reconsider this aggressive and unpleasant approach to editing. Again, I would never re-do someone's work like this to change it into a format that isn't consistent with the automated tools of contributing to Wikipedia. I am baffled at this. There is so much that needs to be improved. Maybe if you focus on adding content like I did to the page instead of reworking things that don't need reworking -- and archiving citations that don't need archiving -- it would be a better use of your time. Bye for real this time. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A few things, :
 * I put spaces between the parameters of citations because I have trouble reading cites when they're all jammed together; since you removed them with an automated tool rather than deliberately, I can't imagine why you're offended that I added them back or why you would find it to be "outright hostile."
 * I "reworked it" so I could read it and correct your citation mistakes: the removal of archive parameters (which makes Wikipedia more vulnerable to WP:LINKROT), using cite news to cite blogs and the websites of organizations; not setting titles in title case with straight quote marks. You generated these with a tool, and it appears you pasted the information directly from the sources, so I'm puzzled as to why you're so attached to them that you consider anyone else improving them to be "aggressive and unpleasant."
 * There is no standard set of automated tools for editing Wikipedia; the citations generated by your chosen tool doesn't have privileged status. Moreover, per WP:CITEVAR, an article with a consistent citation placement style should not be changed without consensus. Before your changes, this article consistently used list-defined references and the r template to link to them from the prose. This makes the prose much easier to read for those of us who actually look at what we're doing. You changed this article's longstanding style—something I have not yet complained about or undone wholesale—and yet you accuse me of being hostile in this matter?
 * Citations do need to be archived. Link rot is a real phenomenon—see WP:LINKROT, and preemptively adding archive links to citations benefits the encyclopedia in several ways:
 * It ensures that resources remain continually available to our readers despite links dying. It can take months for dead URLs to be repaired, and most readers lack the skills or time to do this themselves.
 * It ensures that the correct archive links are used: the archive bots sometimes grab the wrong versions of pages from the archives, so that a machine-picked archive link will link to a 404 page.
 * It saves editors the burden of checking bot-added links; when a URL stops working for a citation with archive parameters, an editor has only to change no to yes.
 * This is what WP:LINKROT has to say:




 * If you won't help prevent link rot, please at least leave the archive parameters alone.
 * Lastly, I would be happy to collaborate with you, but it seems you interpret any disagreement with or alteration of your work as aggression. This is highly unhelpful and unfortunate, but I'm content to accept your promise not to edit this article again and to remove it from your watchlist. Rebb  ing  14:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look at what you've written here objectively, all of these responses are basically lectures and patronizing comments about how the way you edit is the way I should edit.
 * If you don't understand the difference between actually adding content (like I did by reworking the article and building it up so it has over 30 good citations) versus the aggressive editing (crawling over the edits I made) that added ABSOLUTELY ZERO content (like you did after I edited) -- beside the fact that you left the article in a 7 citation shameful condition for god knows how long -- then it is clear you have no understanding of how to meaningfully contribute content to Wikipedia.
 * It is clear from your actions and that you don't care about the impact this type of interaction has on other editors. It is the opposite of collaboration. It is the opposite of being kind and helpful and working with other people harmoniously.
 * It is also clear you don't understand how to fill out a RefToolbar citation form using the Cite ribbon. It's on the Wikipedia Markup Toolbar. I'm not using any special tools. These are Wikipedia tools found on every page on Wikipedia, tools that let you do lookups by url and other identifiers like ISBNs and DOIs. It's all there, to be used to make citation building consistent, full, and easy. The lookups also exist on Visual Editor. Adding spaces is counterproductive and a waste of time. Look into the syntax highlighter in the gadgets of your preferences, it might help you. It allows you to edit and see the WikiMarkup in color, and catches unfinished wrappers, etc.
 * See what I'm doing here -- I'm sharing tools that might improve your skills and allow you to automate adding content. But I don't think you're interested in learning or hearing anyone's point of view but your own. And it's also pretty clear that the addition of content has a very narrow impact and perspective by you. By design. It's unfortunate. There's a lot to learn on Wikipedia. I have learned from others, seeing how they improve content on the encyclopedia. It's an opportunity here, one that is being squandered over a fixation on linkrot/archiving (which is dealt with by the InternetArchiveBOT) -- and just checking in on a page you've worked on every now and again. I mean, that canned bio that was archived, it's everywhere. That citation should probably be deleted at the end of the day. It's not helpful and the actual facts have real citations. So it's all just pointless. And sad. Sigh.
 * I looked on your talk page. You have a history of this type of editing, and have actually been talked to been banned from editing because of this behavior. It's a nightmare, what you do, for other editors. Do you not understand this basic concept? Working in this way gives Wikipedia editors a bad name because this type of behavior is disruptive, unpleasant, and rude. If you can't understand the impact your behavior has, then you obviously have bigger problems than just editing Wiki. I hope you get some help.
 * I have tried here. I know that I've improved Frankie's page at a very good time for her, as the show was just renewed for a Season 2. I was watching it, thought I'd check out the state of her page, and by editing and making her entry more representative of her and her work, learn a lot about Frankie and her career. I'm glad I did that, despite this interaction. But again I would ask you to examine some of this feedback, take a look at your actions, and possibly reconsider the approach you have to working with others. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tried here. I know that I've improved Frankie's page at a very good time for her, as the show was just renewed for a Season 2. I was watching it, thought I'd check out the state of her page, and by editing and making her entry more representative of her and her work, learn a lot about Frankie and her career. I'm glad I did that, despite this interaction. But again I would ask you to examine some of this feedback, take a look at your actions, and possibly reconsider the approach you have to working with others. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Jewish??
I know there is citation, but there is no real context here. There is no mention of her father being Jewish, so it's unclear why her Catholic mother would raise her Jewish(!!??). It just reads as being completely out of left field. (Sellpink (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Based on previous issues we've had with this article (and others) regarding irrelevant trivia like someone's religion, I'd say the entire diff should just be reverted. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankie Shaw Sundance.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankie Shaw Golden Globes 2018.jpg