User talk:Primefac/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

copyrighted photos

A user has been adding photos that violate copyright. Special:Contributions/Apurbo Rahman. He was previously told regarding copyrights. A few minutes ago, I CSD'ed one photo, two photos are still out there. Would you please take a look at them? I would have contacted Clpo13 for something like that, but he hasn't edited in a while. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, will delete the images as necessary. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no links where the statement of the owner can be found clarifying "This is a free work! but I bet, this picture holds no Copyright. Yeah... these need to be deleted. GMG^talk 18:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Hey Tim :) I hope you dont mind if I call you Timmy, or Tim. I wonder what Primefac's human name is. Btw, can admins see the deleted images? I was wondering about this. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

We can. It's not a terribly exciting image, just a well-endowed woman wearing red lingerie. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, there are those that call me.... Tim. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Don't bother me none. Anybody who's been around long enough to "get it" already knows anyway. As to the image, you can probably do much better with a google search... I guess if you're into that sort of thing. Don't look too much if you happen to be at work or in class. Just FYI. GMG^talk 18:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would you please send me a link to the image? Pretty please?
Wait, people call you Tim?
Thanks Tim. Well, I am sort of into that thing. I have those articles watchlisted. What else you can expect from a 29yo guy who hasnt done it yet? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I got nuthin. It was so obviously copyrighted that I didn't even look to see exactly where online it was copied from. GMG^talk 19:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a minor allusion to Monty Python and the Holy Grail Primefac (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're not denying that you may be a gloriously mustachioed Spaniard named Carlos? GMG^talk 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I could deny that if I wanted. I could deny anything if I wanted. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 21:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ali-A article hijacking

Thanks for the revert on Ali-A. Article hijacking is something that I have seen & combated in the past. It is alarming and done slowly enough that the average passing editor may just miss it in Huggle etc. Good eye. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ted Bundy.

I think you'll fine that edit you made reverted. I don't contribute to that article, but you may want to watch "that" space. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Byron Laursen about Scott Merrill Siegler article

Hi Primefac. Thanks for your help thus far. In early December I submitted and article about Scott Merrill Siegler, an important player in the media (former protege of Brandon Tartikoff, etc.) At first, another member decided it wasn't publishable, but you felt they were in error and you re-submitted it. I just got bak from the holidays and discovered that the article still awaits posting. Can you give me any insight, or advice about what to do next?

Thanks, Byron Byron Laursen (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Byron Laursen, you have good timing, about ten minutes after you posted this question your draft was reviewed and accepted. Congrats! Primefac (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Unable to use AFCH Script

Greetings Primefac. I just changed my username from ernestchuajiasheng to heliosxeros. You approved my request to be an AfC reviewer on 11:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC). With my new name, I am not listed on the AfC participants name list, so I can't use the script. May you add me in the list? Thank you. EROS ^message 11:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC) 11:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment on my Talk page re Defiant Titles. I've spent the last few hours pulling diffs together and preparing a case to WP:ANI if the user wished to go there (I felt both their actions and mine should be under equal scrutiny). However, my draft reply was going to say that I'm always willing to apologise if I make an unfounded or unreasonable accusation, so I'll reword my response to post tomorrow, and think it only fair if I were to remove the final warning I placed on their talk page. I have tried to act as reasonably and fair-mindedly in this matter as I could, so would appreciate any guidance if you think I've not done so, or could have handled it better. I did feel the timings and the manner of the responses were very much those of one user, but if there's no proven linkage it would be unfair for warnings to remain. I appreciate you asking a CU.

A question for you: If I or another editor ever receives a single attack of such extreme abuse again, is the best course of action still to go to WP:AIV (despite the 4 warning series not having been given), or is WP:ANI the first port of call in such a situation? (I won't be seeking a block of the IP as I did promise if I received an apology I'd only formally warn them). Regards,  Nick Moyes (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)  

(talk page stalker)Nick Moyes, ANI would be the best for anything involving personal attacks. Such things are not really vandalism, and ANI is better equipped to handle them. At ANI there could be more discussion, and the possibility of a warning or a block on other grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyBallioni. I'll bear that in mind should this ever happen to me again. Nick Moyes (talk)

Oversighters

Hi, could you ping/email the oversighters regarding the section you (quite rightly) deleted from AN?

I've already deleted the revisions, but can't oversight them, and the oversight team has shut off their Wikipedia email. (I can't email them directly myself for some technical/privacy reasons at the moment.) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, you've probably seen my undo by now but apparently the link between the person and the account has been published in the NY Times, which means it's not actually an outing situation.

As for the OS - last I checked the email was still working, it's oversightwikimedia.org. If you need something a bit faster, though, you can always shoot me an email and I'll forward it on (but the temporary revdel is more than sufficient in cases like these). Primefac (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I know the oversight email address, but I wanted to go through the Special:Emailuser interface rather than log into my email account from an insecure location. (And WP:OVERSIGHT shouldn't list that contact method if they're going to leave it disabled.)

If the information has been published in the NYT then I'm not going to sweat it, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting... I'm still not totally familiar with the backend of our email system so I'll ask around and see what's up. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsalt request

Please unlock this title Greater Talent Network. I'm unable to fulfill the RM request.  sami  ^talk 21:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird, it wasn't move protected, but I've gone ahead and moved the page. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I got this message while moving

You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

You cannot move a page to this location because the new title has been protected from creation -- sami  ^talk 21:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I guess they fixed the bug. For a while we had a big issue with people creating a page at one location then moving it to a salted page over the protection. Learn something new every day. Primefac (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand this stratagem.  sami  ^talk 21:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Category

Thanks for your correction on my early attempt to add a category. If you have any further advice it will be most welcome. For example how do I find any other category which should/may be used. With thanks.Osborne 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Grace Morley page

Hello

I see you have removed the work that I have done on Grace McCann Moreley's page. I am an employee of SFMOMA, the institution she founded, and used only valid well researched sources to update a bio which, in our opinion, does not in its current state give her nearly the credit she deserves. She is an early feminist hero, often erased by the men around her and thus I am deeply bothered by the reverting of her page. If I did not follow instructions to edit properly please let me know, as it is crucial that her legacy be well explained and preserved.

-juststella

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Morley&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juststella (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(recent changes patroller)/(talk page stalker) @Juststella: It appears that everything you added was a copyright violation. Please, I would recommend that you write in your own words, and do not copy and paste from elsewhere. In addition, you appear to have a conflict of interest, which means you cannot edit the page directly. I have placed some info on your user talk which explains in more detail. !dave 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Face Off:Game Face

Hey :) You commented on my draft for Face Off:Game Face that it's a duplicate of Face Off. However, Face Off:Game Face is a spinoff series that Syfy just released earlier this year - it's a different show.

Thanks for contributing!

Mask of Mayhem (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Shogi player profile link cleanup

Thanks for taking the time to do all of that. There's no shogi barnstar yet, but you'd get one if there was. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Heh, any time! Primefac (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for improving Marisa Peer article

Just stopped by to say thanks for improving Marisa Peer article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

for the purge:)Winged Blades^Godric 13:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Primefac (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:bkw and Template:bk

Hi, is it possible for ISV to read as Virgin Islands (as opposed to U.S. Virgin Islands) for the above two templates? If so, can you please make the necessary changes? Thanks!! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, the issue is that {{country data ISV}} redirects to Template:Country data U.S. Virgin Islands which actually had the "U.S." part added back in '15. If you can show that a large-enough number of basketball pages are being improperly linked I can probably make the change, but as it stands the "main" article is at U.S. Virgin Islands national basketball team. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I see, its only basketball articles where I have noticed the U.S. in front. Just wanted to remove it for consistency. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can get the basketball team moved to Virgin Islands national basketball team I'm happy to change the template. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

[1] FIBA has them listed as 'Virgin Islands'. I am going to be bold and move the articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A quick delete

Hey, could you delete Trevor_Clarke_(footballer). I basically messed up an accept - only half completed it, reverted my move but left back a redirect which prevents me from accepting it again. Did tag as R2, but speedies aren't really "speedies" and I'd like to fix it up today before I have to go to sleep soon.. since you apparently don't have anything better to do Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I do have better things to do, but rugby keeps distracting me :p Primefac (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your protection of Victoria Jackson

I'm not seeing why you needed to fully protect the article. The users that appear to be causing problems have been blocked (or were blocked, and advised to make changed on the talk page), and there doesn't appear to be any reoccurring disruption that would require full protection. At the very least, you think you could lower the protection level to ECP? SkyWarrior 20:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SkyWarrior, thanks for the note. 'twas a misclick, meant to just do semi-prot. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC help, possible COI??

Not sure if this is worth taking to COIN so wanted to run it by you first since you seem to be the most senior person at AfC. I was reviewing this submission and the edit history shows it was worked on by two different SPAs. That was strange to me as either they are working together or possibly the same person - keep in mind I am assuming good faith, just seems a little suspicious. Looking further, I see that the most recent editor - Aidandiprima uploaded two photos. The first is for Sam Reich which was taken from Flick. The second is for the draft on Ozan Varol. The issue with the photos is that they were uploaded to Flickr just prior to or on the same day they were transferred to Wikicommons. Again, I am assuming good faith, but seems strange why they would upload them to Flickr first and then upload them to Wikicommons instead of just uploading them directly to Wikicommons. Would appreciate your thoughts. Maybe you can dispel my suspicions or provide some guidance before I attempt to make contact with both editors. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, two things, the SPA and the Flickr thing.

It's not unusual to have two SPAs working on the same draft. In fact, I'd rather see "MarySue" and "JimBob" working on a draft as SPAs then wonder whether "AcmePR" is a role account. I'd say it's likely there's a COI, and I'd ask in due course how they're connected to the subject, but the fact that there are two of them isn't strange.

I think it's actually a better idea to upload an image to Flickr and then move to Commons - if you get something off the former you can very easily see that the uploader has given permission. If you upload to Commons, and someone questions its legality, you have to notify OTRS and potentially wait a huge amount of time to demonstrate permission. It's rather smart.

Hope that answers your questions, let me know if I need to clarify further or missed something (or can answer something else). Thanks for checking! Primefac (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Not sure why, but my Spidey senses tingled a little on that one. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Always good to take a look around when that happens. Primefac (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Help needed on AfC submission

Greetings Primefac. I recently encountered an AfC submission and would be in need of your help. Is writing articles about yourself allowed on Wikipedia? EROS ^message 01:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Heliosxeros: (tps) Per WP:AUTO:

Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I see, thanks. EROS ^message 03:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

OTRS request

Could I talk you into looking at ticket:2018010910001652. They have a question about IPv6, and I'm not sure why this site says Wikipedia.org os not fully compatible, or what that means.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Probably, because Wikipedia hasn't got any IPv6 DNS server.That's a problem for pure IPv6-only networks, without any tunneling (which are rare).Winged Blades^Godric 07:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect to their latest question - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if IPv6 users can edit Wikipedia, chances are pretty good they can view them... Who wants to answer the ticket with "yes"? Primefac (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Samuel Rosenberg (artist)

This is my first submission article on Wikipedia. I got a notification that it will be deleted. I would like to rewrite it. Can I do it under the same title: Draft:Samuel Rosenberg (artist)? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iblum (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Iblum, there is no issue with you rewriting your draft at the same location, but you must write it in your own words. I've had to delete your second attempt because it was copied directly from other sources. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and any infractions are removed immediately. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ejembi12

I'm wondering if we are getting to the point where talkpage access might need to be pulled. It's becoming a time sink with this editor and their numerous appeals and endless Wikilawyering. As you said, they have one edit to Wikipedia that is not to a talk page. The only editing they look to do is to promote their self it seems, and it's to the point that the community patience may be exhausted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that might be the case. As much as I hate to lose an editor, I don't mind so much when they're a one-trick pony. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible COI?

Can you please take a look at Draft:CoNetrix - especially the images. There is one of a fax from the Bin Laden group. It is clearly a private business communication, with names, etc. The article creator User:B Jamison963 says it is his own work. I'm not sure it is suitable for a number of reasons, but not sure what to do with it. 09:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeraphWiki (talk • contribs) 09:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's not suitable for Wikipedia (let alone Commons) and I see that it's been nominated for deletion there. In the meantime I've removed it from the draft. If you think they have an undisclosed COI, you should ask them about it, but as long as the draft is written neutrally it doesn't really matter (unless they're being paid). COIN is always an option. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit page?

Hi Primefac. I see today you deleted a page I had created. I from the initial Wikipedia review that I could edit the content and resubmit. Can I still do that? Or can I now create a new page with the same name and upload new content? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trix70 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Trix70, because the content was copied from elsewhere, the page cannot be restored, so you will have to start over writing in your own words. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's: Revision history

Greetings please could you verify what should be the copyrights violation, because after your intervention I've rewritten the text from 1000 to 485 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrodini2017 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, when I did a check on the content I misread what you had added and though it was copyrighted. I have restored it. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Template protection

Hi, is there any chance you might be able to remove the protection of Template:Languages of Indonesia? I can't recall seeing it vandalised and it has a history of helpful IP edits. On a general note, I don't think it's a good idea to protect navboxes, at least not the language-related ones: they're a real chore to maintain and are almost always out of step with all the article creations, mergers, splits and moves. IPs have been willing to help and vandalism hasn't really been an issue. – Uanfala (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Just please keep an eye out to make sure that any potential vandalism gets reverted quickly. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh good, will do. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-note

Clean up Edenham High School / Orchard Park High School and Sixth Form (Croydon) merger/move dumpster fire. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that we've reached the inevitable conclusion...

Would you mind restoring the oversighted material on Talk:Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

difficulty at Talk

I'm having a bit of trouble and am not sure what to do. Your hatting of Lacypaperclip's series of complaints about my AfD'ing the James D. Zirin article, while appreciated, has not resolved her concerns with me. Per your advice I've tried to encourage discussion on the Talk page, however, we are having some issues that are becoming increasingly destructive and seem unresolvable without an uninvolved persons' assistance.

• Lacy has used the AfD to imply that I am a personal enemy of Zirin and/or his family and/or the entire legal profession; I am concerned the interrogation she is now trying to use the AfD to conduct may be a bit derailing: "have you ever met him, do you know someone in the family? Is there any link to him, or maybe do you not like attorneys? Please just leave a simple yes or no answer" [2] The quantity of !votes are trending towards delete and these 11th hour allegations about the nom, without evidence, could be seen as a hail mary to derail the AfD. While I AGF that was not her intent, I'm concerned she may not realize some could perceive it that way.
• When I tried to initiate a RfC about a formatting question she told me I should "seek some help" [3] and then slapped "This RFC is flawed with a non-neutral statement!" [4] over the RfC template.
• After I removed a highly questionable "source" that the subject of the WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, User:JZirin, added about himself (the source in question was just the words "James Zirin" in parantheses) Lacy started a Talk page thread she titled "Disruption at this article by user Chetsford" [5]. I'm wondering if that specific title could be stricken or refactored? Using a thread title for the purpose of making an H2-size billboard of an accusation against an editor is not, I don't think, the correct use of the Talk page?

My first attempt at deescalation was to try to disengage completely from the article but that wasn't entirely effective as Lacy simultaneously developed a newfound interest in several pages I am active at. For instance,

• I was working to salvage SA Recycling LLC from deletion at which point Lacy - who had never previously edited that article - put an "unreliable source" tag on one sentence with the edit summary "Can you demonstrate editorial control" [6]. This came 40 minutes after I posed an identically-worded question (on the James Zirin talk page in a discussion of kentpresents.com - "Does it have editorial controls?" [7]). I expressed to her my deep concern that this edit could be seen as WP:POINTY and WP:WIKIHOUNDING.[8]
• Since you hatted the AfC thread she started about me, she has moved her discussions about me to other Talk pages. Again, that's fine and I respect her right to do so, but I wish she would ping me when she does it as they usually involve accusations about various intrigues which I'm allegedly masterminding, the factuality of which I would like the opportunity to dispute. [9])

I think bringing this up at ANI would be a waste of time over what is - ultimately - a very, very minor edit question. I was wondering if it would be possible to impose on you to just hang out check-in at the Zirin talk page for the next day or two? I think maybe just having a regular presence of an uninvolved person there would maybe help prevent this from becoming more intense than it has become. Chetsford (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsalting

Need un create protection of Global Payments so to move in Draft:Global Payments- though it has a checkered past, it is an S&P 500 company (apparently that's not enough to not be declined for being non-notable or to get deleted as A7!, though :) ). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, done. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

NPR

Would you mind granting my alt (this account) the NPR flag? Thanks. TBallioni (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Rude. TBallioni (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Um... you're welcome? Primefac (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I misread that as a joke saying you weren't after the fact (and obviously you did), so I was joking back. Self trout. TBallioni (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Need your eyes on Modoka Studios Entertainment. It appears the article creator may be connected. It doesn't meet notability and I noticed a lot of moving and deleting going on, but not sure if there may be some hanky panky involving a COI or not. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on their edit history they're either a COI or just a fan of the company, but other than the declaration that they're a "freelance writer" there's no smoking gun. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your answer to my Q. about Good articles

Thanks for clarifying what the green circles were; who judges a "good" article; the user community in general? Noble Korhedron 19:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Korhedron (talk • contribs)

Good Articles must meet a certain set of criteria, which are evaluated by members of the community. See WP:GAN for more information about nominating pages for GA status. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask for a few minutes' feedback on my AfC review process

I very much appreciate the time you've spent looking over my early reviews. I'm seeing this is very much like performing a reasonable WP:BEFORE on a potential deletion candidate. That process I feel comfortable enjoining. But minutes after I performed one review, the reviewed page was nominated for deletion. I have replied to that nomination, defending my choice to promote to mainspace. Would you be willing to look at my defense? The page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Cooper & The Stampede. I'd specifically prefer you NOT participate in the AfD process. I'm not looking for !votes. I'd just like to make sure I'm on solid footing with my review rationale. Would you look? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply BusterD. I think giving your rationale for accepting the draft is a good thing, though if I were going point-by-point down the refs I'd probably use a numbered list rather than prose (just to make things easier to read). As for pages getting nominated right after acceptance - some people do that for borderline cases; there's nothing wrong with it (or with your accept), and over the last few months the % of accepted drafts that gets nominated has held fairly steady. Keep up the good work! Primefac (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your eyes and your detailed feedback. I guess on rereading I felt I was coming across as defensive. I'm not trying to win any argument here; if I review and pass something, then I feel I should be able to defend my effort. BusterD (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the mess I created with the OTRS rmv confidential info caused by me, and thanks for reminding by mail. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aye, no worries, it's easy to make that mistake (I've done it a time or two myself). Primefac (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yellowman DoB

Hi Primefac. Regarding this, I've seen the OTRS ticket, but surely we still need a published source for WP:VERIFY purposes? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You do raise a valid point, and I'm not honestly sure about the "proper protocol". However, as far as I've seen the extant sources don't give accurate information, so unless there's something that does give the proper date, I'd rather hold the OTRS ticket as verification of of the DOB. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, chatted with some other admins, long story short you're right. See the article talk for more. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. See also my e-mails on OTRS. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for taking that over. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

First adminship anniversary!

Wishing Primefac a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Congrats" Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

harassment has started or continued ...

[10]

Hi Primefac, could block and/or squash this ASAP? Perhaps have some "Checkuser" could check it's ip, and see by the location, who the person might possibly be, to see who the sockpuppet could possibly be?

Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Blocked the account, nuked their edits/page creations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of IEEE article history

• Every* revision of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers for the last 14 years is a copyright violation? This is extremely unusual. Could you explain why you had to delete the article this way? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It was copied directly from the IEEE website, and despite the age I highly doubt the IEEE is copying their own information from us. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And on top of that, it has no encyclopedic value because it was incredibly promotional (see deleted revisions containing "we strive", "we do" etc...) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I provided a second set of eyes for Primefac on this. He is correct. This was a copyright violation since 2004. We come across old copyvios somewhat frequently, and unfortunately we have to hide the revision history once we are aware of it. William H. Keeler is one where Diannaa had to hide almost 12 years worth of history at my request (pre-admin days). It is unfortunate, but it is the standard practice on en.wiki for dealing with copyright violations, even if they are longstanding. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I had never seen so many revisions deleted before. I can't see them, that's why they are deleted. Glad we have more oversight than the Hawaii civil defense system. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

See Padmashali for another example. Nearly 11 years:)Winged Blades^Godric 11:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinneylove Eze

Chinneylove Eze is a Nigerian movie producer Babatunde Adeniyi (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's cool. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template protection (3)

Hi, would you be able to unprotect Template:Language families, Template:Pama–Nyungan languages and Template:Tourism in Kerala? The situation is more or less the same as the Indonesian languages template from a few days ago. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And can I also add Template:Sign language navigation, Template:Languages of Nigeria and Template:Languages of China. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Appreciated! – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Histmerge request

Hi. Thanks for the histmerge for Polo Reyes. Could you see if a histmerge is also possible for Draft:Devin Clark (fighter) and Devin Clark (fighter), which was also created by a copy-paste move of an AfC draft, which resulted in the AfC submission being declined? Bennv3771 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow you work fast. Thanks again. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Why semi-protect this template?

Primefac, I was surprised to see you semi-protect Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting "to combat systematic vandalism" when it has never experienced any vandalism. Indeed, the only edits since 2010 were related to a deletion nomination. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See #Template protection (2) above. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rosen Heights - Fort Worth, Texas - community on North Side)

I've reapplied the copyvio review of Draft:Rosen Heights - Fort Worth, Texas - community on North Side). I see your point that the copied information is within quotes, and if this were a single long quote in the middle of an otherwise reasonably written article, I'd agree. But this makes up nearly the entire article, the article is a copy and past of the URL mentioned. I'm not asking that it be speedily deleted but am noting the copyright violation to the submitter.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

MadeYourReadThis, fair enough, and in reading the decline reason "the whole thing is one big quote" does fall within the |cv| decline. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Template protection (2)

Can you explain why you protected this? I don't know of any relevant vandalism problems. (please use {{ping}} if you respond here.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Koavf, there has been a huge increase in the amount of drive-by template vandalism, and in an effort to cut down on the amount of gigantic phalluses (phallusi?) that pop up on pages I started a discussion about semi-protecting high-transclusion templates, and the general consensus is to go for it. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the rationale for which ones are protected? This one hadn't been edited in four years. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See my reply above. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah sorry didn't fully read it before leaving here. I won't argue it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Aye, no worries, you're clearly not the only one! Primefac (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What transclusion count or other metric are you using to identify a template as "high-usage"? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

250+ transclusions. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not 200+? One of the protected templates I came across has 201 transclusions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The original list was 200+, but I trimmed it down to only 250+. If any slipped through that was unintentional. Primefac (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've only checked this template because it was near the top of the list in the protection log. The templates that immediately follow it are {{WikiProject Graffiti/class}}, {{WikiProject Hazara}} and {{WikiProject Galicia}}, with transclusion counts of 233, 233 (again) and 237 respectively. – Uanfala (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Unprotect Haryana template

Please unprotect the Haryana template. I wish to make some additions, forts, stepwells, etc. I do not have wikipedia account and not willing to register also but I do make edits from time to time as you can see from my talk page. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Swiss flag in infoboxes

Hi, I noticed the Swiss flags are quite large in the infoboxes for nation at xxx games pages. Is there away to reduce the sizing? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

On another note, is it possible to add a link to closing ceremony flag bearers? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the downside of having the Swiss flag being square. I suppose we could add in a size param to the template, but then we'd have to retrofit all hundred-odd instances of the flag. Not sure if it's worth it for that.

As for flag bearers, wouldn't it be possible to just add "(Opening)" and "(Closing)" to the param, e.g. |flagbearer=Joe Bloggs (Opening)(br)Jane Doe (Closing)? Otherwise, yes, it's possible, but it seems a little unnecessary? Willing to discuss it further though. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree regarding the Swiss flag. It isn't a big problem, but its huge lol.

As for the flag bearers, that is fine (this is what was done for Sochi), but the infobox does not link to the closing flag bearers page. I think it would be best if we had two lines one for the opening and one for the closing. Most, if not all countries have different flag bearers. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realize that we started doing separate pages (I took a look at 2004 Summer and it just had the Opening). Yeah, I'll code something up. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect thank you! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 00:23:24, 22 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Comics Creator Pages

• Comics Creator Pages (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Adam Riches (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this is the first page about someone I've tried to create, so I'm still getting the hang of things...

I see that you said it was denied on the basis of primary sources, but I'm trying to understand what exactly I was supposed to do differently? I got nearly all the information from interviews, which were either through larger publications like newspapers, or comic book news websites. Wouldn't the most reliable source of information be directly from the person's own words in interviews? There are many other sites that have written things about him, like the "most villains on a cover" piece, but those speak primarily to details like the release dates of his work, and not anything about him personally.

If the article were to only list information such as that (the books he has worked on and nothing else about him personally), while it would probably make for a far less interesting article, would that have a higher likelihood of approval, since none of the information was actually spoken by the person the article is about?

Sorry for the confusion, just trying to understand where I went wrong and how to fix it, because I put a lot of work into this as my first attempt at an article. Thanks. Comics Creator Pages (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comics Creator Pages, the issue with using PRIMARY sources like interviews is that it's not independently verified. An interview is fine for verifying something like a birth date or other non-contentious material, but (to use an example from the draft) saying "Riches designed the costumes for X, Y, and Z" and only referencing his artwork is not verification; all it shows is that he designed the art (which anyone can do) and there is no indication that said artwork was actually used. I could write the plot lines for a hundred episodes of Dr Who but if they're never used on the show they're just fan fiction.

To ping on your second paragraph, we're not here to make "interesting" articles, but factually accurate ones. Sometimes that means it is "boring", but if Riches is as well-known as the current draft makes him out to be, then there should be no issue with finding sourcing in reliable, independent works. But at the end of the day, if you cannot find a non-primary source for verification, and someone might say "I don't think this is true", then the information should probably not be included on the page. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Crystalball

Hmm...Predictions and all.....Remember it?Winged Blades^Godric 14:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, entirely unsurprising. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

​On that subject, though, this seems a bit like gravedancing, no? Primefac (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That was a nice template:) never knew about it! And, yeah, that was badly-worded.What seems to be the case is that (in all probabilities) he has used throw-away accs. prior to the PE-Saga.The part. account was netted only because he re-choose to use it, very recently, after keeping it dormant for years, once his using it to cast a !vote in his own-nom-AFD was met.Winged Blades^Godric 15:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Railway in Haryana

Hi, I was wonder why my edits were revdel'd on the Railway in Haryana. All I did was added sections, and ce'd it a bit. I never even noticed the copyvio bit. scope_creep (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes copyvios don't show up on the report. I've done about 15 this morning already, but I seem to recall this one I had to manually input the URL into the copyvios tool to get a match. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I never saw it, but why was my revisions revdel'd, is it not wide of the mark? None of the stuff I did, which were section heads, were copyvio? :::I looking more for the reason. It has happened to me before, with Diannaa, removing huge chunks of articles, which I don't mind. But all did I did was approve it out of Afc, and add section heads. There shouldn't be any revdel next to my edits. scope_creep (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Because the offending text was present before you edited, and removed after you finished editing. All revisions holding copyright violations are removed. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, of course it must work that way. Reet. scope_creep (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Rovshan Muradov

Hi Primefac. I saw yesterday you deleted a page I had created. Could you please tell me the reason why it was speedily deleted? There were written "variety reasons". Can I still edit that? Or can I now create a new page with the same name and upload new content? Thanks.Emmmka (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Emmmka

Emmmka, the primary reason why I deleted the page was that it was copied directly from another website. Wikipedia takes WP:copyright violations very seriously, and if the violation is serious enough the entire page is deleted. You are welcome to recreate the page, but you must write it in your own words.

As you rewrite your page, please remember to write everything from a neutral point of view. Superlatives like "prestigious institution" and mission statements should rarely if ever be used. Just something to keep in mind. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

pings

Can anon editors ping others using {ping}, {u}, {re} or something like that? Neither WP:ECHO, nor mw:Help:Echo#Technical details are clear about it. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

pinging myself at Usernamekiran, while logged out.117.200.192.24 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I just pinged myself as an anon. Anon can ping. Echo @Usernamekiran:—usernamekiran(talk) 23:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

One cant ping their own account. :-/
I apologise for using your talkpage as testwiki. Kindly dont get mad at me. I did it for the sake of science. See you around.
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Science is always an acceptable excuse! Primefac (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

—usernamekiran(talk) 20:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 2

I'm placing this here because I can't comment at User talk:Diannaa. I seem to be locked out there for some odd reason. I had never used that template before, and when I saw what it produced I immediately modified the offending link so it wasn't visible or would work. When I checked the results of that edit, I saw that there was still a huge template and immediately decided to just delete the whole thing. I did that, saved my work, but when I checked, you had just done it at exactly the same time. Now it's gone, and that's what I wanted. Sorry about that, and thanks for doing it. No offense intended. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I figured that happened. Sometimes people copy the template and don't remember to comment it out with either <nowiki> or {{t}}. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought I had, but then realized I had only done it with the one in the text. The actual template was still working very well, even creating its own separate section. I realize now why I can't access those edits. You did that too. Cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitteh for you!

Favrite kitteh is here to thank you for your work clearing out Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. Kthxbai ~~

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

197.211.32.0/19 block

Hi Primefac. Thanks for reblocking the range. Since you aren't a CU, I think you should use something other than {{CheckUser block}} as the block reason. Also, a hard block with ACC ignore doesn't make sense. Accounts created by ACC wouldn't be able to edit without IPBE, which we don't (and most can't) grant. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The edits were a continuation of the previous CU block, so I figured that the original block reason was sufficient. I'll ask around and see what the others think. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Primefac (CC: @JJMC89:, I just got pointed on to this from ACC. Honestly, I could care less about the CU block as you modified it, not made it, my major concern is the introducing of the hardblock. There appears to be a crapload (to put it lightly) of collateral damage that will be hit by this. If there is a legitimate reason, then I understand, but I have to admit I'm curious what reason that would be. My email is open if it's private info. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, when I was making the block it felt like there was too much collateral for the OS-related issues I was finding, but I couldn't find a small enough range that would adequately cover it. I think single-IP blocks will be used on this range when it happens again. I've unblocked. Thanks for the input. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wikidata icon

Hi! Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_16#Template:Wikidata_icon, you wrote that

This template is contrary to some of the guidelines set down by Wikipedia (including WP:EGG and MOS:ICONS), and those advocating for keeping it did not address those main points when discussing the issue.

However, I directly addressed the MOS:ICONS point in a response to James Allison:

According to MOS:ICONS "Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox" is considered an appropriate use. That probably also extends to lists, by analogy. It might also have uses on talk pages and project pages, which MOS doesn't apply to.,

which nobody made any come-back to. As for WP:EGG, that is specifically about textual piped links taking a reader to "somewhere other than where they thought it would", and to somewhere that does not make sense in the context. Neither of those two was the case here. As Doc James pointed out, there is little surprise induced by the icon:

When you hover over it, it says from Wikidata. Thus not seeing it as a significant concern.

Since the number of opinions for and against the template were otherwise more or less balanced, can I put it to you that a more appropriate close would have been "No consensus", with an admonition that the template, if used at all, should only be used in the circumstances permitted by MOS:ICONS ? Jheald (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, you make some valid points. I'll amend my close. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Target change

Hey, Prime. What's wrong with my edit? I changed the target for privacy reasons. Some editors who renamed have also done the same. — Zawl 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, mostly it's an improper cross-namespace redirect (user pages should really only redirect to other user pages). You're welcome to U1 the page, which will redlink any non-custom sigs you've placed using the old account. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Kineso tape

Hi - you asked to reference the company re Kinesio tape - I can only find "leading US Brand" don't know if this will suffice. If not happy for you to delete again! Hellinadustcart (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bea Miller

Good morning Primefac, if today is February 1, 2018 in some parts of the world, then Spectrum will not be released in January 2018. Can you please change this back to 2018 at Bea Miller, or something other than January 2018? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. I think the addition of the month got caught up in some other stuff I was reverting; wasn't my intention to have it in there. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect log

Hi Primefac, Greetings. I saw you have closed some of the redirect discussion and wonder you could assist me. I tried to look for redirect log on "Public log" page and cant find "redirect" there. Is there a log page, I could find the redirect log based based on search on editor to view page redirect and the date or redirected. Thank you in advance of your assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I do apologize, but I have no idea what this is in reference to. That being said, there is no "log" for redirects - just page creations and tag logs (search for "redirect" to see the various filters). Primefac (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The only redirect discussion is WP:RFD and there are logs like this..link to log should be on the talkpage of the redirect..dunno whether that's what you're looking for though Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking that could be a possibility, but I haven't closed an RFD in ages. I'll wait for their reply. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac and @Galobtter:, Thank you for the reply. 2 incidents made me asked the question. (1) when working on the counter vandalism on Huggle yesterday, I found out there are a numbers of pages created, without much content and events future, and immediately redirect to a related general namespace. As a new page reviewer, I reverted the edit and tag AfD. While I was doing the reverting, it was redirect back without I notice. And since I was a redirect tag, I withdraw the AfD - see here Super Bowl LVII which will be held in the year of 2023 redirect to Super Bowl - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl LVII. (2) I also know that editor example here is User:Rickyc123 created a page without content / only a few words and redirect to a general related namespace and when other editor create the page, the Rickyc123 redirect again which involved copy and delete and the creator of the page became his for his has create such no content redirect close to hundreds of them - see his page creation log for his has previous copied and pasted draft content from other editor to make his page while the draft page being waiting for review (evident is collected and proved). We could know the page is redirect by which editor by view the contribution page but I am not sure we could know the page being redirect to other pages have a log. And also, if we dont know which editor doing the redirect, how would we find out which editor did the redirect? Could a log could find redirect to and from a page to another? All this redirect pages with much content and fails GNG and they are not on WP:RFD. I have another question as well, could a page redirect without even sits on the review log? I chain of thoughts is that because the redirect page is not a reviewed page but is a name page which sits aside where the nobility is not meet. As I dont know all the policies or process in Wikipedia and might even misunderstand some for such I seek your advise. Thank in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I'm a bit unsure as to your exact query but WP:WLH may be of some help.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if I can pick this apart.

• Huggle sometimes gives you a "vandalous" edit that is actually reverting the vandalism (yesterday an editor mistook vandalism for an actual edit and self-reverted). It happens.
• As I mentioned, there are a number of Tags that relate to redirects. Some of them tell you when a redirect is removed, some tell you when a redirect is created./
• WP:RFD is indeed the venue to request deletion of redirects. If you're using Twinkle it will automatically send it to the correct location.
• Future events that will definitely happen in the next few years such as Super Bowls, Olympics, etc, are perfectly acceptable to create as redirects (assuming it's not something silly like Super Bowl C). While mass-creation of such redirects isn't exactly desirable, it's not strictly prohibited (but that's also what RFD exists for).

Hopefully I covered the majority of what you were concerned about. If you have other/further questions feel free to ask. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefact, Thank you for the explanation. I have further questions

1. If an event would eventually happen, then a editor (say editor A) COULD create an article and immediately redirect to a general related article. What when another editor (say editor B) remove the redirect tag and created the content with all the WP:RS as the event is on the news now, and submitted the article. The attribution of that article should be editor A or B?
2. What happen if editor create an article and immediately redirect to another general related page - say this time is about footballer which "might/with potential" be drafted to be one of the club, but the nobility has yet to be meet during that time of editor A creation, could this allow to be done? Thanks in advance of the assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

More template stuff

Hey- I had a go at clearing up the header of the AfC feedback page. The link inviting users to leave feedback from Template:AfC talk currently uses: {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}, whereas the link on the feedback page itself uses {{leave feedback|format=link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation|feedbackpage=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/feedback|text=click here|plain=yes}}. What's the difference between Template:leave feedback and Template:leave feedback/link? As far as I can tell, the second code (from the feedback page) wikilinks the user's talk page in the section title and the first does not. Am I missing something or am I good to replace the first with the second? Sorry if this doesn't make much sense. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I haven't forgotten about this, but I've been putting out fires and this is a little lower on the priority totem pole. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A little help, if you don't mind???

Hi ::@Primefac: !

You have been kind enough to respond to two of my previous inquiries to other users that I contacted about AFC and on your last advice about a week ago, you said the draft I created would likely be reviewed in just a few days but it still hasn't. I learned from your last message that there are only 200 or so reviewers for new articles so I realize it must be a monumental task to sort through all the new content created daily but still I have seen many articles that were written well after my draft was written and many of those are already approved or declined. Since I wrote my draft back in November and it is still sitting idle I was just hoping that perhaps you can give me a little help and push it forward for a faster review. I would really appreciate any assistance you can give. The draft I wrote is at the following link and it has been worked on by a few others in the Wikipedia community as well. Thank you very kindly in advance for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ian_Erix

Best Regards, Stefan 07:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruinsects (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bruinsects, I do apologize, I misread the submission time on your draft - the backlog is currently about two months, and your draft was submitted just over a month ago. Thus, it is likely to be a while before it is reviewed. Thank you for your patience. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again ::@Primefac: :) As you may remember, we have chatted a couple of times while I had been waiting for a draft article I wrote some time ago to be reviewed and you were quite helpful in offering reassurances to me that it was not forgotten about and would eventually get looked over. After 8 weeks of waiting, it was finally reviewed yesterday but unfortunately declined. I do not believe this was a fair decision at all as the reviewer, by their own admission, only looked at 5 of the 43 cited sources and declined then declined the article for lack of notability that I believe is clearly established. I see that there is a possibility to resubmit my draft after making alterations to it but since I believe it clearly meets all the notability guidelines as it is, I would like to have it reviewed again if possible. I have already written to the Wikipedian who declined it just a few moments ago but wanted to reach out to you as well to see if there is any other appropriate measure I can take now. For your reference, please find the note I wrote below to the editor who declined my draft. Any help you can provide with this would be greatly appreciated.

Hi MadeYouReadThis - Thank you for your review but it does not seem fair at all for you to decline this submission with having admittedly just reviewed 5 out of the 43 citations. I waited for nearly 2 months after submitting this draft to have it looked at for approval and it is simply not right to have it declined after all of this time for not meeting notability guidelines when the vast majority of sources were not even checked, as you yourself have stated. It is true that you state that the Vanity Fair article does not mention Erix directly, but that particular reference was specifically included only to back up the claims that were written about Pearlman in this article. Pearlman was mentioned since his professional relationship is relevant to Erix's career and references to this were also cited. In regard to Broadway World, All Music, Daily Star and Talent Monthly, in my opinion, these references do seem to clearly support the claims in the article and the notability of the subject. Nevertheless, if you for some reason feel differently, there are 38 other cited sources that also seem to clearly establish notability of the subject in my opinion as per the notability guidelines that you cited as part of WP:MUSICBIO . Erix specifically meets the Criteria for musicians by matching the following 8 out of 12 Criteria for musicians and ensembles listed in the Wikipeida guidelines for what constitutes notable musicians. I copied the 8 criteria he matches below. 1-He has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and independent of the musician himself. 2-Has had a single on a country's national music chart. 3-Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 4-Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 5-Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels. 10-Has performed music for a work of media that is notable 11-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12-Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

With the above in mind, I kindly ask that you reconsider the decline and review this article again more thoroughly if you have the time or alternately please ask another Wikipedian to take a look at the article as I have spent a lot of time trying to perfect this and follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I do believe it should be passed through based on it's merits and the fact that it does meet all the applicable thresholds. Thank you very much for your consideration. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bruinsects, funny you writing today, because about 12 hours ago I was looking at the decline on your draft and wondering if it was the right call. I see that another reviewer has marked your page as under review, and they're a solid reviewer, so I would wait for their response (which I expect to be much more fair). No guarantees as to whether it will be accepted, but it's very likely you'll receive better feedback. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey ::@Primefac: Thanks so much for your reply. I wish I was writing to you with the situation resolved but I have to say I am even more perplexed today than I was yesterday. It seems like the draft was edited significantly by the other editor you mentioned who put it under their review yesterday. He or she removed over 20 of the sources I had cited and I thought that editor was still working on the draft so I did not contribute at all in the last 24 hours as I wanted to be respectful and wait for them to finish what they were doing. However, I see now that another Wikipedian has come along and submitted the article for review and then another one declined the article yet again. The reason given, once more, plainly does not make any sense at all. I understand fully that Wikipedia must have strict guidelines and policies in place because otherwise people would write all sorts of untruths and nonsense that would go unchecked. I love the contributory nature of Wikipedia and respect the democracy of it all but that said, it seems totally unethical to have a clearly established set of criteria published on Wikipedia as a guideline for notability at WP:MUSICBIO and then have those very specific guidelines totally thrown out and ignored by multiple administrators. The subject of my draft clearly meets 8 of the 12 criteria for notable musicians and this has been established by reliable and independent sources, some of which have now been removed by the last editor who may or may not have been finished making adjustments to the draft. All and all, this has been extremely frustrating as I have been making an honest and sincere effort to contribute to Wikipedia in a proper manner and it seems as if the actual guidelines of the site itself are not being followed by admins. All I am looking for is a fair shake but my time and efforts keep getting dismissed with reasons that fly in the face of logic and reason. Any further help you can offer to resolve this would be so very appreciated. Thanks again. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac:--Common sense is increasingly becoming uncommon.IDOH alone knows why he choose to remove the under-review tag, given that I was actively cleaning-up the draft and even by the wordings of the template, 12 hours has not passed from my last edit.I was actually preparing a detailed reply as to my removal of a chunk of sources along with some additional comments on the state of the draft when I noticed IDOH's de-marking and Chetsford's subsequent review.(I don't blame C at all:)).Anyways, the draft looks like borderline stuff to my eyes.Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bruinsects:-- Your re-insertion of the bunch of near-worthless source(s) will further hamper the prospects of the draft, for no fly-by reviewer will wade through fifty non-reliable half-spammy sources to find one/two rel. source(s) and accept on the basis of those.Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@Winged Blades of Godric:, I did not reinsert sources as an affront to your efforts but as you know another editor came in and declined the draft after your revisions, before you were finished, and I didn't even know if you were going to come back to the article at that point so I thought it was best to undo then. I've just read some of your notes though and I am taking them into consideration and trying to improve the draft based on your criticisms. I do believe there are still at least a few sources you removed that are valid and prove notablity. I hope that perhaps with the shortening of the article that will become more clear and succinct and I will address it as best I can upon my revision. Thanks for your help. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood the motivation behind your re-addition of sources:) But as I said, that was unhelpful.Anyways, feel free to list the sources that you feel were wrongly removed and I will be happy to give an explanation.Happy editing! Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 11:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@Winged Blades of Godric:! Oh gosh, I can hardly see straight after all the time I spent on this. I've tried so very hard to fix this properly to the very best of my ability using your recommendations and criticisms as well as those from previous editors. I have added a few new sources that I was able to find and I did also put back a few others that I feel are still relevant and believe should be able to stand up more closely to scrutiny since the draft is shortened and much more concise. I hope you will agree and I'd like to thank you for all the time you must have spent on your last edit. After reading through the WP:MUSICBIO very closely again, I submit that the subject of this draft should meet the notability guidelines on the following merits:

1- Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

2- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

3- Has received coverage of international tour in at least one sovereign country.

4- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.

5- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film

6- Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

7- Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Kindest Regards and thanks for all your help, Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again ::@Primefac: Sorry to keep bothering you but it feels as if this review process is dragging on for an unusually long time, unnecessarily. I know you restored a deleted article from several years ago for comparison to my draft as per the request of Robert McClenon and Mr. McClenon was kind enough to create a teahouse discussion about it atthe Teahouse but it seems to just be sitting there idly now without much feedback at all. I wholeheartedly agree with other editors that previous versions of the draft and previous articles may not have been up to par but I maintain that the most current draft I wrote now does clearly show that the subject meets several of the WP MUSICBIO thresholds so I truly do not understand why this is not an easy pass? Any assistance you can provide in getting a fair and speedy decision here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Stefan. Bruinsects (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bruinsects - At this point I have to advise you to read the essay advising against bludgeoning the process. You appear to be forum shopping in continuing to filibuster. It isn't "taking an unusually long time". On the contrary, reviewers have been extraordinarily patient in providing you with timely comments on your draft. You say that the discussion at the Teahouse is just "sitting there idly without much feedback at all". No. You may be saying that because you don't like the feedback, which criticized the quality of the sources. By continuing to go on and on, in repeated lengthy posts (and you have been advised to be concise), you are just annoying multiple editors. The review process is not so much "dragging on" as being dragged by your persistence. I may comment more later, but you are getting many timely responses, and continuing to bludgeon the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Mclenon,User:Robert McClenon Your accusation that I am blungeoning anyone is simply untrue and disingenuous. I reached out to [User:Primefac]] for advice because he had been kind enough to give me some tips in the past as I have been trying to learn all the ways of Wikipedia. I was eagerly anticipating impartial replies from other editors at the Teahouse discussion you created but it's been over 48 hours and nobody new has participated. The only one initial reply came from Chetsford who already declined an old draft that was since replaced and his commentary was actually critical of your judgement in asking to have the previously deleted articles restored in the first place as he stated "the AfC criteria specifically excludes reviewers from acting on information other than that which is contained in the draft". I may be persistent in my belief that the subject of my draft clearly meets WP MUSICBIO but I have always been respectful in my replies and have not blungeoned, filibustered or forum shopped. In fact, this is the ONLY place I have posted since the first review of my draft and I dont believe it's inappropriate to courteously have asked a more experienced editor like Primefac for some advice. Bruinsects (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, my commentary was not intended to be critical of User:Robert McClenon. This is the version [11] of the article I declined and I stand by that decline of this version. I can't speak in depth to any past or subsequent versions as I haven't looked at them closely and am unlikely to do so. However, just on a very cursory glance of the references listed in the current draft, there are clearly issues as I just see a wall of demonstrably non-RS sources like axs.com and zip.fm.co.jp. If this band does meet one of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, I'd suggest re-submitting the article as a two or three sentence stub that simply establishes that fact, with adequate reliable sourcing like major news outlets, scholarly journals, published books, or official charts (not iTunes copyright notices, blogs, fan sites, press releases on Broadway World, etc.).
The reality is that reviewers are humans, not robots or computer algorithms, and spend most of their time declining articles from garage bands and weekend novelists. When you submit a thousand word article - 90% of which is unsupported by anything resembling RS - it just looks fishy and is likely to get declined, even if there may be a sentence buried deep inside of it establishing its acceptability under MUSICBIO. That may not be fair or judicious but at the end of the day this is Wikipedia, not the European Court of Human Rights. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. User:Chetsford Everything you say makes perfect sense and I get that all reviewers are only human and can only spend so much time doing this work. It must be unimaginably frustrating declining trivial drafts over and over again that don't meet notability guidelines or even come close in many cases. I do get that this is not the European Court Of Human Rights, LOL, thanks for the chuckle! But that said, this is a democracy of sorts and nobody is being forced to volunteer their time on Wikipedia to be a reviewer so I feel that if you are going to voluntarily take on this righteous task, and someone like me waits for 2 months to have their first draft reviewed, than you should at the very least receive the courtesy of having your writings fully reviewed and the sources checked, even if it is long-winded. Again, I know this is not a court of law but could you imagine if a person was convicted after the defense only presented 1/3 of their case and called 1/3 of their witnesses? I know it's not the same but I am sure you can get where I am coming from with the analogy. In this situation, my draft could even potentially be dismissed erroneously by an editor like you, who seems like a perfectly reasonable and fair minded person. But since you don't recognize some references, you mentioned Zip FM at your cursory glance, you like many others will assume it is fluff. However, Zip FM is a major national radio station in Japan. One of the biggest in that country with millions of listeners. I wouldn't expect you to know that off hand but I imagine there must be some guidelines in place for editors to check what references are notable before they are just nonchalantly dismissed. Billboard Magazine has plenty of articles about Zip Fm in particular. See here: https://books.google.com/books?id=HwoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA66&dq=zip+fm+japan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4uZDrlITZAhWywVkKHW5QDlAQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=zip%20fm%20japan&f=false and here https://books.google.com/books?id=vwcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=zip+fm+japan&source=bl&ots=g3cMj5PCNx&sig=hXUmbePBM1DKT5GNCTcDYfHUPRo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq0airmITZAhUFk1kKHXMoAd8Q6AEIWzAH#v=onepage&q=zip%20fm%20japan&f=false - And the subject of my draft had a #5 song on their charts in August 2017 which I cited in my draft and thereferoe he meets the threshold of being on a national radio playlist as per WP:MUSICBIO. While I realize that some sources I have listed on my draft are stronger than others for proving notability, I read that it is okay to use secondary, supporting and auxiliary sources to establish some content that has been reported about the subject in the article even if that specific content does not go toward establishing his notability as long as other sources do merit the subjects inclusion in Wikipedia. Again, the fact that he has had a gold record, been on national radio playlists and music charts, has had his music featured in a major TV show, released more than 2 albums on a major label etc. should be enough to establish the notability according to WP:MUSICBIO. Have I understood this wrong? Bruinsects (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at this draft more times than I can count, and quite honestly it's such a borderline case that I'm going to take Godric's cue and accept the draft. I make no guarantees how well it will go, but at the moment we're getting precisely nowhere. For what it's worth, I don't think that Bruinsects has been bludgeoning the process, but they definitely should have been slightly less verbose in their replies (in various locations) and less... persistent... there is no rush to get drafts accepted, and honestly I think if they had stepped back for a week or two, let the air clear, and then asked about improvements we'd all be less anxious about the whole thing. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Bruininsects - I'm sorry I didn't read your entire reply, however, vis a vis Zip FM ... the website of the Japanese radio station to which you're referring is zip-fm.co.jp. That's not what you referenced. You referenced zip.fm.co.jp. We can only review what you've written, not what you meant to write. Zip.fm.co.jp is not a reliable source. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PFac's accept.Have reverted to a better-version.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

My deepest apologies if I have been too verbose or overzealous at times User:Primefac. After nearly two months in the draft queue, I was simply eager to move on from my first draft subject and I am sorry to all involved if I advocated too strongly for anyone's liking. In response to User: Chetsford that was just a one letter typo in the reference title, the url did link properly to zip-fm.co.jp but your point is well taken. Thank you User: Primefac for passing the draft through today. I am a bit confused though by User:Winged Blades of Godric who it seems reverted back to a previous version after the articles acceptance. The current article is now missing sources and says "citations needed". Is it safe to assume it is okay for me go back in there now and insert the citations? Thanks. Bruinsects (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You may choose to source the statements to rel. sources.But be reminded that since this is in mainspace, it will be actively worked upon, subject to our rigorous quality-control measures and your preferred version will get no preference.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting Content on Chatham Area Transit Page

Hello,

I am the Communications Coordinator for Chatham Area Transit in Savannah, Georgia. The Marketing Department is trying to update the Chatham Area Transit page with our current information, which is consistent with our website, www.catchacat.org. All information being added to the Chatham Area Transit wikipedia page is information we are allowing. Please stop "editing" our content out, do to fear of copyright. If you have concerns about this please contact us in the manner which is easiest for you. Contact information for CAT can be found at http://www.catchacat.org/contact/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 912cat (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Already answered. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

For your messages at my talk page, even if certain users won't be swayed from their line of thinking that making large contributions in a page history isn't worthwhile if your name isn't first. It's nice to know there are some out there in the WP community who think the same! Ss112 03:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Some folks have crazy ideas/demands:) And, I expect from now-onwards they will just move-over-redirect.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

16:13:05, 1 February 2018 review of submission by Dean.Connor

• Dean.Connor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dean A. Connor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Primefac,

Thank you for the feedback. We have resubmitted our profile page for "Dean Connor" and have added reliable sources from external websites. We are creating this page for our CEO at Sun Life Financial. Please let us know if we need to add anything else to his profile.

Thank you!

Dean.Connor (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dean.Connor - Read the conflict of interest policy. Wikipedia is not a directory or social medium and does not have profile pages. Also, who is "we"? The policy at Wikipedia is one account, one person, one person, one account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2014 Winter Olympics

I dont't think those 2 articles should be tied together. And making a redirect from "Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2014 Winter Olympics" → "Independent Olympic Participants at the 2014 Winter Olympics" with no connection to Russia at all seems really wrong. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Pelmeen10, the naming of the Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games has never been consistent, and they have represented a half-dozen different countries - some containing mixed teams, some because their NOC was suspended, some both. In the case of OAR, they are effectively independent/individual participants, and thus we should link between the related groups of participants (even if, as stated, they represent a half-dozen different countries). I have added an extra note to the infobox to hopefully make this a bit more clear. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clubs_of_football_world_champions

Hello, I created this draft but it is not published, I'm not very expert, this is normal? you can help me? i want tie it to other languages but I can not...--188.153.157.246 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

A suggested task for PrimeBOT

Would you please have PrimeBOT find all of the pages that are in at least two of Category:Vermont stubs, Category:United States election stubs, and Category:Vermont elections, put them in Category:Vermont election stubs, remove them from the parent categories, then do the equivalent for the other 49 U.S. states, as well as the territories? Vermont doesn't have to be first. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 04:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

​If you create a list for me, I would be happy to do just that. PetScan will likely be helpful for such a task. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I got the PSID, but I can't figure out how to add it to the subcategory, and even when I do, it would be exhausting to manually run the search and such 149 more times. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

On User:Hasteur

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Several_MfD_discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popescu's theorem, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ring with the approximation property. I’m very tempted to respond to (“requires improvement every 6 month“) or submit some formal complain but since I might not be allowed to do so, I thought I should bring your attention to it at least. — Taku (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Good decision not to respond further. With the most recent AFDs it looks like you're actually being targeted, but to be completely honest there's not nearly enough evidence to prove that. If something happens I'll let you know. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

But can I even respond to the blant falsehood (i.e., editing requirement as if there is such a thing)? This feels very unfair to me. I don’t feel harassed but I don’t like the spread of misinformation. —- Taku (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You might not be able to, but I certainly can. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The MfDs are directly part of the progress on User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report&action=history. I've observed that redirects get reversed, sometimes as "vandalism", G13s are reversed, and comments to postpone get removed with complaints. An MfD discussion appears to be the best most fair way to move the pages toward mainspace or deletion or redirection. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For the clarification, this is not about MfD per se. I’m not complaining about the nominations at MfD, but complaining about the spread of misinformation, which I cannot counter. — Taku (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, Legacypac, this isn't about you. I think Taku has accepted that their drafts will occasionally be nominated for deletion (and they've held to their TBAN on those MFDs). Primefac (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just responding to the idea there is targeting going on. There is also discussion on WikiProject Math that includes criticism of me, in response to the listing of MfDs there. I do welcome efforts to bring subject matter experts to the discussions. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If I gave an impression that I’m claiming “targeting”, that’s not; I have tried to clarify this at the project talkpage in rather a cryptic way. —- Taku (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If your happy I'm happy. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I am allowed to say, I’m not happy with the *nomination reasons* typically given (a fine distinction people just don’t get) such as “Up for G13 again today.” as if G13 is a usage policy instead of the deletion mechanism. Just because G13 can be used doesn’t mean it has to be used any time and to any page when applicable; there is no consensus for that. (If I have to be perma-banned for making this comment, that supports my continuing argument that it is the governing system that is broken, not the users like me or you, and the system wants to put blames on the users since it doesn’t know how to change it.) — Taku (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have zero problem with the nomination reasons like: this duplicates X in the mainspace or this looks like a personal note and the draftspace should not host such (I was not saying that a personal note is non-problematic but that I don’t see it as a personal note instead of a potential mainspace article.) Again the distinction apparently I’m failing to convey. — Taku (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Templates for discussion of "Template:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map"

Hi Primefac. You deleted "Template:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map". However, you forgot to delete the associated module: Module:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map which i also nominated in the same discussion. Thanks. Tradedia^talk 08:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Absurd edit

The change made in the initial sentence of the article in this edit makes no sense. At best this is inattentiveness. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, all it did was change a c into a C. It's not inattentiveness, it's just the coding not considering that as a valid exception to the rules I've programmed. I'll update the bot code to avoid such changes in the future. Thank you for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: : That is not all it did. Look again. At any rate, clearly lower case is called for. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Same thing here. Is this to be done in every place in Wikipedia where category theory is mentioned? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It's very possible. And yes, that is all it did. [[category and [[:category result in exactly the same link. As I said, thanks for the update. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

olympic numbers

Sorry, I was not trying to be contrary, I am very appreciative of your work. Like I said, the first big nation that I checked had an error so I was reluctant to trust the numbers, but it was one of the few errors that I have found. And really not a big deal at all. There are some other strange listings in long track speed skating, and luge, but I think they will work themselves out.18abruce (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Aye, no worries; I was kind of rushing to get it done so I wasn't really paying attention to the finer points. Nice to see there's someone checking my work! Primefac (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Good morning I would like to ask for your help in editing the draft: Israel lucas Gois, the article is very good, could you help me put it on the air? I waited for return — Preceding unsigned comment added by André Luiz nogari (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)