User talk:Primefac/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Ghadeer Alzaben

Hello Primefac,

As per your request, I have managed the external links accordingly. I have also added some more references.

Kindest regards.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Khalid Alansari (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ali Khalid Alansari (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ghadeer Alzaben (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Primefac,

As per your instructions I have addressed the matter of the external links and have successfully managed to include some more references. I therefore humbly request that you re-review the article and pray that you grace my demand with acceptance.

Kindest regards. Ali Alansari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Khalid Alansari (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ali Khalid Alansari, I see you've added some more references, which is good. I suggest that you move the relevant ones into the body of the text so that they are following the statements they are meant to verify. This can be done by placing the reference inside <ref>...</ref> tags and moving it after the sentence it supports.

For example: This is an example statement.<ref>This is the reference URL</ref>

More information can be found at WP:REFB (in particular, Section 3.1). Good luck, and let me know if you have any further questions. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Primefac, I really appreciate your help and hope that things will work out well. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Khalid Alansari (talk • contribs) 08:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Singapore at the 2018 Winter Olympics

So was there a more appropriate speedy delete category for making something up? Or do you mean that a PROD or AFD are necessary since it is a real competitor who may or may not compete in the final qualification event for the Olympics? Not a challenge to your decision, just an honest question.18abruce (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

18abruce, {{db-hoax}} is the right tag for something that's made up. However, I declined because there was a genuine possibility that Singapore might actually get someone to the Olympics in 2018 (it's a very small possibility, but enough to not completely eliminate the page from existence). I wanted to err on the side of keeping the page for now rather than a) edit war over its creation or b) have to remember to check if it should be restored later. I think your decision to redirect is a good one, and I will be happy to delete it down the line if it turns out there really is no Singapore delegation. Just drop me a note if they're "officially" not going. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay thank you, that makes sense.18abruce (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Unprotecting Kamau Kenyatta

I've stepped in cleaned up and de-plagiarized the last remaining sentence of Draft:Kamau Kenyatta. Could you unprotect it from article creation so we can clear this out of the AfC backlog. I know you just looked at in and the citations are still not perfect, but this is a maintenance issue that needs to be flagged and moved into the mainspace.--Carwil (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think it's good to go, sure. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

G4 check

Could you do a G4 check on BCMMetrics (deleted here)? I also was considering it for A7 given that it makes no claims of significance and from what I can tell after checking them, none of the references mention it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Functionally identical. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, completely unrelated, but I noticed when checking if you were online/from being a DGG tps that you removed this stating the MfD wasn't bundled, when the nom thought it (and it is mentioned in the MfD) as being bundled. Just thought I would give you an FYI. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup, missed it. It was rather buried inside indents, and all I saw was your comment regarding how different the sandbox version was to the nominated version. Personally, I think the sandbox version was substantially different and could use a different MFD if necessary (particularly since it was rather "thrown in" three days before the MFD closed). Primefac (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually didn't connect into just now that I had commented on that. Too many XfDs recently 🙃 TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Vertebrata foetidissima = Polysiphonia foetidissima

Thanks for your advice.Osborne 16:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

MASCARA

Hi. I just noticed that you deleted this article as a copyvio. @Artem Korzhimanov said in the edit summary of the first edit "based on texts provided by ESO under CC-BY 4.0 license (see http://www.eso.org/public/copyright/)" - does that license not apply for this article? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Peel, the CC-BY release is only for specific things (press releases, captions, etc). The second-to-last FAQ specifically exempts things like what were taken for the MASCARA page:

Q: I want to use text from the ESO website, but it is not part of a press release, announcement, picture of the week or caption. Can I still use this?

A: No, other texts on the ESO website are not released under Creative Commons.

It's an odd way to license things, but the page it was taken from definitely didn't fall under the press releases, announcements, pictures of the week and captions copyright exemption. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Aah, fair enough. That is an odd way to license things. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Aye, no problem. I'd rather have someone call me out on something odd than sit silently wondering! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I've recreated the article using the non-copyvio information and rewriting the rest, please have a look and let me know if it is still problematic. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for doing that. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Brook Benton

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia...and frankly, very confused about what I've seen so far....as far as attempting to add to the Reference and External Links sections. So...just when I think I have those areas figured out, and make my contributions to the Brook Benton page, they disappear.

Obviously, I am a Brook Benton fan...or I wouldn't be trying to increase other fan's (or other researcher's) knowledge about Brook Benton. I wrote the Brook Benton- "Let Me Sing and I'll Be Happy" article for Goldmine Magazine...and felt that it would be a good addition to the excellent material about Benton on his Wikipedia page. After I wrote my article, I learned of the wonderful biographical/discographical Gradischnig/Maitner book, "There Goes That Song Again".

Anyone interested in Brook Benton would want to know of these two available resources that further enhance the information provided on Benton's Wikipedia page. What better place than Wikipedia to bring those resources to the public's attention? And where else but the "Reference" and "External Links" sections? The Benton Wikipedia page, the book and the article all cover some of the same ground...in varying degrees...complementing one another. Consider the book and the article as supplementing and expanding the Wikipedia page.Bronckster (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Bronckster, you would have to talk to Dammitkevin about it (though I've just pinged them so they may respond here) but generally speaking if you're adding a reference, it should be added in order to support something in the body of the article. In other words, we shouldn't just be placing random books/articles/sources at the bottom of the page, because it could (in theory) become huge and bloated with too many articles. There are a few places where the article could use some more verification, so if any of the unreferenced bits can be referenced by the book then you're welcome to re-add the reference inside <ref>...</ref> tags in the appropriate location. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I put the reasoning in my edit summary both times "references have to actually be used to be references" These additions weren't actually referencing anything and therefore they weren't references. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I figured as much, just wanted to ping you in case there was more. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Response:

Brook Benton Response:

I'm a reasonable person and do understand what you're saying, but perhaps the policy you are referring to is a bit too strict, could be relaxed somewhat... and situations like this considered on a case by case basis. If we're talking about Elvis Presley or Alexander Hamilton, for example, where a multitude of books and articles have been written about them, that's one thing. But we're talking about Brook Benton...an extraordinary singer/songwriter practically forgotten, even by the powers that be in the recording/entertainment industry. The Benton Wikipedia page , the Gradischnig/Maitner book and my article are just about all you will find, of any substance, anywhere, on Brook Benton.

Because there is a dearth of good, solid, accurate information about Benton in the public sphere, my purpose was to show that there are two reputable resources available (other than Wikipedia), which go into far greater depth about Benton's life, as a man...and the music he created, whether it was the songs he wrote or his performance style. Wikipedia, I didn't think, was meant to be an all encompassing vehicle to capture everything about a subject. I guess that's why I thought my contributions would be welcome...as a means to enhance Wikipedia's Benton page...while also serving as a launch pad for those interested in learning of resources available for further research.

I was trying to be helpful. If what I tried to do for Brook Benton is not acceptable to Wikipedia, I'm ok with that. Bronckster (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, Bronckster, sometimes you have to ignore all the rules ;) Primefac (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Primefac,

Good Lord, it's hard to get the hang of where everything belongs...but anyway, thanks for adding the book to the Reference Section, and in the process, showing me how I should address adding the Goldmine article. I do appreciate the help.Bronckster (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Need help: I was going to use the "refToolbar", but could only get so far with it. I clicked on "Cite" which brought up "Templates". Clicking on "cite web" did not bring up a new window with blank fields to fill in, such as URL. If the "refToolbar" is not available to me, what's the best way to accomplish what I want to do? Bronckster (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The definite article is added

Primefac, I have one more contribution, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Our_Saviour%2C_Copenhagen&type=revision&diff=797817618&oldid=796683503 Primefac, it seems to me that I am right in this case. Am I right this time? BigSugarDaddy (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that one's okay. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response! BigSugarDaddy (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

StatCrunch

Primefac, Thanks for the StatCrunch help a few months ago. Sorry for very slow response. The StatCrunch entry that you made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Education allowed me to update these pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_statistical_packages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statistical_packages

I would still like to create a separate StatCrunch entry. I made some updates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:StatCrunch Could you take a look and see if that helps any? I added a few references that help with the history, added two awards that StatCrunch received, and described a major feature that differentiates StatCrunch from other stat packages. Thanks, Mark Barton — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBarton (talk • contribs) 05:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

MarkBarton, personally I'm still a bit on the fence. A one-paragraph-and-two-sentences draft, particularly about a computer program, is generally best to have as a subsection of existing articles. However, if you can find a good reference explaining how the whole "multiple graphs" thing is unique/important/etc, then it might pass the notability threshold and be worth its own page. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I added a lot more substance to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:StatCrunch. I added some history and some information about the software itself, in "History" and "Software" sections. I think that the history is of genuine interest, since it shows the evolution over 20 years, including National Science Foundation funding -- quite different than a typical commercial software package. Also, I added information about the software functionality itself, covering important aspects of the software which are not mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_statistical_packages. And finally, I've added a "See Also" section and an Infobox. I think that the "See Also" section is important because it points to the Comparison of Statistical Packages page, which is where the StatCrunch functionality is documented. Much of what I added was motivated by looking at the Wikipedia entries for the statistical software packages most similar to StatCrunch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitab, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JMP_(statistical_software). There is more that could be added about StatCrunch that would be useful and appropriate, I think -- you can see the length of the SPSS article, for instance -- but I'm stopping here for now. By the way, is the Alexa ranking a consideration in creating a separate Wikipedia entry? StatCrunch.com was hitting around 40000 last May, and should be at about the same level when the fall semester usage peaks in another month or so. Thanks for your continued refining feedback! MarkBarton (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I see that you approved it, thanks! And thanks for educating me along the way. I've enjoyed reading your interactions with other people, and learning from that. It makes me want to contribute to the Wikipedia editing effort. I've already jumped in and done some minor copy editing on a few random articles that were flagged as needing it. I hope to do more. MarkBarton (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome, MarkBarton, and thanks for taking all of the suggestions in stride (there are some folks who just get annoyed and quit!). Drop me a line if you ever have any questions. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Shree Shivkrupanand Swami - Changes made as per recommended

Dear Sir, Thank you for checking my Wikipedia article and suggesting the changes. The three suggested changes have been made and I am resubmitting it again now. Kindly review and advise if there are any more suggestions. I am new to this and appreciate your guidance. Would request you to Approve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolemanoj (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft has been resubmitted and declined along similar reasons. While the excess of references at the end has been removed, as well as the promotional language toned down somewhat, the most important issue (and the reason it was declined again) was a complete lack of inline sources to give verification for the text given. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Lotfi A. Zadeh

Hello. Why you are reverted my last edit ? He is He passed away in September 6. --Baskervill (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Baskervill, I did not revert anyone. This is a question for the talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Haitianism

You just deleted a page based on a copyright violation that actually was a mirror of Wikipedia, congratulations for that. Thank you. Appah Rao (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Appah Rao, if you're copying directly from a Wikipedia mirror (i.e. Wikipedia itself) then it shouldn't be on its own page. While I admit that in this case G12 is not applicable, A10 certainly is valid and I have no intention of undeleting the page. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Lotfi A. Zadeh

Hi: Just a heads up: someone just added September 6th as a death date for Zadeh, citing in their edit summary the Berkeley Initiative for Soft Computing, but I've checked there and see no mention of it, and there are no hits on Google or Google News. As before, it's certainly possible that he died, but there's no RS as of yet to confirm it. I've notified the editor who added the date that they need a citation from an impeccable source, so we'll see if that nips this in the bud.

I just wanted to let you know in case this becomes another runaway situation like before. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The first editor to put it in the article (this time), Gizgalasi, cited this as the source. As I pointed out, that's just a comment posted to a discussion board, and therefore not a reliable source. Now, an Azerbaijan source has picked up on that report -- supposedly from the same person here. This is still not reliable, certainly, to report a death - we should wait for a recognized news outlet before including it in the article.

But the dam has burst. I've now removed it three times. I think it's time to fully protect the article until we have a reliable report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

One week protection should do it. I've put it back on my watchlist as well. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you once again. I continue to monitor the situation. More news reports, but all of them Azerbaijaini, and all of them based on the reports from that one "family friend". I've reached out to Zadeh's research assistant for information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance on this. I hope I don't have to call on you again for a similar problem elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, feel free to ping me whenever if the need arises. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats

Dear Primefac, the information in European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats was taken from the original PRESS RELEASE, intended for free republishing! This information was repeated dozens of times on different web-sites. Isn't it free? --Perohanych (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Perohanych, according to their website, their press releases are copyrighted, and their "release" clause is not compatible with Wikipedia. Thus, it cannot be copied directly to Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Doctrinaires/meta/shortname

Never seen one before. Should it be in stale draft space? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Template:Doctrinaires/meta/shortname Legacypac (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, given that there does not appear to be a shortname for the Doctrinaires, the template itself is rather useless, so I've deleted it as G13 (since it is a valid deletion criteria). Primefac (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to use G2 for blank (or those that just repeat the title) pages and G11, G3 etc as applicable so they are not subject to wasting effort with REFUND. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom

He might still be smarting under the outcome of this. I think there would be a boomerang. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Premature AfD closure

I have concerns beyond the premature closure. I'm also wondering how someone who edits boy-band articles and discographies suddenly comes to an AfD over an article totally out of their typical scope of editing to close it. Looks hinky (and vaguely familiar) to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've seen them make quite a few relists at AFD, at least enough to know that they're fairly competent in their closures/relistings. If you're concerned about something nefarious, I suggest WP:ANI (though I also suggest some serious evidence). Primefac (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ref tag RfC close

Hi -- you closed this RfC saying it had already come into effect, but unless I misunderstood the RfC it was saying that <references /> would automatically generate columns where there were more than ten footnotes. That's not happening at History of scientific ice drilling; do I have the wrong end of the stick? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, it looks like (based on the phab ticket) that the devs were waiting for the RFC to close before proceeding, and it should be rolling out tomorrow. Might take a day or two to percolate through the system, though. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Got it; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to OTRS

I'm very happy to see that you applied and have been granted status as an OTRS agent. I have watched your contributions to help desk over the years and assume you will be able to hit the ground running.

I put together some case studies you might wish to review: Case studies

I hope you'll find them helpful, but I'd also be interested in your feedback on them as a new agent; we need to do work on training and this is my first stab at creating some training materials.

The OTRS software is not exactly media wiki, you may not have any issues but I'd be happy to walk you through some of the features if you'd like.

I used TeamSpeak recently and prefer it to IRC part because I'm a slow typist so I like being able to communicate via speech while still having the ability to use tax for links and other reasons.

If you don't know this app I'm not the expert on it but Cameron can help. I assume you were subscribed to the OTRS mailing list so you should have received a comment from Cameron regarding teen speak this morning but let me know if you need more information. I hope to spend some time there during this week and would love to work with you on handling some tickets.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I be up in your comments, stealin' yer case studies. TJW^talk 17:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

TJW, I hope you find them helpful, and would appreciate feedback and comments.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this a violation of a Tban?

On 22 July 2017 a Tban was imposed on myself and JJbers. Neither one of us are allowed to edit any article regarding Connecticut until after 22 Jan 2018. I found this on the Westport CT article dated 28 August 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&diff=797704146&oldid=797679671 FYI Thank you, ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

StephenTS42, WP:BANEX gives exemptions for reverting vandalism, which is what that edit appears to be. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac Thank for your answer. It could also appear that the edit immediately prior to the reversion, (by editor 69.120.181.175) was done so to give licence for the reversion by the banned editor, JJBers.

Can the editor 69.120.181.175 be wiki checked, or otherwise investigated? I suspect evasion here and yet I hope I am wrong. It would be a good thing to know it wasn't (evasion). Thank you! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you really think that he might be vandalising while logged out in order to circumvent his TBAN by reverting vandalism you're welcome to take it up at SPI. Quite frankly I'm surprised I even had to write that sentence, because that's a very strange way to go about things.

I do thank you for bringing this to my attention so that I could look over it, but I'm fairly certain there's nothing actionable here. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I trust your judgement and will drop the stick here. Thank you for your time.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Bumping this, Primefac already covered why I did it. While I don't think Stephen did it, but the address locates to Norwalk, Connecticut... —JJB^ers 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:This is Paul

I'm glad you were able to unblock him. But does he know it? EEng 18:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I would assume so, given that the UTRS closing process resulted in an email sent. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

My first OTRS request

If you would like to hit the ground running, I have a vague recollection that something was rolled out recently applying to all editors even unregistered ones that would do something like pop-ups. I didn't pay close attention because I've been happy with pop-ups but I think that feature is what this person is complaining about. My guess is there is a way to turn it off but I don't recall all the details and I'm betting that you do.

ticket:2017090410002317 --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Draft:Ejembi John Onah

I have edited the article under the above subject addressing all the issues that were raised by the previous reviewers especially formatting of references. Please assist to take a look before I resubmit. TerungwaSamuel (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle...

Hi, Primefac, Thanks for writing out User:Primefac/revdel.js. I am waiting for oppurtunitie(s) to test the script.That being said, (now that we have a community consensus), what's the next step to integrate this with Twinkle?As a side-note, I feel your script would be more comfortable to use, in the float-box pattern used by Evad's XFD closer or Twinkle itself!Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I made this mostly as a stop-gap until Twinkle could be updated. I believe (based on the discussions) that the update to TW will enable a user to specifically select which revisions to delete (similar to selecting edits when reporting a user to WP:AN3). I'm not a TW dev, and so I honestly have no intention of working towards integrating this, but I'll look into making it more all-in-one (javascript has some odd limitations, hence the box-then-box-then-box-etc). Primefac (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeking support for proposed Wikiproject Quantum Mechanics

Hi, thanks for all your contributions! I'm reaching out to members of the community who might be interested in a Wikiproject dedicated to QM. The goal is to create articles which can be read and understood by laypersons but that also thoroughly present the technical details of the subject. As it stands now, too many QM articles feature ledes filled with jargon and lack introduction or overview sections.

I hope you'll support the proposal and contribute as a member when the time comes.

Thanks

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Draft Ejembi John Onah

Once more thank you so much Primefac for the interest on the above subject article; draft Ejembi John Onah as you review it for consideration for undeletion based on the note from Dodger67 to you and your earlier contribution to move the article to draft space to be worked on: As you advised earlier via channel chart forum; the reference among others was reformatted to fulfill one of the criterion for notability academics according to wiki:

"The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books". The reference as in the article contains highly impact peer review journal with several citations independent of the subject which are verifiable from reliable sources apart from other noteworthy causes of the subject as detailed in the article. Once more thank you for your consideration as your response to the request for undeletion is awaited as you review it.

Ejembi12 (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

AN close

Ha! I bet you expected the worst when you saw the thread name!

Good close, and I note with some annoying smug satisfaction that I mentioned that I couldn't imagine there ever being consensus for anything back on 28 August. I'm here because you didn't sign your close, which probably isn't required but is so common that people will end up searching the history to find out. On the off chance you didn't sign it intentionally, I didn't want to note who did it without checking with you first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks a ton, Floquenbeam. Half of the closure templates auto-sign (such as {{RM top}}), so I sometimes forget to do so. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

[1] and edits to that page. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

the photo of Goguryeo emprie crown

Why did you put "Commenting out" at my photo? I took this photo in NATIONAL MESEUM OF KOREA 2010-06-10.I have the copy right for this.I aks CS OF NAtiONAL MESEUM OF KOREA about the copyright of photo,they said that I have the copyright of the photo as i took it myself.You can see some more relics of Goguryeo in my blog http://yokeru.egloos.com/2138299 ,if you are interested in ^^.Thanks.Richeaglenoble (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The user re-inserted and re-uploaded the same copyrighted image at File:Goguryeo empire golden crown.jpg in which I have deleted under the same F9 criteria. Alex Shih^Talk 09:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Richeaglenoble, the issue is that you do have the copyright to those images, and by placing them on your blog you've essentially said "these photos are mine". This is why we cannot have them on Wikipedia. That being said, you can still release it to be used on Wikipedia by placing a "copyleft" notice on your blog post. This will show that the image is acceptable for hosting on Wikipedia. More information about copyleft notices and donating images to Wikipedia can be found at WP:DONATEIMAGE. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richeaglenoble: I don't get it -- you claim to have taken the photo on 2010-06-10, but you also link a page of a blog that you claim is yours, half of whose text (the top half) appears to consist of commentary on the content of this photo, but said blog post is dated "2008/11/02 10:55". Did you initially have a different photo there and replace it when you took the new photo 19 months later? Also, the photo includes an inlaid label in Simplified Chinese, which really looks like the image was scanned from a book. If you were the blogger who wrote the post in Korean, as well as the one who took the original photo, why would you include a tag in Simplified Chinese in your Korean blog post? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but when Koreans use Hanja they would write the character wikt:饰#Korean as wikt:飾#Korean, no? I think it's much more likely that you had a book in your possession that was in Chinese, and was meant for consumption by people in Mainland China, and you scanned the image, text and all, and put it on your blog, not thinking that nine years later it would undermine your claim on Wikipedia to have taken the photo in a museum.

Additionally, one of the other images on the blog (the one labelled "신라의 절풍 장식") appears to have been taken on an archeological dig, as no museum would display an artifact of that type lying in soil like that. Are you claiming to have taken that photo as well? That photo, and the top two photos (in one image file, the top half of which you put on Wikipedia), are clearly of a different quality than the rest of the photos, and it really looks like the reason for that is these three photos having been scanned from a book (or perhaps a much older book than the other ones). If you scan an image from a book by someone else, you do not own the copyright on it, and you are technically running afoul of copyright law if you post it on your blog with an implicit or explicit claim that it is yours. Most blog hosts don't care, but Wikipedia definitely does, and you are not allowed do this on Wikipedia.

On top of this, even if the questionable story you tell above is completely accurate, you did still upload this image with the claim that you own the copyright on it because you were the one who scanned it from the book you found it in, and still now have not agreed to or requested its deletion in light of your having "come to the light" with regard to copyright claims. This makes it really difficult to take your word on it when you claim that this is not the case with the other image you are arguing over.

(By the way, I've archived the blog in question, and taken screen-caps offline, because if there's one part of this story that I don't necessarily have reason to doubt yet, it's that you are the author of that blog, and that you might try to remove the incriminatory text embedded in the image now that I have pointed it out here.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorted magazine

Sorted magazine and original website Sortedmag.com[1] were first created and launched in the United Kingdom in 2004[2] by Brighton publisher Russell Church.[3] The title was geared to the lads' mag market but failed to establish a strong enough demographic share, with the debut edition overestimating its potential popularity with a 250,000 print run. The original Sorted magazine folded after just four editions leaving staff jobless and unpaid.[4] In 2007, a south coast neighbour of Russell Church saw an opportunity to relaunch Sorted magazine as a Christian evangelistic title aimed at reclaiming a place in the lads' mag marketplace. With a team of publishing professionals on board the new look Sorted magazine achieved some circulation success[5] during the post-Leveson Inquiry period where both advertisers and readers seemed to be seeking publications with strong moral credentials. DolphinCentre (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A pair of socks?

About the Ejembi John Onah issue, I suspect, but don't know how to prove, that we might have a pair of socks: Ejembi12 and TerungwaSamuel. Sorry to keep dragging you into this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Aye, no worries Dodger67. I've blocked Terungwa and left Ejembi a note. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

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

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

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

We really appreciate your input!

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

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

VR Concept

Primefac, I have started one contribution for VR Concept, it was deleted by you through speedy process. I am a new writer here and have been overwhelmed to see so many rules initially.
There is one question according to writing an article concerning 2 versions for different languages.
I planning to write 2 articles about software in English version, but notable sources I able attached and link them to the article (at reference area of article) are only written in Russian and located in Runet media and blog zone. Is it possible to use it for notation to write an article in English?
(Vitality ru (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC))

Vitality ru, while English sources are preferred (because this is the English Wikipedia) there is nothing wrong with using Russian sources (or sources in any language, for that matter). Just remember that they need to be reliable sources.

Your article was deleted because it was copied directly from another website. This is not allowed, and any content added to Wikipedia must be written in the editor's own words. When you go to rewrite the article, I highly suggest you use the Article Wizard to create Draft, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorted magazine

Children's entertainer Steven Legg has a historic evangelist tactic of turning established brands into mock versions so as to promote Christianity. In the public domain you will find The Son, which is a mock version of Murdoch's tabloid The Sun. Likewise, Legg produced a version of the global magazine Liberty, only removing the 'y' and replacing it with an 'i' and using it to promote Christianity. In relation to our dispute here on Wikipedia, it's important to acknowledge that Russell Church first founded the brand Sorted magazine and that Legg and Church are close neighbours. Littlehampton and Brighton are only a few miles apart. Steve Legg's Christian version of the brand did indeed achieve some circulation increases directly after and during the Leveson Inquiry and a renewed public demand for ethical journalism. A team of secular media professionals helped steer Sorted magazine into the mainstream on the back of this. Two of the Directors of Son Christian Media Limited were former employees of News Corp. Russell Church deserves recognition as the founder publisher. Just because his reputation has suffered attacked and he is a serial bankrupt does not mean his achievements should be ignored in relation to Sorted. The original domain name "Sortedmag.com" was used to present the magazine online during the beginning of the move away from print to digital. Russell Church was aware of the growing interest in online and digital gaming, and the launch edition used to be available free with x box gaming software. DolphinCentre (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

DolphinCentre, I am not denying any of what you say. The issue is that we're an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate listing of every fact about everything. So let's break down what you've just posted:

• Is it relevant to the magazine that Legg is a children's entertainer?  No.
• Is it relevant to the magazine that Legg has a historic evangelist tactics of turning established brands into mock versions?  No.
• Is it relevant to the magazine about The Son or Liberti?  No.
• Is the use of A team of secular media professionals relevant to the article?  No, because that's the "inner workings" of a company and aren't particularly relevant to the overall workings.
• Is it relevant to the magazine that Church founded it in 2004?  Yes, which is why I rewrote it a second time to put events in chronological order. As he is not a notable individual, though, his own personal history is irrelevant to the article.
• If there can be a definite tie between the Leveson Inquiry and the increase in circulation of the '07 version of Sorted, then I would have no issues including that information. However, correlating increased sales with "post-Leveson Inquiry journalism" without those references is original research and not allowed.
• Is the "original" domain name sortedmag.com relevant to the article?  No, because the current website is different.
• Is Brighton's proximity to Littlehampton relevant?  No; taking the name of a failed magazine because you happened to see it in a newsstand could have happened between Brighton/Littlehampton or London/Glasgow. Proximity matters nothing. The inclusion of the localities of the two gentlemen were included mostly to provide some minor background of where they came from (as opposed to making it a "neighbour steals idea" story that was in the original version).

Hopefully this will clear up why we're at such loggerheads over this article. If there are further points you would like to discuss, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC) odd edit conflict, definitely never pressed "save" and thus missed a bit of text. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

1/ Sortedmag.com is on cover of both.

Looking at it now and it leads to Sorted magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolphinCentre (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

DolphinCentre, I've seen covers with sortedmag.com, sorted-magazine.com, and sortedmagazine.men. The actual, final destination is the last one, so that's the one we use as the website. It's like how WP:VPP leads to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - I type the former because it's shorter, but the end destination is always going to be "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)". Primefac (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

2./

The publishing industries own trade journal Press Gazette provides proof of acknowledged circulation increase. Citation was removed during this re-edit episode and suggest it is restored. Press Gazette is a reliable source and relevant to a Wikipedia entry about a magazine and its freak circulation increase post Leveson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolphinCentre (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

DolphinCentre, you'll forgive me if the references are starting to blur together, but which reference specifically in the old version of the page talked about Leveson? I genuinely cannot find it. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Where have you seen those covers please?

Google image search. Search for "sorted magazine" and every image for six pages is a magazine header. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but I believe you have a bias conflict of interest in this. Can you please reveal if you know either or both of the subjects of this Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolphinCentre (talk • contribs) 16:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the article more neutral, and that means I have a conflict of interest? I will admit, I was approached by Legg to sort this out, but I actually told him to let me handle it instead of being his proxy. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I have looked at all the Google image covers as you suggested, and assure you that they all feature the domain name as originally referenced: "www.SortedMag.com" Will also search Press Gazette again for original citation. Thanks for being polite.

SMILE!! 16 Sept 2017

Hello Primefac, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A cup of coffee for you!

:) BigSugarDaddy 16:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RD1 on Wildlife Justice Commission

Could you rev del the copyvio on this before I PROD/AfD it? Thanks. Starts at the initial creation through my removal. Sorry to bother, but per my pet peeve about nominating something for AfD before the rev del has been done, I'd prefer not to wait on the template :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I indeed occasionally move promising but abandoned userspace pages into Draft and/or AfC. Occasionally these pages get accepted as is, while others can be readily fixed and accepted. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

About a deletion

Hi Primefac. I'm not clear on the reasons for this revdeletion, however, considering almost all the content remains, and especially that these edits were all made by (as it turns out) a sock of the LTA himself, perhaps they could be undeleted? The small part of the content that was removed by this deletion doesn't seem to be particularly secret. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For the first time in a long time, I don't dread looking at the info EN Q expecting that the the backlog is probably up 25 from the last time I looked at it. I knew you'd be a great addition so thanks for your contributions S Philbrick(Talk) 14:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How old the account should be

dear I want to know how old my account is for any post. RamboRock (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey RamboRock. These kinds of permissions are not "posts", nor any type of official appointment. They're simply additional tools that most editors don't need in order to contribute to Wikipedia, and which in most cases have a potential to be abused or accidentally misused in a way that could make a big mess. For that reason they are usually reserved only for editors who are more experienced (usually several months or more of actively editing), and who demonstrate a need to use these types of tools in particular ways. GMG^talk 15:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for giving me the right path and correct guidelines. RamboRock (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Liza Koshy

Dear Primefac, may I please see the original (deleted) article(s) about her to see if there are any old refs there that should be added to the current article? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Other than IMDb, the only refs were [2], [3], and [4]. Primefac (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, due to the AfD, I was unable to bring the article to DYK. Is it eligible? Thanks for any advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how DYK works, so you'd have to ask them. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Vyaghra Gotra

Thanks a lot for guidance. can you review my article Vyaghra Gotra. I did not find the article in google.Singh1995virat (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Singh1995virat, I do not do page reviews. Please be patient; it will be reviewed in due time. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Mug shot publishing industry

Primefac, Yea, the reason would be, I put in the work to update it, the article links to the actual bill and is very much reliable. Secondly I find it absurd that you let poisoned weasel wording sit idle for years by user mugshots, but pop up out of nowhere, not to add or contribute, but change a link. Seems slightly minute, absurd, and very much an unnecessary change. 9:00, 22 September 2017 (MST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHandOfQueenErotica (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, other than the fact that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If a source isn't reliable (and most blogs are not reliable) then it needs to be replaced with a better source. What I do with my time or how I make my edits is of no matter when it comes to making a single improvement to a page. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-circular template link

Regarding [5], Template:Infobox person is a link which can be displayed when the template is used so it isn't circular in usage just because the code is in the template itself. I don't use XFDcloser. Does it have a bug which needs fixing or was it used incorrectly? Many template pages can produce links to themselves. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, that's very interesting. Definitely something weird with the script itself. I'll let Evad know. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It isn't even a redirect as the edit summary indicates. It's a selflink if processed on the page itself where it will produce bold text instead of linking. Selflinks are often deliberate even if they aren't transcluded elsewhere. I wonder whether the script used WhatLinksHere for Template:Infobox adult biography, found Template:Infobox person because it displays {{Film- and television-related infobox templates}} which has the link, but couldn't find the link in the source of Template:Infobox person and picked/suggested another link instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That's likely the case, and I hadn't thought about that aspect. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Dunedin Public Library (Florida)

I was informed that my draft submission was deleted for copyright infringement. I work at the library we are writing the page for and the person who wrote the history is literally sitting right next to me and has expressed permission to use her words. I would like the opportunity to include her sources and do whatever I have to do to show that there is no infringement. Starting this process from scratch makes no sense. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZimmermanDunedin (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

AZimmermanDunedin, currently the website where the content was taken from is under copyright, and we cannot take verbal release of text. Please see WP:DONATETEXT for more information about releasing text to Wikipedia. If the proper releases are given, I have no issues with restoring the content. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Raja Pratap Singh

Hello primefac, can you review my article.Singh1995virat (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not do reviews by request. Please be patient, and your page will be reviewed in due time. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Random template help

As King of All Template Knowledge® if I wanted to take the awards above the standard barnstar at WP:NPPC to subst templates, how would you suggest that be done. Assume I know less than nothing about Wikipedia templates. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TonyBallioni: I did a little tweak to {{The New Page Patroller's Barnstar}}, is this what you are looking for Tony? Alex Shih^Talk 15:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Thanks, Alex. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Avatar 2

Hello there. I saw you just reverted my creation of the article for Avatar 2. You told me it was a "copyvio" and to use the draft version instead, but I can't say I know what any of those things are. So I would appreciate if you could explain it to me so I can create the article, or simply do it yourself if you prefer. Thank you --Hyliad (d), 17:07, September 25, 2017 (CEST)

Hyliad, this reply is mostly genuine surprise on my part, because I'm honestly shocked that a six-year editor with over 15k edits doesn't know about WP:COPYVIO and WP:DRAFTS. The content you added was copied directly from another site (which isn't allowed) and there already exists a draft at Draft:Avatar 2 which has been worked on extensively so that when it is acceptable as an article it can be moved to the article space. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't really have an explaination on that, I guess I just never encountered this kind of problem before. Still, I did not copy the content from another website, what I published was mostly taken from the "sequels" section of the original Avatar article, that I re-organized in something I considered more proper to a detailed article, and to which I added information that I found, but that was all stuff I wrote myself and justified using sources. Can I still not use my version ? If not, I'll just use the draft one then, but I do think it lacks some relevant info my version had --Hyliad (d), 18:35, September 25, 2017 (CEST)

You're welcome to improve the draft if you feel it needs improvement, but in order to preserve the attribution (i.e. editing) history of the page it should not be copy/pasted to the article space, but instead moved once it is ready to go. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Hyliad (d), 23:50, September 25, 2017 (CEST)

Restoration of "Alps Monogatari" Page

"Not sure how this is a hoax" - With all due respect, did you actually read the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Story_of_the_Alps:_My_Annette_episodes ? It's clearly written in a joke style, referring to characters as if they're cyborgs (with "exoskeleton repair" and "hard drives" and "cerebral software") (it's an adaptation of Treasures of the Snow, which is a post-war period piece), and the total-nonsense long-winded nature of most descriptions is clearly just done so that a spurious link can be made (one reference is made to a character having a "day off", with the link to Ferris Bueller's Day Off; another decides to not say "ability to forgive" but instead says "middle eastern cultural software" with a link to "turn the other cheek"... other parts link Surfing slang). Also, the topic headers are clearly gibberish parodies ("Interjection Iteration Itinerary" for "insert songs") complete with an entirely unnecessary use of Kanji-exclusive name representations.

I strongly recommend you spend another 60 seconds to verify what I've said (by actually reading the page), and come to realise that this page has not been written "in good faith", but is instead clearly an elaborate joke. In addition, if you follow the history of the main contributor, he's done it before for other series. -- aphirst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphirst (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Aphirst, there's a big difference between "this is a hoax" and "this needs to be cleaned up". If the episode titles and premier dates are right, but the summaries are bogus, then we clear the summaries, not the whole thing. At that point, we determine whether the article as a whole should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:BU Rob13#WikiProject directories

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:BU Rob13#WikiProject directories. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sinfonia fratenity

Hello, Primefac. I was consumed by the usual curiosity after seeing your reply to me regarding my AWB request. I have kind of lost interest in that request (no, I am not autistic and yes, I would still like to use AWB but only in the browser, and I realize now that I should probably bite the bullet and get better at regex). Now I am curious as to why you got a degree in zoology and then got another in Astronomy/Physics, so far away in space (Michigan to Glasgow). I realize that my question is impertinent and personal, and understand completely if you don't want to answer. I am also curious about your curious Sinfonia fraternity. I noticed your Sinfonia user box, and read the article. Do you yourself play any musical instruments? I do! I play flute, but can only play classical (baroque through early 20th century; I suck at everything else and need a metronome and sheet music. I like playing in chamber music groups though!) Anyway, I hope you aren't appalled or offended by all my questions. It is okay of course if you don't feel inclined to respond to any of them! I get that reaction a lot :o) --FeralOink (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Digital Rights Watch

In reply to your question in your edit summary at Digital Rights Watch, "cv taken care of?", No, it isn't. The alliterative phrase I googled to find the copyvio "equipped, empowered and enabled" has just been moved from the body of the text to the infobox. In neither context at digitalrightswatch.org.au nor at nswccl.org.au is it presented as a mission statement. Also, if you believe there was copyvio there (and it's not just me who thinks so), and that it's now fixed, shouldn't you have performed some WP:REVDEL? Cheers, Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Cabayi, thanks. I've got the tab open in another window, but I got distracted by other things and haven't clicked the revdel button yet. If the Mission Statement isn't an actual mission statement, you're welcome to remove it. Generally when I see a mission statement in the (more or less) right place I don't check to see if it actually exists. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who keeps tabs open longer than intended. ;-)

"Mission statement" removed with this diff. Thanks. Cabayi (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Great work in closing out the AN discussion on Hidden Tempo! RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 more pint. Thank you for the close! Alex Shih^Talk 15:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your hard work in sorting that out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Credit where credit is due, I just assembled the team. Tazerdadog is the one that actually wrote the close (and of course There'sNoTime provided some valuable pinch-hitting). I just clicked some buttons. But thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Declined CSD Draft:Tobacco Playbook‎

Hi you declined the CSD for the above draft. I was wondering if you could explain what your reasoning was as from what I can see it is an attack page that is not neutral and not only attacks the subject but also the Soda Industry. This playbook may or may not exist but the article is based on the assumption that the tactics in the left hand column are real. This is very dodgy ground because the article is clearly an advocacy piece containing original research. I have checked out quite a few of the links that are supposed to back up the statements and a lot of the links do not point to what they are supposed to back up. eg http://beverageinstitute.org/ is supposed to show "Create organizations that publish favorable research",other links are dead http://www.ameribev.org/education-resources/blog/2009/09/a-concerned-mom-and-those-whove-got-her-back/. I'm not saying that there isn't a set of behavioural patterns that should never have happened and are totally immoral but this article is clearly not written from a WP:NPOV and is only presenting the "prosecution's point of view". I honestly cannot see how this article could be rewritten to be neutral given its title and structure. Domdeparis (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Domdeparis, I completely agree it's dodgy and probably doesn't need to have an article on Wikipedia. However, it's not blatantly attacking one side or another, it's mostly just cherry-picking facts to present a non-neutral point of view regarding a topic. I don't think we can really call it an "attack" against the tobacco industry. If you want to see it deleted off Wikipedia, your best option is to send it to WP:MFD. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. It's probably on the line with the different references that have been added from reliable sources. I'll keep an eye on it cheers Domdeparis (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo discussion

Well, I haven't been flogged enough lately. Mind if we worked to close this? I did comment in the thread, once, however I feel I may be uninvolved enough to help warrant closing this whole thing up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. We'll probably need a third, just for odd-ness. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with that. Hopefully soon. Ol' Yeller's time is up there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: beat us to it: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_request_at_User_talk:Hidden_Tempo. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can ninja-countersign, like we were in on it the whole time? Primefac (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free. Anything to spread the pain around. GoldenRing (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do have an issue with the "any admin is free to unblock" part of the close. This just leaves the door wide open to be right back where this discussion is currently. While not a unanimous consensus to oppose unblocking, there was enough there to warrant leaving the block in place, WITHOUT the caveat of an admin being free to unblock. At the least the WP:SO should apply. HT has shown to wikilawyer, and this will add to it I'm afraid. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As highly visible as this has been, I really doubt anyone is going to get pumped up on coffee one morning and decide to unblock on a whim. But what it does do, is that if he comes back in a few months having taken good advice, there's a possibility, however small, that he might get unblocked without needing a three week public debate at the Wikipedia General Assembly, and hopefully that debate would only be needed in the case that disruption actively resumes. GMG^talk 17:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing and RickinBaltimore:, I guess we get to close it together anyway, since Ivanvector just overturned the close it was just overturned. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So what are your thoughts on the matter? I think there, while not an overwhelming one, is a consensus to keep the block in place, and the topic ban enforced as well. From that I wonder if it would be prudent to leave the block in place, and allow an appeal of the BLOCK in a year's time. After which time can pass to possibly allow the topic ban to be removed. Thoughts? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are much in line with GMG's above. I can't see consensus for what amounts to a site ban in that discussion, and the alternative is to leave MastCell's indef in place, allowing any uninvolved admin to overturn it (there is certainly no consensus to overturn the block, either). I can't see someone overturning it on a whim, but allowing an ordinary unblock avoids future drama. In other words, I think their RFU should be considered declined - in fact I'm a bit perplexed that it wasn't, since it was essentially a request for evidence justifying the block, and while MastCell want as helpful as he could possibly have been, it didn't take that much digging to find what it was about. I guess the lesson is to spend more time at RFU.

As far as I can tell, the topic ban adequately addresses the disruption; they have been subject to a ban from the same topic in the past and, as far as I can tell, abided by it for four months after their block in March and edited other areas productively. GoldenRing (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Underlined text inserted following commentary from Floquenbeam and Bishonen.

Actually, GoldenRing, Bishonen pointed out at User talk:GoldenRing#Abided by it? that you are still mistaken about that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• You fellas can poke fun at me all you want, but if you don't close this soon, yer gonna end up with people blocked because of their discussion about people being blocked. It's already spilling over into other areas. Do be quick about it. GMG^talk 01:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Good morning. I see overnight a discussion specifically on a site ban has been started at AN and I'm struggling to read that discussion, as it stands, as anything other than "no consensus." Some argue that a site ban is not warranted by the facts, while most of the support essentially amounts to "policy leaves us only two options: site ban or unblock." Frankly, that seems a deficiency in policy in my view, and it is a point of policy which I think is routinely ignored. By its letter, any discussion at AN or AN/I which results in an indef should be considered a community site ban and that is certainly not how we operate.

We are in a mess now. There are two threads in the discussion, one of which I read as "no consensus to unblock" (or possibly "consensus not to unblock") and the other as "no consensus to site-ban." It would be obtuse to construe "no consensus for a community site-ban" as an editor remaining indeffed after due consideration and therefore community site-banned.

So I'll throw an idea out there. Here is a possible compromise: we could possibly block Hidden Tempo indefinitely, with the first year as an arbitration enforcement action (since a year is the limit to AE actions) under AP2 DS. I realise that using DS to close an AN discussion is unorthodox, and I'm certainly not going to attempt it without discussion, but it may address the concerns of both camps; it would avoid the situation where HT can make repeated unblock requests until he finds an admin who is not paying attention (at least for a year), while giving him an avenue of appeal that doesn't involve a circus at AN. The form of it may well be too controversial to fly, but I think it has a chance of resolving things to most people's satisfaction. GoldenRing (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is a consensus to block as an arbitration enforcement, then I'd say that would be a faulty close - closers of a consensus-seeking discussion can not add novel outcomes in the closure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, whatever you think about where DS can be used, I'm suggesting this, not doing it. I realise this wouldn't fly if it was just done as part of the close and would need discussion first. But maybe it'd be a compromise that's worth putting to the community? GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No. All the closers have to do is answer these specific two questions:

1. Is there a consensus to unblock? If yes, I'll accept the unblock request, and if no, I'll decline it. If there's no consensus to unblock, any further unblock request would need to be referred back to the community - and no admin is going to be willing to do that before at least a few months, so I see no need for the closers to worry about that.
2. Is there a consenus for a topic ban? If so, I think it would be within the closers' discretion to impose the ban as initially suggested by Bishonen, as that's the only ban that has actually been specified and I think it would be valid to see it as the de facto ban that people were considering.

And that really is all. Now is not the right time to complicate things further by suggesting other new alternatives. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite right, unblock requests are by their very nature contesting an administrators actions. Per WP: Consensus"When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted" we need a consensus from the community to effect a site-ban. In this case, we need a consensus to affirm the block, not a no-consensus to unblock, the framing is wrong. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point, we need to have this matter closed. The community does not want the unblock request granted it would appear at this time, which to be is saying the community wants the block to remain in place. I'm ready to get this done whenever you are Primefac. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, you've been noticeably absent from the thread; mind being our third? Primefac (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I can be a third on this one. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, awesome, email sent. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Y - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as I commented in the discussion, I am going to bow out of the process. While I would stand by whatever decision was made in closing. I would not want there to be a question that would continue to be wiki-lawyered on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Good, thoughtful close. Thank you all for taking the time to address this properly. ~Awilley (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ditto what Awilley said. Good job. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd

is back on another sock: see WP:AN/I#MfortyoneA. Same voice, same interests, same idiosyncrasies, same modus operandi, same volume of edits. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Good luck with that, unless you feel like sticking your neck out for a DUCK block. I already requested a CU on it and got declined because the older socks are too old to check. GMG^talk 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DUCK or DE, I haven't read the ANI thread fully but the first four comments make it sound like a block is in order (regardless of history). Primefac (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh man. My note here was only 36 words. That's not very much for a whole hour. You gotta learn to read quicker GMG^talk 19:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can only parse one word every two minutes. I'll work on getting down to 1:1. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not bad timing through. I had just spent about half an hour myself trying to find an outright smoking gun to no avail, and I was probably going to keep going. GMG^talk 19:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Revdel script

Hey! I finally got to test your revdel script today - apologies for the delay in feedback, I'm not very active in fishing out copyvio's - and for some reason, the script didnt seem to be working. I went through 4 steps: the first being the link, second being the range to be revdel'd (which was 1 in this case), third being the first (oldest) revision of the page and fourth being the last (latest) revision of the page. I entered the details as usual and after clicking "OK" at the last step, the page remained as is. No edits were made to the page. I then manually added the template (+1 on the "revdel copyvio template" google search :P). I'm not sure if this is a fault in the script or if I made a mistake somewhere in the process. Regardless, I thought I'd notify you. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jiten Dhandha, I forgot to mention that this is a super-basic script, and you have to be editing the page for it to insert the code. I'm working on improving it, though, and hopefully I can get it to the point where one doesn't need to edit the page to use it! Thanks for the feedback! Primefac (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahh right. That makes sense. Well, that was stupid of me. I guess I've gotten too used to Twinkle's "just click and it does the job for you" functionality. Thanks for the prompt reply and good luck on the script! :) Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hi Primefac

I think that Yulia Petrovna Vrevskaya was incorrectly deleted, I have attached the DRV notice below. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yulia Petrovna Vrevskaya. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move on Enclosure

Just wanted to check what the Wikipedia protocols are on the move request initiated by the user that you have just blocked. I worry that this has attracted a lot of interest from editors who do not have any particular interest in the subject matter of Enclosure - with the result that a new name for the article may not totally fit the subject. I appreciate that I might be alone in this view, but can work out no way of identifying those with knowledge or interest in the subject to assess other users' opinions. (Incidentally, I think that changing the name from Enclosure makes sense, the agricultural history usage of the word seems to have grabbed unfair prominence.) As a plan B, I could just let the dust settle, finish the book I've just bought on the Agricultural Revolution, and suggest a rename in a month or so.... ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, it looks like the move request was initiated by Tazer. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I checked with Tazer, and got the following explanation:

@ThoughtIdRetired: The timeline goes as follows: MfortyoneA made the (extremely bold) move to Enclosure (legal). This move was challenged by Chris Troutman. I then chimed in, saying that I agreed with MfortyoneA on the substance, but I agreed with Chris Troutman that we should move the page back to Enclosure while we had the debate. I then started the RM, and (I believe) Chris Troutman filed the technical move request to but the page back at its current location pending discussion. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks as though the discussion on the name change is going OK, so I'll wait and see what happens. Thanks for your involvement - all this rogue user stuff is way beyond me!!ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Afc Participants

Hello Primefac, I see there is three folk looking for entry into WP:AFC. Scope creep (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup, been surprisingly busy lately and haven't had an opportunity to evaluate them. I might get to it today, maybe this weekend. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I can try and prevet some of these folks if it would save you some time. But if you're going to do a full vetting anyway I will decidedly do something else. GMG^talk 12:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Assistance is always appreciated; I trust your judgment. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Please take a peek at your inbox! Cheers:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Need Valid Reason for Deletion of SK Basheed WIki Page

sking u whats the copyright present in the wikipedia there is nothing copied thing. we need the page back — Preceding unsigned comment added by SudheerTelaprolu (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

SudheerTelaprolu, the article was copied almost exactly from [6], with the remaining text insufficient to write an article on. If you wish, I can give you a copy of the references used in the deleted version (along with the tables, which were not an issue) and you can rewrite the page in your own words. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification requested

I am requesting clarification on the close at Unblock request at User talk:Hidden Tempo, specifically We rejected it because the consensus was that the community wanted to retain the block but not escalate it into a site ban. The discussion at "Site ban" is split down the line, at best, so I am struggling to understand where this "consensus" materialized from. Additionally, As HT has not yet abused his talkpage access, we see no need to revoke it, and we did not see any consensus at all to expel HT from the Wikipedia community is irrelevant as WP:CBAN would be enforced as there was no consensus to unblock. Pinging other closers Tazerdadog and There'sNoTime, and pinging Ivanvector who's request for clarification, I feel, was not addressed adequately. I appreciate the attempts to close the discussion, but this distancing from WP:CBAN is puzzling. – Nihlus (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And at this point I'm struggling to figure out what yall want from us. There was no consensus to unblock HT, and there was also no broad support for turning this into a "HT is never allowed back on Wikipedia" ban. At the earliest he can request an unblock is in April (or 27 Mar if you want to get even more pedantic), at which point the community will re-evaluate the situation. I know words are important, but when we have to explain (thrice, now) exactly what we mean (without using vague terms like "block" and "ban") I'm flummoxed as to what we do next. Do we need to draw a diagram? Primefac (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The closers have pretty thoroughly spelled out the terms of Hidden Tempo's restriction anyway, and it lines up with my view of a site ban. I think this comes down to confusion (or disagreement) over the terminology of a site ban. My view is that according to policy, any and every decision by the community to restrict an editor from editing is a ban; if the restriction covers the entire project, it's a site ban, and nominal site bans are nothing more than that. The closers (reasonably) believe that a site ban also includes expulsion: revocation of talk page access, appeals rarely allowed and even more rarely successful, effectively removed from the community. And it's true that some banned users are in that situation, and rightly so. I dropped my complaint because on re-reading the banning policy page, it's not readily clear which interpretation is correct. I think it needs to be resolved, but won't be resolved by myself or the closers alone, nor within the scope of Hidden Tempo's appeal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Snark aside, the issue is with refusing to call this a community ban. Policy calls it a community ban, yet you three are top-toeing around it and refusing to call it one since there was no consensus for it. WP:CBAN does say there has to be consensus for it, so that distinction, however small it may be, is important and basically not up to the closers. So, someone needs to call it what it is and then add {{banned user}} to his page for future reference for when this comes up again, as it is not in the block log that this is a community ban. – Nihlus (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Fundamentally, Wikipedia operates on consensus, not policy. With a very few exceptions, consensus can do anything on Wikipedia. Policy is a useful distillation of consensus to provide guidance in the absence of broad discussion, but in cases like this one where it has been discussed to death, the goal of the closers is to match the consensus at the possible expense of being slightly off from policy, and not vice versa. Policy is written without knowledge of a specific situation, which editors can take into account when forming a consensus. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: I did not see consensus to not have it be a community ban, as pointed out in my original statement above. – Nihlus (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)-- Precisely, in a bureucratic sense, Nihlus's point has enough merits in the sense that he feels that the community need not explicitly state --Let a site-ban be imposed to enact one.That the community has arrived at a consensus to decline the request and uphold the indef, shall have the imposition of a site-ban as an automatic corollary.But, Ivanvector has assessed the situation quite brilliantly.The concept of a site-ban(non-literally) seems to vary widely in the editing community and I consider myself to be one in the latter side.And, I could not agree more with:--It's not readily clear which interpretation is correct.Also, as Tazeradog has stated:--Policy is written without knowledge of a specific situation and that's a big problem.And, overall my assesment was fairly similar to--When a site ban was explicitly put forward, the responses were mixed, but overall against it. IMHO, it's often prudential to leave certain hazy zones to the discretion of closers.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on someone to explain how they arrived at that consensus. Are you just counting the votes that bolded their decisions? Because it seems to me that you are ignoring the comments by MjolnirPants, Begoon, Beyond My Ken, Jytdog, Valeince, Floquenbeam, and Drmies. While not a vote, that is 8 people supporting the CBAN and 6 people opposing it. Please elaborate on how that is a consensus. – Nihlus (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not have any idea about how the closer(s) evaluated the discussion but to me, MPants, at the end of day, was basically un-interested about the proposal.Also on trying to read the core of Begoon's arguments, he was unsure about the terminology and was prob. unsure about it's over-reaching implications(including t/p revocation).Barring Jytdog, Drmies, Valeince and Floq none shew strong supports for the proposal.Also, a site-ban is quite an escalation(at least to me) and even if I go by your call/count of vote(s), a margin of 2 !votes isn't right to impose one. At the same time, in a section where many experienced user(s)/sysops have !voted on both sides of the line, it's a slippery slope if one starts ignoring !votes on the basis of it's conformation to policy (which is itself doubtful/mis-interpretable).And that's why, on retrospection, I still think that the close of the sub-section (which ironically was executed by you and later bolstered by Bishonen) was pre-mature.If a few more users would have commented, we may have been never in this place having this conversation.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You need consensus to not impose the CBAN as policy is clear. There was no consensus, so policy prevails. I cannot understand the obstinate thinking here, nor the three closers (two admins) ignoring my questions. – Nihlus (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nihlus, I have one question for you. Are you getting hung up on the wording, or the outcome?

If you're upset that we don't "officially" call it a "community ban" or otherwise enforce the exact wording of CBAN, then kindly drop the matter; it doesn't matter what we call it when we have described (in detail) exactly what the block entails and why we made that decision. This was why we specifically laid out the terms, because we wanted to avoid the pedantry of whether it was a "block" or a "ban". There are levels of nuance that three bullet points of policy just cannot ever encapsulate.

If you're upset that we feel that HT should still be considered a member of the Wikipedia community and will be blocked for a minimum of six months for their behaviours, then you'll have to bring it to ArbCom, because opening another discussion right after we closed this one is bordering on OTHERPARENT and we're not going to change our close.

At this point you're almost doing more wikilawyering than HT, so please answer my very simple question. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've made my question known rather clearly I would say. I've no intention of escalating it any further as that would a useless timesink. You've made your intentions of not answering my question and not being accountable clear, so I will not waste any more of your time. – Nihlus (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Godric, I wasn't "unsure" about anything. What I said was quite clear. The community refusing to lift the block = a community ban. It is a CBAN per policy, whether the term is made explicit or not, and I opined that if it was felt that making it explicit would be clearer then I supported that. Please don't speculate on my meaning next time when you could simply ask if you are confused. Thanks. -- Begoon 00:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Extrasolar planet counts => "AsOf Date" Broken?

IF Possible - seems the "AsOf" parameter no longer works on "Template:Extrasolar planet counts" - even after a page "purge" - ALSO - the "AsOf" parameter no longer works on related articles => for example, the "Exoplanet" article - hopefully this can be fixed in some way? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I guess I'm not sure what's not working. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

He's not updating the parameter you just added, as I've done here. @Drbogdan: You need to update that parameter that Primefac added for those instances where the full sentence is appropriate. – Nihlus (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Nihlus and Primefac: Thank you for the help - and comments - all seems *entirely* ok again - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, missed that. I wanted to make it slightly more dynamic (i.e. you only had to change one set of numbers) but that would require either sticking it on a subpage or creating a template loop. The former is a hassle but would avoid this issue in the future... Primefac (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD Normani Kordei/Normani Kordei Draft/Normani Kordei Talk page discussion

We are the process of debating and talking about activating Kordei's page you can contribute to it if you want to. You can also help added reliable sources to the page as well. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite Q close question

I wasn't clear from your close what, if any, limitations you were suggesting on the use of Cite Q in mainspace. Does your "vetting" comment mean that there should only be a limited number of transclusions for now, or are you just saying that users of the template must be careful it has no errors, but are not restricted in how widely it is used? Or is that outside the scope of the close? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I meant that if someone is to use the template they should make sure that the information transcluded is actually accurate. There are plentiful examples in the discussion where the transcluded template was not accurate, indicating that the user who added the template did not check to make sure the information was entirely accurate.

I did also note that usage of work-in-progress templates in Article space wasn't ideal, but the wholesale prohibition of usage in the Article space was somewhat outside the scope of the TFD itself. Hope this helps. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Marie Josee-Talou

Hi, I was going through the text of Marie Josee-Talou trying to remove the copy vio. Any chance you could un-rev-del my version so I can keep working on it to remove the copy vio? Thank you, Red Fiona (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dealt with on IRC. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Deprod: Dominic Capone

Hello, I have removed the BLPPROD tag you placed on Dominic Capone. A previous revision of the article had an unreliable source (IMDb) on it, so the article is ineligible for BLPPROD. I have no prejudice against regular PROD or AFD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC

He keeps trying,doesn't he. This application was ostensibly to try and get Draft:Stewart Levenson through which has already been deleted once. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• On a completely different topic (and replying here because I'm not sure which page it was on and I'm too lazy to look), but if we're going to recommend that reviewers not check the "blank submission" box on copyvios... why do we have the box? Would it not save you guys time deleting, and probably save everyone time explaining, to simply remove the thing all together, and do it the same way curator does? GMG^talk 12:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

GMG, I think you're thinking of A/G10 "attack page" blanking, which the curator does. The curator, as far as I'm aware, doesn't blank for CVs. Plus, we have the box for the G10 attack drafts.

As for the actual procedure: if you're declining something as CV, it inserts the URL of the site in question. When I check the copyvios tool, if the page is blank it shows 0% match (obviously) and so I have to go into the history, choose the most recent non-blanked revision ID, go back to the copyvio tool and run another search. It's not an impassable hurdle but it's rather annoying when one has to do it on five drafts in a row. Maybe I'll talk to enterprisey about removing the option... Primefac (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking of declining an AfC submission using the AfC software rather than either Curator or Twinkle. It automatically marks it for CSD, but it also automatically blanks the page, unless the review unchecks the box for blanking. So either you spend a half dozen unnecessary clicks and the admin, or every reviewer needs to be aware that they have to make an extra click to save you clicks. The simpler solution is to either remove the box altogether, or unchecked it as the default option, so that editors will only actively blank the page if there is some reason for a courtesy blanking other than simple copyvio. GMG^talk 13:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a rather simple change, so I guess I will ping enterprisey for input. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops..

Missed the simple trick to execute the closure properly per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 23#Meta country at games navboxes!Many thanks for your efforts:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I forgot too. I just don't like throwing {{tfd links}} out when there are 50+ templates because it seriously slows things down on the main WP:TFD page. But yeah, now you know for next time! Primefac (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I hate all you whippersnappers with your quick fingers and functional brains

I'm going to have to stop trying to help at AN whenever a thread is busy; I type so slowly that while I'm composing a message that I'd be happy to restore that paragraph if Guy wanted me to: (a) Guy added another post asking for someone to do it, (b) you did it, and (c) you noted on the thread you'd done it. Then I finally post my comment, making me look slow and clueless. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

*cough* well... ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Eh, you caught me in a moment of boredom. That, and I'm fast like a freak ;) Primefac (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your question on my RfA!

Hi Primefac. I like the username. My username has something special to do with prime factors :-)

I didn't answer your question on my RfA before I withdrew it. The other comments made me realize how to answer your question - to explore things like AfDs, CSDs, etc., before I were to ever consider accepting a nomination for adminship again. Thanks for the follow-up and helping me see what I can do going forward. = paul2520 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul2520, I asked the question to make you think about it (and hopefully sway some of the opposition to neutral). If you ever have any questions, feel free to ask; you seem like you'd make a decent admin! Primefac (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congrats on the OS appointment, and thanks for all you do for the encyclopedia. Let me know when you're next in Seattle and I'll buy you a beer. ~ Rob13Talk 16:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Congrats too! (Trying hard to think of something funny to say but failed) Alex Shih^Talk 18:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)