User talk:Primefac/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Views..

Is a G12 warranted over Angshuman Kar per this conversation? Regards:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that Integer has taken care of it:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help? I guess I should revdel what's appropriate. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People tend to see a massive score on Earwig and race for G12 like their name's Kid Cisco; forgetting that lists, proper nouns, etc., are exempt. "Yeah man, way to edit war over a tag, man" :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have that beef with a certain admin who has (at least four times) deleted a G12 out from under me whilst I'm in the process of trimming it down. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Oooh I love guessing games  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll give you a hint, they've deleted some G12s since I was deleting them yesterday, and it's not Diannaa ;) Primefac (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think that there's any need to revdel.The copyvio score was so large, since it consisted of publication-lists and a huge quote (that was way unnecessary), things which are almost-always exempt under G12.And, additionally, the person being pretty-notable, some extra-work barring tag-smashing is clearly very well-deserved.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi i just thought I'd add my tuppence worth as I am the one who is being accused of edit warring. As I tried to explain the article creator was blocked for sockpuppetry and in a recent conversation involving yourself and others at NPP, User:GiantSnowman suggested that sockpuppet's articles should be deleted even if there is a suggestion of notability as part of WP:DENY. As this sockpuppet had also copied 87% of the article word for word I really do not see what the problem is with deleting this article. The suggestion that the high score is because it was a copy of a list and proper nouns and a quote is misleading. I know what is exempt but a very large part of the article was copied word for word and was not a quote from anyone but the author. WBoG says he is "pretty-notable" but I don't think he comes close to WP:NACADEMIC, the remaining sources are his profil from a university where he is only an associate professor, a passing mention in a very short article about someone else, a blog that just has a copy of a poem or 2 and a link to a book for which he was one of the editors. there is no in-depth coverage of any sort. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The questions a deleting admin needs to consider when dealing with copyvios are these:

1. Is there copyrighted material that needs to be removed?
2. Is there anything left in the article worth keeping (i.e. "is there anything left other than Joe Bloggs is a guy who does stuff")?

If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then the page shouldn't be deleted. I'll grant you, removing the longquotes and other stuff was necessary, but there's enough left afterwards that a G12 isn't appropriate. Subjects with questionable notability should be nominated for PROD or AFD. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks for that, these are all points I understand I was more interested with the possibility of using the WP:DENY logic as suggeted by GiantSnowman. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis:--The problem is that bengali Sources is that they are very difficult to retrieve over an online search.Winning an annually awarded one-man-award from one of the two regulatory bodies of Bengali Language is pretty significant.I am collecting offline sources at my sandbox.Anyways, we weren't edit-warring:)As to G5 and DENY, that's a pretty valid line of thought and I generally concur on the sentiment.But, exceptions apply:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Eh... DENY isn't really about sockpuppetry, but more for G3-worthy vandalism/hoaxes and talk page decorum. I see where you're coming from, but we have AFD for that sort of thing (i.e. no need to bend the G12 rules just to delete a page). Primefac (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok that seems fair enough. I'll let WBoG work on the sources and I'll come back to it when he's added them. Cheers to all. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi I've removed some copyvio from this article Cleared Hot is there an easy way to request revdel? cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a script to assist in revdel requests. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 23) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

ta. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Setting Preferences

I went ahead and removed the "thanks" setting from my preferences.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A template needing substitution checking

Hello, my friend. Please see the bottom of Template:Stock versus broth. Nobody at IRC has a clue what it means, but you were recommended. Many thanks for any help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the template is explained here: Talk:Broth#New stock versus broth template

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Substituting the template works. I have tested it here. However, I would like to know which redundancies you want sorted out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pkbwcgs. I do see that the template works because I added it to two articles. I'm just not sure what to do with that cat.

As for redundancies, I'm not sure. I just pasted the two sections together. If they look okay like that, then fine. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, to answer your question directly, the reason the template is in the hidden cat is because of the {{cn}} template; it attempts to check whether the template is being subst because when you subst cn it can seriously muck up a page.

As much as I hate to muck about with your hard work, I feel that labelled section transclusion is actually better for these sorts of situations. This is mainly because it keeps the text on the page and makes it easier to adjust/modify. If you really disagree with that I'm fine reverting to the template, but I thought I should let you know. Primefac (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, Primefac. Anyway you think is best is fine with me. Will your way always make identical content at both articles? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And sorry about forgetting the attribution. It never occurred to me on this one. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, LST takes text from one page and ports it directly to another. It's been around for a couple of years but not many people know about it so it's not widely used, but this is pretty much a textbook case of why it was developed; keeps editors in the Article space and makes it easier to update things (instead of having to go to and from the Template space). Primefac (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. Maybe the shrimp prawn template is due for a change too. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, haven't really looked at it in depth but I suspect a TFD is in order. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Please let me know if you would like me to handle it somehow. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped McGeddon a note, will wait for their reply. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Primefac. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Zawl 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Zawl, I was in the process of writing out an email to you, but I think this is an important enough issue to post here "for the record".

There is nothing wrong with deleting a redirect to move a page. Hell, that's half of what WP:RM requests are asking for. There is also nothing wrong with creating an article on top of an existing redirect. If in the past you had simply created a bunch of sandbox articles and then asked for them to be moved on top of a redirect (which happens every day at AFC as well), I would not be typing this out now.

The issue, and what kicked off this whole thing, is your intentions throughout the process; you were knowingly and intentionally moving those redirects so you could "get credit" without anyone noticing. It also didn't help that you did this almost exclusively to one editor's creations, giving them a reason to think that you might have been "targeting" their pages (this is unlikely, since you both work in music-related areas, but still plausible). This also included petulant creations using non-standard characters in what I see as an attempt to game the system. In other words, it's not necessarily what you did, but why and how you did it that ticked everyone off.

And that brings us to your email request. The page you asked me to move might have had unnecessary disambiguation, but I see no evidence that this was done specifically to "get credit" for the page creation - it's likely that they saw the page existed and thus went the DAB route. It is also possible that they didn't even know it was a redirect, or that you could edit a redirect (they've only been here since Oct '17). Regardless of their motiviations, I've moved the article over redirect as an unnecessary disambiguation.

In summary: editors are welcome to create or improve pages in whatever way they see fit, as long as it follows the accepted practices and guidelines. At the end of the day, no one really cares about edit counts or page creations; we're all just volunteers working to make Wikipedia better. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with your decision, but I created the 2U (David Guetta and Justin Bieber song)) page with good faith and you histmerged it claiming I did it to get around the redirect, which is not true because originally the song credited Justin Bieber as a primary artist, thus putting him in the title is in accordance to the music naming convention. Could you at least delete that initial revision (a redirect by another editor) to be fair? — Zawl 07:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bots and....

Is there any way (and benefit) in writing a bot, that will notify the particular AFC acceptors of any XFD process on mainspaced drafts? There's AABot which currently maintains a list but that is for the whole AFC Project.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So, basically AABot but for posting things on someone's talk page? Kinda like how there's a G13 bot that notifies users when a page is eligible for G13 deletion? Primefac (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.... based on the info at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing, it sounds like pretty much anyone can set up AAs for whichever projects they're interested in, they just need to have a dedicated sub-page to put it on. I suppose that page could then be transcluded somewhere like a userpage (I know plenty of admins who have {{Admin dashboard}} on their userpages). Primefac (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

But, that's project-specific, not user-specific.For example, any reviewer ought to be reasonably quite-interested/bothered in the event of someone taking an article accepted by him at AFC to XFD but may not feel the need to be informed (and/or) keep a watch over all XFDs on all articles generated from the entire AFC workflow.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you mean "be interested in former AFC pages". I think if you were to post this at BOTREQ you'd get a "well just watchlist the page" reply. From a technical standpoint, I'm not sure how you'd be able to implement such a move, since you'd need some sort of category handling to determine who gets notified. I suppose if we had AFCH create some sort of "Accept Log" like with the CSD/PROD logs, then you could check it regularly and see when/if anything is nominated/deleted. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Watchlisting the page is not a good idea. At least, I don't have enough interest to be bothered by the day-to-day edits at my accepts.Is there any current tag available to filter only those cross-space-moves which is executed by AFC?

On a side-note, can you revoke the AWB-Access from this account and add it to User:Winged Blades of Godric (AWB), with the EC-flag?~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is that without either creating a bot to do the work (which would probably require some form of consensus at WT:AFC) or creating a category for every reviewer who reviewed a draft, there's not much other than watchlisting that will (easily) work. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC) P.S. Request done. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon#Nikon_Metrology - recent edits

Primefac... I am not familiar with this Talk system. Sorry if this not not the correct method to reply to your previous message. I am an authorized agent for Nikon / Nikon Metrology and will be re-posting the edits I made recently. Please tell me the best way to cite the text that you removed. Please limit the options to the suitable cases for this situation, I don't need to read the entirety of Wiki terms please.

CrashN8 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

CrashN8, the text on the Nikon site is copyrighted to Nikon, and thus it should not be directly copied to Wikipedia unless it has been released for free use (see WP:DONATETEXT). Otherwise, you'll have to just write it in your own words. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Block request

Thanks for revoking my AWB access. As I feel I am not ready to use AWB, I am not going to ask for it back. However, per my personal request, I would like to request to be blocked for one week so that I can have time off Wikipedia. I feel that I should have one week off completely from editing Wikipedia so that I can work on other Wikis. If desired, I might come back to editing Wikipedia once I feel ready. However, for now, the best solution I feel is that I should be blocked for a week and then come back to editing Wikipedia (when I want to). As before, I will not ask for my AWB access back straightaway but I probably might ask for it back in three months time. What do you think? Genuinely, I feel that I want to be blocked for a week so that I can have a week away from Wikipedia. I want to stay away from Wikipedia for a week but I don't want to be blocked indefinitely. Can you please block me for a week as a user request. Otherwise, do I go to WP:AN if I want to request to be blocked. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I might use the Wikibreak enforcer. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikibreak enforcer used, no admin action needed. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made some Wikipedia edits today. Can you please check them and tell me how you feel about them. Can you also please tell me which edits are the most helpful and which edits do I need to work on and improve. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you where or how to edit. I only ask that when you do edit, you are paying attention to what you are doing and are making constructive changes. Nothing has to be done "right now," so just take your time when you're doing things like WCW. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

However, doing projects like WP:WCW are easier with AWB. And... this is why I got my AWB access revoked. I haven't been checking my edits because I don't know how to preview an article after making the changes without saving it. Because, I haven't been checking my edits so I couldn't tell whether my edits are correct. So, how can I preview the AWB edit in the article without actually saving the edit? I need to do this next time I use AWB. Also, I thought I was being bold while I was trying to fix the deprecated parameters and the first thing it says in the rules is

"Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing

. I thought of saying 'I was just being bold to make these edits' as soon as you gave me the confirmation that you revoked my access on my talk page and then I just read the rules of AWB... I just didn't pay enough attention and I should have done that. I also shouldn't have took a risk to do all these pages. In January, I looked at these pages and didn't want to take a risk. Then, I decided to take a risk in February to complete all 2,000 pages in Category:Articles using Template:Infobox ethnic group with deprecated parameters and it costed my AWB access. I am not taking anymore risks. I just learnt another lesson like I do everyday when I edit Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Without AWB, making general fixes is becoming more difficult. I would like my AWB access back under these terms and conditions:

• I will not go for it. Originally, I asked AWB to make fixed like WP:WCW easier. I am not going to bother looking at Category:Articles using Template:Infobox ethnic group with deprecated parameters because I don't have the knowledge to fix them.
• I will preview my edits before saving them.
• I was thanked for lots of edits I made on AWB. I don't have AWB access so I stopped being thanked frequently.
• This is what is going on for me at the moment. Without AWB, I feel depressed editing Wikipedia.
• I will tick the box that skips cosmetic edits. This is to avoid violations of WP:COSMETICBOT.
• The sole purpose that I requested AWB is to make fixing WP:WCW and typos easier. This is what I will use AWB for.
• I will limit my edits to 300 edits per week for the first three months. This is in order to avoid flooding watchlists.
• I will seeks consensus if I need to modify more than 500 pages at once.
• I will pay more attention to the edits I make with AWB. I don't rush with WPCleaner so I won't rush with AWB.
• I will use AWB occasionally but not often.
• Finally, if I ever get stuck, I will ask for help on my talk page. I will not perform any task on AWB unless I am 100% sure that my edits will be correct (even by being 100% sure, I will still check my edits).

Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I reverted Everett Stern Edits

Hi, I reverted the Everett Stern edit that you changed when you stated that none of the sources had said he was employed by the CIA. But my edits never stated he was employed, only that he was a Candidate for the CIA program, in which I cited the minutes on the Netflix episode stating that, and another interview article from an international news source. So I don't think I was wrong in my edits. Discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherjohn (talk • contribs) 02:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Being discussed at the article's talk. No need for split discussions. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental edit, I was on my laptop and I am guessing my mousepad put the cursor on the spot that I accidentally edited. Won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherjohn (talk • contribs) 03:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Revdel req

Coventry United F.C. (2A02:C7F:2206:3300:18B3:E8E2:58F:BE9 edits) please. Thanks, Nzd (talk)

 Done, ta. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

AWB module

Hi.
I created this module (mostly, it is a modified version of one that is provided in man pages). But this module adds new lines above, and below {wikiproject organized crime}. Is there a way to remove {pb} above and below the banner, and add only a line breaker (br /) after it?

  public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
        {
            Regex header = new Regex(@"\{\{{WikiProject Organized crime|{{WikiProject Organized Crime|{{WikiProject Fictional characters|{{Comicsproj|{{WikiProject Film|{{Film|{{WikiProject Video games|{{WikiProject Television|{{WPTV|{{WP Fictional|{{WikiProject Novels|{{WikiProject Anime|{{TelevisionWikiProject|{{WPFILM|{{WikiProject Songs|{{WP film|{{WPBooks", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
            Summary = "Adding banner for [[WP:WikiProject Organized Crime]]";

            Skip = (header.Match(ArticleText).Success || !Namespace.IsTalk(ArticleTitle));
            if (!Skip)
                ArticleText = "{{WikiProject Organized Crime}} \r\n\r\n" + ArticleText;

            return ArticleText;
        }

Also, are these modules case sensitive for skipping parameters? Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 22:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already tried a few different combinations (before posting the first comment), but I couldn't get rid of the lines above.
ArticleText = "{{WikiProject Organized Crime}} \n" + ArticleText;
seems to do the trick for lines below, but it gives me following diff:
+
+
+{{WikiProject Organized Crime}}
Any suggestions? —usernamekiran(talk) 05:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Never mind. I just clicked "append" in "more". I am such an idiot! —usernamekiran(talk) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to be a sounding board. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it feels like you are not even listening to me anymore.
Do you think a bot would be approved at BRFA, for adding only maintenance tags to articles? If you look at my last 250 contribs, the orphan tag was added on 158 articles. There were few unref tags as well. This task could integrate these orphan articles into encyclopaedia. What do you think? —usernamekiran(talk) 12:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You asked a question, then answered it before I even saw the first message. Not much I can do there.

Adding maintenance tags to articles would definitely not fly as a bot task, mainly due to the super-low priority adding "orphan" and "unreferenced" actually holds. In other words, if AWB does it automatically as part of genfixes, it's not appropriate to run a bot task for it. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

yes, AWB does run it automatically. But again, everytime hitting save, or ctrl+S is irritating. And there is no scope for errors either. I didn't understand "mainly due to the super-low priority adding "orphan" and "unreferenced" actually holds." But assuming we do it (either through bot, or automatically), then the outcome would be good. I mean, all these articles tagged with orphan, would show up in the orphan category. And when de-orphaned they would get integrated. Currently most of these orphaned articles are like "forgotten" ones. Do you think I should file a request for the task at BRFA? My previous request was too much open ended, and rejected. Current requested task is not open ended, but there has been radio silence.

By the way, my previous comment (you not listening to me anymore) was supposed to be a joke :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you from filing a BRFA for doing uncontroversial maintenance tasks; all I can do is say that historically tag-bombing by bots has not been seen as an acceptable use of time. Now, it's perfectly acceptable that if you're doing non-minor tasks and happen to be running genfixes/maintenance tagging, that's okay. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio links

Hi Primefac. Thank you for your polite note on my Talk page. I had a back-up question, if you possibly had a moment to spare sometime. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat tersely, I thought. So I've tried again for you. Many thanks:

1. Can a translation of a passage into a foreign language always be assumed to be a copy-vio? I mean, other languages use totally different words don't they, and express things in a different way, with different grammar?

2. If one doesn't know a language (like I don't know Esperanto, for example) how does one judge if it's copyvio? Is a machine translation (like GoogleTranslate) good enough to determine this?

3. (another question I've just thought of, as you're here) Can links to what may be copyvio material never be used at Wikipedia, off article main space, for the purposes of discussion or illustration?

Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't reviewed this user....

...you might want to take a look at User talk:Ryathoma. May explain our backlog. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Move request

Move Tough Choices (disambiguation) to Tough Choices please. Thank you in advance.  samee  ^talk 19:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Flag template updates

Hi Primefac, I have just added another exception to {{Country alias}} in order address the multiple names used against the code IOA. However, I noticed that {{FlagIOCathlete}} and the three other FlagIOC templates will need to be amended to allow this exception. I also noticed that {{FlagATHCHathlete}} will need to updated as well to allow the exception for the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" name being used in the World Championships in Athletics articles. Are you able assist in this? Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I never did modify ATHCH so that will probably need a full-on conversion to use {{country alias}}, but I've updated the latter's backend code so that it's compatible with the different IOA names. I'll see about updating ATHCH. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, it doesn't seem to have worked as {{flagIOCathlete|[[Martinho de Araújo]]|IOA|2000 Summer}} produces  Martinho de Araújo (IOA) and doesn't correctly link to Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Would you mind having another look? Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. The flag call sends the year to the template, but the code link doesn't. I've been meaning to upgrade these templates anyway, so I guess this is the proper motivation for it. In the meantime, the redirects do work, so fortunately nothing is "broken" while I work on it. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

For your consideration

As the enacting administrator regarding TakuyaMurata's MFD sanction, I wish to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bivariant theory. I was not stalking Taku's edits, simply reviewing MFDs after being engaged in a discussion regarding a "general cleanup of Draft namespace" CSD proposal. I admit that I was confrontational regarding the view, but this was exactly the same playbook that Taku was using prior to being sanctioned. Hasteur (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

His recent posts and deletions on my talk [1] should also be considered. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(Isn't this precisely a sort of stalking/harassment, just saying. I deleted my comment after realizing I was being forced to play the game. Also on "playbook". No this is how Wikipedia works. Editors start drafts not for the purpose of the disruption but, as you have forgotten, they want to develop content. The majority of drafts started by me end up in the mainspace so the accusation on me being a troll is incorrect. -- Taku (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC))

Hasteur, as far as the MFD goes, Taku is allowed to vote on the deletion of a page (indeed, they're almost using the same wording as I did in my close). Other than a single post at Legacypac's page, which they removed once they remembered that their restriction applies to all namespaces, I see nothing that violates the ban. If they hadn't removed the post from Legacy's page, it might be a different story, but Taku is clearly attempting to abide by their restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just removed a unwarranted personal attack on me (Legacypac just can’t remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.) I mean who started this thread in the first place! I sincerely hope this will not cause ire on me from your side. (Maybe they just go me this time but the level of harassment is getting too high for me to tolerate.) — - Taku (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, the problem I have with them (Legacypac and their sock-friend Hasteur) is that they show no respect to the idea that we the editors are here to build the encyclopedia. I referred to “game” because it is clear by now that their interest is to feel an authority (e.g, by getting people banned; I’m not the first casualty). They are playing the game (for example, by attakcing me personally); that’s what they enjoy (instead of building the encyclopedia). — - Taku (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You called User:Hasteur "my sock" before changing it. I have no socks. Stop disparaging me. Stop deleting my posts of my and now this talkpage. Go write about math and stop worrying about my work. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit is also a possible violation of the topic ban [2] Taku, to be perfectly blunt, I don't care one wit about you or your drafts. I have zero interest in getting you banned or sanctioned except as necessary to stop damage. I don't pay attention to what you do unless it intersects with what I'm working on. I do cleanup, a lot of cleanup, while looking for useful topics. You were topic banned for being disruptive and game playing around deletion. Now you are focusing your disruption on me and my work perhaps because you blame me for the community ban you earned. Cut it out! I doubt someone with your math knowledge is either a child or stupid, so we should be able to expect better behavior from you. Rants on your userpage and against me are not going to win you any praise or respect. Please please please stop your games and just do something useful with your Wikipedia time. Legacypac (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• TakuyaMurata, just walk away. There is nothing that you gain from interacting with them. You've made your opinion heard at the MFD, and there's not much else you can do. If you stop engaging with them, they won't find any reason to come after you. Legacy made a legitimate MFD on your draft, and you made a legitimate !vote at the discussion; there's no need to take it further. If a draft of yours gets nominated in the future, vote and then walk away. No one is intentionally seeking to delete your work, but rather they are carrying out what they feel is the best way to improve Wikipedia (and for the record, I have no major opinions on how Legacy chooses to operate in the draft space). Primefac (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  I have every intention of walk-away and then they start a thing,Ike [3] (submitting a non-AfC draft for the AfC review.) It is important to remember who is a provocateur here. -- Taku (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

that page was up for G13 deletion. I bought it 6 months and maybe promotion by sending it for a 3rd party review. That is a useful action, unless the page is useless and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac. Sorry, I might have misjudged you. So you don’t want to delete the draft?? Then you don’t have to do anything; it will move to the mainspace when it’s done like many other drafts. — Taku (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Since you don't want it evaluated for mainspace, I've already taken it to MfD for discussion and possible deletion or promotion. Drafts get 6 months of inactivity before being subjected to possible deletion. This one got a lot longer due to tagging. I have no opinion on the merits of the draft. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. — Taku (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is another good example that I am not allowed to walk away. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TakuyaMurata_reported_by_User:Legacypac_(Result:_). Here is another [[4]]. Basically they want to build the case for the permanent ban on me (and that’s not precisely the point I was making?) -- Taku (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No one asked Taku to edit war over my efforts to postpone deletion of one of his drafts or delete one of my comments at MfD. These actions lead to the edit warring report. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I merely reverted the use of a wrong template. Also, there were only three reverts (not needed to aggravate the situation by reporting.) — - Taku (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Task for PrimeBOT

There are more than 178,000 pages in Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. Can you please get PrimeBOT to fix them. If PrimeBOT uses AWB, can you please get PrimeBOT to remove the double brackets around the images. Then, if there is an image display size, can you please programme the bot to make the parameter image_size. If there is a caption, can you please get the bot to make the caption parameter. It is a task which a regular user wouldn't be able to do and it also requires a lot of attention to mistakes whilst correcting the deprecated image syntax. I suggest the bot does 20,000 pages a week (around 2,800 pages a day) over a period of 9 weeks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Nihlus was working on this, but if not I could certainly take a look. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still working on it (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NihlusBOT 7). I'm planning on making a large run here soon on them. Nihlus 20:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good. However, it is a task that will take a long time (and may need multiple bots working on it). Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I would still like a third and final chance with AWB. AWB is working well with other wikis. I wouldn't want to handle a massive task like Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax but it will still be useful for working on general cleanup tasks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Your bot could still do CHECKWIKI error #61 Reference before punctuation or error #64 Link equal to linktext. I could perform these tasks if only I had AWB and a bot. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Bots are, with very small exception, not allowed to fix CHECKWIKI errors. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Why aren't bots allowed to fix CHECKWIKI errors? Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rashad Nabiyev

Dear friend, The page was deleted before and I started it from the scratch. Despite the fact that the person who deleted the article 1st time did not read my message before deletion and deleted without trying to help/understand me, I paraphrased everything, I spend my hours on it, I put all the references this time. Why you are keeping deleting it all the time? What can I do else? I paraphrased all possible sentences. Only facts were left. Please, instead of deleting and showing just the links of the reasons why the article was deleted just show me how to paraphrase the facts? (if it possible). If I mind to plagiarize, I wouldn't put links and references. Furthermore, the person about whom I am writing an article is the CEO of the satellite operator Azercosmos Management Company Overview of Azercosmos OJSCo, Rashad Nabiyev, TBY talks to Rashad Nabiyev, CEO & Chairman of the Board of Azercosmos, on the company's training program, Azerspace-1, and future launches. There is no reason to promote him. Almost all the CEOs have their wiki page, for ex. CEO of Arianespace Stéphane Israël, CEO of Telenor Sigve Brekke, so I just wanted to create the page for the CEO of the only satellite operator of my country - Azerbaijan. I kindly ask you to see the reasons and return my page back. Both reasons why the page was deleted (plagiarism and promoting the person) were considered before the page was recreated, and were carefully analyzed/changed/paraphrased/explained multiple times before the publishing. I do believe on your understanding. Thank yo for your time. ZahraGasim (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

ZahraGasim, I notice that you have a page at Draft:Rashad Nabiyev, and I encourage you to work on the page there for the moment. When you are finished with the page you can submit it for review by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, which will submit the draft for review. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Primefac, thank you very much for your guide. I submitted it - Draft:Rashad Nabiyev Could you, please, review it and show/write me if there is something wrong, to correct/rewrite? Thanks in advance. ZahraGasim (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just from a quick glance, it looks okay. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, does it mean that I can publish it now? If yes, could you, please, help me to connect it with the version in another language - Rəşad Nəbiyev Thank you very much. ZahraGasim (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not give the page a formal review, and it is still waiting. I just gave it a quick look to see if there was anything obviously wrong with it. Please be patient, reviews can take a while. If and when it is accepted it will automatically be linked to the azwiki page. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Confused

Moved from WT:AFC

Quite frankly, this is very confusing to me...Primefac?? Am I missing something here? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, Atsme. If you want to discuss it I'm happy to do so on my talk page, but thread hijacking is a little unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

​Sorry for the double ping, but this discussion isn't really relevant to the thread you asked it at. The block notice details why this happened, but if you have any further questions I'm happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wondered how best to bring it up...I thought adding a separate thread would be overkill since the question was also an AfC issue but I now see your point in that it should be separated from my original thread. I just didn't want to create back-to-back threads and since I was the OP of the first thread that ended in a single response by Legacypac, it seemed appropriate (perhaps lazy?) to ask a question about him in that same thread. I wanted it discussed at AfC because it involved auto deleting stale drafts, and while I try my best to follow protocol, there is no escape for me it seems. I end-up doing something wrong inadvertently. *sigh* Anyway, I explained the reason for my confusion over that block here. I fail to see "harassment" behavior from Legacypac. He was actually trying to save the draft from auto delete and the revert that resulted was a bit odd and very much OWN. We're talking about a draft, not an article in mainspace that may be subject to DS much less a cause for concern. Legacypac only reverted 2ce. I'm thoroughly confused over the ordeal and quite frankly, it's extremely discouraging to work in an environment where editors have to worry about getting blocked for every single move they make when they're simply doing the work they volunteered to do. Legacypac's block log was immediately called into play and if you read the Signpost OP-ED you already know my feelings about that, and this block supports my position on it...unless there's something I'm not seeing. If there is, please explain it to me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue was not Legacy's actions in the draft space, but rather the continual poking of the other editor. Legacy is allowed to nominate drafts for deletion, and Taku is allowed to !vote on said nominations, but the bickering and edit-warring between the two of them indicates a deeper issue than anything. The calls of harassment were because in reading the various discussions in multiple locations it sounds like Legacy was trying to get Taku to break their tban. I discussed this with DQ quite extensively before the block, and while it's an awkward situation it's one that was definitely headed towards that end result had something not been done. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand the nom for deletion, but that is not what Legacypac did...he attempted to save that 8 mo. old stub - the notice was to postpone autodeletion. What does that have to do with nominating it for deletion? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? He edit warred to keep a completely unnecessary comment on the draft. After the first edit it was "saved" from G13, so further editing/reverting was unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhhh...now I see what you're saying. It is no longer a "stale" draft once an edit has been made - the clock starts over. So in essence, a draft can stay in draft space eternally as long as a single edit is made within the required time frame - it will not be auto deleted. LP's 2 reverts and the other editor's 3 reverts are what caused both of them to be blocked - that was edit warring - and as a preventative block, it was based on LP's block log and their former interactions with each other. Got it. Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ave Feenix

I just reviewed and approved Ave Fenix Pictures after going through and removing content that was not supported by the sources. It is notable in my opinion, but after looking at "what links here", I see that the draft was created by a sock. I probably would have passed up on reviewing it if I had known, but now its in the mainspace. My question is should it be deleted based on being created by a blocked or banned user? If so, let me know and I can nominate it as such. I guess I am conflicted with wanting to keep a notable article versus not wanted to reward someone who using multiple accounts to abuse Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the editor who moved it for review is also blocked as a sock as of February 6th. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The creator is not a blocked sock, and the SPI found they were not related. COI, sure, but if it looks okay I'd say it's overall fine. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am finding there is quite a bit of COI with AfC. I normally don't mind minor stuff as I can review it for neutrality, but when I saw the length of that SPI I flipped out. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, AFC is about the only place where COI editors can edit with fewer restrictions on where/how they edit, which is sort of the point. That SPI is rather nuts, though; we've been dealing with that sockfarm for entirely too long. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Omar Ghrida

It looks like you have indefblocked a wrong user (User:Omar Ghrida instead of User:OmarGhridaBot)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, just left the note at the wrong place. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I somehow thought I saw the block notice on my watchlist, but it is not there. My apologies.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, due to the redirect on the "bot" page Twinkle decided to leave the block notice at the owner's page, so for a very brief period of time the block notice was on their page. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

OmarGhridaBot

Hello // Can I find out why my Bot was blocked? --Omar Ghrida (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The block notice on your bot's talk page gives more information, which includes a link to Wikipedia:Bots. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

subject you previously deleted

Hello Primefac. I've worked up an article on the English author/historian Sarah Gristwood, complete with references establishing notability. However, I now notice you previously deleted an article on this person: 18:25, 5 June 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page Sarah Gristwood (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Novonium) in violation of ban or block (TW)). I would like to add my article to Wikipedia. The template suggests I should contact you: If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. Do you have any problem with my going forward with this addition? Please let me know. best regards - Xenxax (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Primefac (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! - Xenxax (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

AWB

Hi Primefac. I really want to fix the pages in Category:Pages using infobox river with "basin countries" parameter using AWB. Here is what I need to do:

I need to replace the basin_countries with subdivision_name1. This is the related discussion. I am pleased to know that I ran a test edit here and it works. I previewed it and then saved it. I can reassure you that there are going to be no mistakes. I have checked this and tested this and this works. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope you realize that the more you beg and plead with me to give you back AWB access, the less likely I am to feel inclined to grant it. It's been what, three days? And you've posted no less than a half-dozen times asking about getting access back. You can be a productive editor on Wikipedia without needing to use AWB. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

However, I do want it back in order to do this task at least. I have demonstrated what I need to do and checked if it works. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Today, I also spotted the preview button. I will use this to preview my edits before saving them. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I done a 16-edit run and it all looks good. No mistakes at all. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I might as well head to PERM one more time. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: These messages are doing nothing to convince anybody. As Primefac said, there are plenty of other things to do on the wiki. I think it would be wise to drop this and help out in other areas to show that you are committed and able to be trusted again. Nihlus 09:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Thanks for your comment. However, this is a long-standing task and I want to perform this task. I even demonstrated what I need to do and tested this with AWB. I plan to do 250 edits a day over a period of more than one month. I want to show that I am committed and trusted again and I know what to do. Even temporary AWB access will be fine but I want to complete this task and I determined to do this task. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: I'm not sure that matters given your history. Plus, a project that big is probably best handled by a bot. You can make such requests at WP:BOTREQ. I would strongly encourage the administrators to not return the access given your presumptive belief that you should be given access because you're "determined to do this task". Nihlus 16:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

AfC/Draft review request rule

Hi. I see you've been reviewing AfC participant requests, and have a mop, so I'm guessing you are fairly knowledgeable in the area. Is there any rule against asking one or a few specific AfC participant(s) to review a draft article, not so it gets any passes in being accepted (I'm fairly sure it qualifies, I'm an experienced Wikipedian, and have made a few articles in my day), but just so it doesn't wait 2 months to be reviewed? --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

​You're welcome to ask any AFC reviewer to review a draft, though most of us would probably reply along the lines of "it'll be seen when it's seen". As a minor note, there's nothing saying that a Draft necessarily must go through AFC - if you are confident that it meets the Golden Rule you are welcome to move it to mainspace yourself. If you're looking for general feedback by way of AFC, though, it might be best to be patient. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And GRuban, if I may add...there is one more hoop for the article to jump through; i.e., WP:NPP where it will be reviewed again. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Consider sending to mainspace and using the talkpage for discussing improvements or concerns. Most new articles attract a few editors who fix things, tag etc. At AfC you'll only get one review per submission. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a WP:COI draft, so though I'm pretty sure it qualifies to meet our requirements, I can't just send it to mainspace myself, need someone without a conflict of interest to do that. Improvements are certainly welcome, but not the crucial point. It's Draft:Brad Smith, in case one of you is feeling generous. ;-) --GRuban (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

GRuban, you have no idea how happy your last comment has made me. It's truly a great thing when editors abide by the rules and policies. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 ! In case anyone wants the details, I joined the company in ... June? ... and happened to mention my Wikipedia hobby. Word spread, and the relevant people said - we wrote this article about the president of our company back in February, and it got rejected. Can you help? So I took a shot at it, and now it's ready, in my humble opinion. Wow, I didn't realize I'd get 3 responses... --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm popular, I guess... I've only got a fraction of the tps of some of the longer-term admins though. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh ya, then wait for AfC. The wait is not usually 2 months, that's just for the tough cases no one feels comfortable making a decision on. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

First four reviews: correct?

Thanks for accepting me as an AfC reviewer. Reviewed my first four (mostly very old ones), rejected three: Draft:Elias Wondimu, Draft:We Never Learn (manga), Draft:Ekaterina Samsonov, accepted one: Tara Flynn. Then I thought I should ask you, and your crew of loyal talk page stalkers if I did it correctly, before doing more damage. --GRuban (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looking pretty good. Nice job on the detailed review comments! Primefac (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Antihaitianismo

I dont know if my adds were a copyvio since it is put the just. And it is a reliable source becouse it is from a non-biased book written by a American. did you see the source? and How dare you put that my aditions i can't not revert as if i was a non-logged user. I appreciate an explanation and that you solve that so that i have the right to revert. Who gives you the right to that?--ILoveCaracas (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

ILoveCaracas, 3/4 of the text you added was copied directly from the source you were using, which was the reason for the copyvio. The source itself was a web page created by a university student, which is not RS. It looks like the source had its own references, so it might be good to use those instead. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Then, allow to me fix that and please dont block reverts, because you do not have the right to that.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

allow me to fix that viewing the source in the "view history" and can modify it.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As an administrator I have every right to revdel copyrighted material. Happy to give you the source URL if you do not have it, but content on Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Unauthorised bot?

Hi. Even though I think it is highly unlikely in this incident, do you think this is work of an unauthorised bot? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... could be script-assisted, which as a whole isn't prohibited but the edit summary certainly is questionable. They haven't edited in a week, so unless they respond or pick back up with the "bot" edits there's nothing really to do. Let me know if they start back up again. Primefac (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

​If I had to hazard a guess, it is a Pywikibot script. The edits added a category, not a template. All of the edits were wrong too; they added Category:Maharashtra to articles that were already in a subcategory. I've reverted the lot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your attention would be appreciated.

I was reviewing Draft:Datari Turner and by the virtue of my understanding, found it eligible to be published in the mainspace now as further developments can happen there. However, the script says the page has been create-protected. What is to be done now? Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think it's okay to be moved to the article space, then you should (now) be able to do so; I've dropped the protection level on the article. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dial911 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not clarify how sisters differ from nuns?

I was surprised to find your revert on my link to religious sisters. My rationale is that many people don't know the difference between sisters and nuns today, and the link is helpful to distinguish the two. One could go to the Presentation Sisters article and read about them there, but what's the harm in adding this bit of information here? Is there some guideline in Wikipedia that would discourage such a link? Thanks, Jzsj (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In this particular instance, it's because the Presentation Sisters were linked literally four words previous, and it would be like saying "...was founded by George Washington in 1778. Washington then went..." In other words, if someone wants to read about the Sisters they click on the first link. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

re Draft:Luilu

please undelete this; I do not remember the draft but it looks like something that might be notable (and possibly should be merged with Katanga). In any event, I'd like to take a look at it -- I'll delete or merge or publish it once I do. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

12:10:21, 19 February 2018 review of submission by Justin Wabscott

• Justin Wabscott (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Studio 3T (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Primefac, I've been regularly updating the draft page according to your advice. A month or so ago I added a citation from the reputable and independent softpedia.com. Some weeks ago I then added a link to an article on Infoworld.com which is a highly reputable and independent resource. Their article focuses very specifically on the relevance of the Studio 3T IDE as an indicator of MongoDB and NoSQL take-up by the mainstream. I then added a citation from docs.microsoft.com regarding the relevance and utility of Studio 3T to deployment of Azure Cosmos DB. It feels as if these additional resources do address your earlier concerns about independence, authority and above all relevance. Understanding the volume of requests you have to deal with I would be very grateful if the page could now be authorised to go live.

Justin Wabscott (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Right revocation

Could you explain your reason behind the revocation of my page mover right? I believe I did nothing wrong in the You Owe Me dispute and that trying to connect my past disputes with Ss112 about redirects to this is biased and unjust, because those past disputes happened before I even received the page mover right. Since getting it, I did not engage in any page move tactics like how that other editor loves saying. From what I see, you noticed someone complaining at WP:RM and without analyzing the situation, you acted like a 'babysitter' to give me a "time-out" due to my past redirect-related issues, and without even posting an explanation on my talk page?

Which one of the seven criteria at WP:PMRR did I violate? Please let me know. I don't think I've had a pattern (since being granted the right) of performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus, failing to exercise sufficient care, using the permission to suppress redirects that would not have been eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion, performing any blatant vandalism, failing to report to an admin for compromised accounts and using the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes. I did engage in a dispute but never did I use the permission to gain an upper hand like how the other editor asserts. I moved the longstanding title You Owe Me to You Owe Me (Nas song) (per WP:BOLD) with a redirect left behind (any editor could do that), that move was contested by Ss112 (who had sent an email to another user about my page move), and Ammarpad moved it back. — Zawl 06:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I removed the perm specifically because of your past history with such moves. While you have not done anything specifically using the PGM tools you're still carrying out very questionable page moves in order to further your own agenda. Let's look at potential ways you could have handled this move:

1. You move You Owe Me to You Owe Me (Nas song), turn You Owe Me into a dab, and create You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song).
2. You move You Owe Me to You Owe Me (Nas song) and then create an entirely new article on the Chainsmokers song at You Owe Me.
3. You perform Step #2, but when ss112 puts in the RM/TR request you reverse your actions and start a move request as a controversial move.

If you had gone with either Option 1 or 3 we wouldn't be discussing this right now, but by choosing Option 2 and not backing down you're continuing your previous behaviour of moving what you don't want out of the way so you can create what you think is best. The discussion at RM/TR is further evidence of that; you keep saying "it might be" and "eventually will be" and basically show that you still [demonstrate] a pattern of performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus (point #1 as a reason for revoking).

Quite honestly, it's frustrating because other than this one topic area you haven't abused the tools or even broken guidelines/policies. However, the only way I'd support a return of the perm to you is if you agreed to no longer move pages related to songs, music, or discography without first obtaining consensus (be it a talk page/WikiProject discussion, RM, or something else). You've just shown poor judgement too many times in those topic areas. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why should I be subjected to restrictions when I've done nothing wrong in the discussion? This was one move. How can it be a pattern, which in this context means repeated controversial moves (since getting the right), when I haven't done? Ss112 requested a move in the "uncontroversial technical moves" section and not "revert undiscussed moves", and not about the page I moved (Nas song) but the page I created (Chainsmokers song). I contested it but Ammarpad, disregarding formality, was quick to assume it was a request to revert an undiscussed move. If everything was done correctly per procedure, this wouldn't have happened. I followed procedure, they didn't. I don't deserve this, as an editor it is my right to contest a requested move, engage in dispute and not be subjected to the whims of an admin.

Following procedure, if someone had requested to revert my move of (Nas song), I wouldn't have objected. But it was about (The Chainsmokers song) and I had a different view in mind that the song was primary topic and felt that objecting to the request was the right thing to do. It escalated into a "reversion of an undiscussed move" which is not even the case and that, by a non-admin who ignored requests to leave the discussion to an admin. There's a guideline somewhere that if someone asks a non-admin to not close a discussion then they shouldn't close it. I don't agree that the revocation of my page mover right is just, and would like to have it back without any restrictions. — Zawl 21:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know if you think my request for reinstatement as a page mover without restrictions is reasonable and would overturn your decision. Thanks — Zawl 09:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I am respectfully declining your request. To be honest I would have declined your request had I been the first one to see it. However, I am only one editor and will not stop you from requesting a third opinion at the relevant noticeboards. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is in regards to your removing the page mover permission from Zawl TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I am getting trapped. Please help

I requested for page protection to other admin. He said its not the place to request that and one discussion only and I spammed so page issues are put. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lions_Calcutta_Greater_Vidya_Mandir Does Wikipedia do this with those who say truth. Does a Editor has to be Political and play dirty politics to survive? Kindsouvik 16:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindsouvik (talk • contribs)

If someone finds a page that they feel does not meet our standards, they are more than welcome to nominate the page for deletion. I don't see any "dirty politics" here, just someone doing what they feel is best for the encyclopedia. You are welcome to comment on the deletion discussion and make your case for why the page should be kept. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please remove create-protection from Authenticook

@Primefac: Please remove create-protection from Draft:Authenticook as it is ready to be published now. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Dial911 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Dial911 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

revdel request

Are you around? Let me know so i can mail you the link. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've sent the email, but I think someone deleted the summary, which was offensive. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I thought you meant the text. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

lol. Yup, in the page history, next to the edit, it says "edit history removed". Can you see the summary? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh... yes... didn't think to actually read the edit summary... oh my. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

silly me. You obviously can see it as a suppressor. On other note, you should use pings. Having busy talkpages watchlisted, like yours, isnt a good idea. see you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

get Draft:SplashData back for me

Please give me Draft:SplashData back from AfD which I think you did.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Slash Puppet

Hey! Primefac, Slash Puppet is a redirect and it would not let the draft be approved. How do we delete a redirect? Dial911 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Dial911 (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks for coding and carrying out this bot task to fix those broken CWGC URLs, it is much appreciated. For completeness, the edits the bot carried out were: these 50 edits and these 1108 edits? From looking at the current totals, I see that they are 3,214 vs 66 and 1884 vs 47. Most of those 66 and 47 are just in non-article namespace (as expected). There are just two broken links left in the article namespace, at Robert Anthony Maurice Palmer and Bromley Cemetery, both are broken URLs of a syntax that the bot would (correctly) not have picked up - I will fix those myself.

While I am here, I have a couple of other questions if you have time to answer them: (1) At the bot request I pointed out that there are some links using the https protocol (specifically 165 and 84). Am I right to think that it doesn't matter which protocol the links use, and is there an easy way to find both sets of links without having to search separately each time? (2) Is it possible to find out which of the now-hopefully correct URLs may still be malformed (either formatted wrong or using the wrong ID) and returning 404 errors? (3) There are other broken CWGC URLs, all ending .aspx. Twelve examples are on the current Commonwealth War Graves Commission. They will be of the form http://www.cwgc.org/ [...] .aspx They will need manual checking, but is there an easy way to find all these links across Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance for any advice. Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I can re-run the bot to go through the non-article space, as well as find any https that it might have overlooked the first time 'round. Probably won't be until Thursday though. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Managed to miss this. Many thanks for those 84 edits (again, leaving a note for the record that the totals at the time of writing this note are: 3279; 2; 1926; 4). The discussions at User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 77 involve examples of broken URLs, so I may manually fix those back to nowiki versions of the broken URLs for historical accuracy. Will come back to the search questions some other time. There are some URLs that are still problematic, mainly the ones involving some issue with (I think) ASCII characters in the URLs. An example is Drumcondra Church (permalink) where the URL is of the form http://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/91204/DRUMCONDRA%20(ST.%20JOHN%20THE%20BAPTIST)%20CHURCHYARD. I am not sure what is going on there or how widespread that problem is. The URL can be fixed to this form: https://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/91204/DRUMCONDRA-ST-JOHN-THE-BAPTIST-CHURCHYARD (replacing all the spaces and brackets and punctuation with hyphens). Confusingly, the form https://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/91204/drumcondra-%28st.-john-the-baptist%29-churchyard/ also works! Easiest is to just strip out the name from the URL, as the form https://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/91204/, which is what the {{CWGC cemetery}} template generates. If these non-compliant URLs generating 404 errors can be identified, I am happy to fix them (as there hopefully won't be many), but what is the easiest way to test those URLs and find out which are returning 404 errors? I have been looking at User:Dispenser/Checklinks but am not sure about whether that is the right tool to use (or if it would cause problems if I tried to test 3000 links). Again, any advice would be much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Annoyingly, the CWGC site seems to provide 'soft' 404 error pages, as when I ran the 404 example above through a link checker, the link checker actually said it was OK. So might have to try something else. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I've missed something. I find no hits left for the old/improper CWGC URLs, other than the ones at Andy's talk archive. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That's right. All the old/improper URLs are gone. But there is some extra tidying up I am trying to do. It is outside the scope of the bot request. I'll come back or ask elsewhere when I have managed to work out what is needed. Thanks again. Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 1175

Maybe you want to reconsider deleting this redirect. I just renominated it under WP:G5 as the creation of a sockpuppet account....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure! Not a problem. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to resign from Wikipedia

ASAP Thanks ~ (StephenTS42 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)) {StephenTS42 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)}

Fixed the header for you StephenTS42. What's this about anyhow? SQL^{Query me!} 21:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

StephenTS42, if you want to resign, all you have to do is stop editing. There's nothing "official" that an admin needs to do. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to ask something.

Hey! Primefac, I recently approved Authenticook and one other article. The AFCH script is putting the ‘accepting notice’ on my talk page. Shouldn’t it put that on creator’s talk page? Dial911 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Dial911 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Only if they use {{subst:submit}} or manually insert the required parameters. As you can see here all that is present is the {{AFC submission}} template, which is technically correct but really needs to have the submitter, the timestamp, etc. I try to regularly patrol Category:AfC pending submissions without an age to do things like this but sometimes you guys are just too fast and accept them before then (if there is no user in the |u= then it defaults to the reviewer, which is why you keep getting notes). Primefac (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'll see about updating the template so that it yells at the user if they haven't done it right. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thank you! Dial911 (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't get my head around this.

Hey! Primefac, I keep on pinging you for almost everything (your response rate is awesome ). I incubated this page to a draft as it didn't have any references. However, this shows that I created it. But I never created it. Would you know what's going on? Dial911 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Dial911 You moved the page to draft, thus creating a redirect to the draft page. Someone overrote that redirect + the requested R2 speedy deletion with the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Galobtter, Oh! I see. Thank you :) Dial911 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Module:Team appearances list/data

Tnx for your update ;) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Since you're in the business of protecting templates to prevent vandalism

I think many templates in Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unprotected_templates_with_many_transclusions/1 need some loving template protection. Many are called in every instance of a template protected template. MusikAnimal is in the same business and indeed mentioned the necessity of keeping an eye on that list.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of protection it's checking against. I randomly chose a couple of infoboxes ({{infobox ship begin}} and {{infobox ship characteristics}}) and they're both semi-protected. Ideally they should be TE, given they're used on 32k pages, but I'd like to know why they're not being properly assessed before I jump in. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In looking at the configuration for the dbase, it's only triggering for fully-protected templates, so it will definitely be throwing false negatives. A proper search looking only for "truly" unprotected templates might be better. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe they're all semi-protected (through various waves of mass semi-protection such as yours), was asking for template-protection of at-least the top 100 ish. :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Or mainly I was seeing that things like {{S-bef/filter}} were only semi-protected.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I would just rather not duplicate protection if something's already TPE-protected. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The report does exclude template protected templates, from looking through the list. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That configuration you looked looks like a copy of the code in 2010, and it certainly would've been updated since then.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I can get you a list of completely unprotected templates. I'm not sure we want a public, regularly published report of that, though. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh, it's fine. I'll put TPE on 'em all. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Centralized_discussion should not be protected..also unsure if TE should be (at-least by mass) applied up till 2000+, 4000+ seems more fine Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a drive-by Thank You :). - FlightTime (open channel) 17:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter,  Fixed. Ta. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why was Samatha Fox changin reverted?

I had added Samatha Fox birth date. Why was it reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by İbrahimferhadli (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Because there was no source to verify the information. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

{{INRConvert}}

Hi Primefac, I see you have template protected {{INRConvert}} as it has more than 2,000 transclusions. But, if you go through its history, majority of significant edits, including, but not limited to, adding template parameters and updating current rate, have been made by me. But as now it has been template editor, I won’t be able to make edits to it. So can you—

• Either make me a template editor, or
• Lower the template’s protection to, say, extended confirmed?
  Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 17:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection to ECP. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Primeface, thank you! Can you do the same for {{INRConvert/CurrentRate}}, as it'd allow me to update rates of INR vis-a-vis USD and others, and {{Inflation-fn}}, as it'd allow me to update inflation data/rate, too?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

I used your revdel tool today. Firstly, if I hover over to another tab, it saves the edits without me actually saving it. Can you please fix this. I had to put the two tabs together so that I can copy the URL and the revision number to be deleted. If I go to another tab to get the URL which the content was copied from, it just saves the edit. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Um... that's not how the script would work. If any (talk page stalker) want to comment I'm all ears (I can't reproduce the issue). Primefac (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

However, I answered 'How many ranges do you want to revdel?'. Then, I went to another tab to get the diff and the URL and by the time I came back, it saved the edit. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've also faced the very same bug(??).And, it's at every instance of using the script.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell ya. It could be a browser issue, it could be a java issue, but I've had two tabs open with the script just waiting for my input for about 10 minutes now and it hasn't done anything. I've copied stuff, moved stuff around, and still nothing. One of them is on the first "how many ranges" and the second is on "url". Primefac (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this helpful?~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No idea. I've still got those tabs open with the revdel script running, no change. I'll ask around. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So to ask the question that I should have asked at the start - what browser(s)? Primefac (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Same issue here (well, atleast when I tried it last, a couple of months ago), chrome Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

MusikAnimal thinks it might be a spam/anti-popup feature, wherein Chrome thinks you're trying to ignore the prompts and so "times out" and saves the page. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup dialogs have changed from being app-modal to being dismissed when their tab is switched from. This change took place across all channels at the beginning of May 2017. Says that the HTML dialog element should be used instead Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Mine is Chrome too!~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

However, I stopped using revdel and I am manually inserting the template instead which is tedious when I look into many pages. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

William Bentvena

Can you userfy that plus the talk page, is http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/William_Bentvena copyrighted? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Valoem, wikia is under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, so the content can be copied to Wikipedia, but it must be properly attributed where the source content came from. You did not do this, which was why the page was deleted. I think it would be best if you just started over in your sandbox, because the deleted content is 100%/word-for-word copied from wikia and contained zero references. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I was not the creator of the article, I was attempting to create one, but saw there was a historic version. Can you please userfy + talk, I intend to make changes and add sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Template protection

I guess I've missed the memo about the next round of template protection. Is there any way you would you be able to revert {{infobox language}} to its previous protection level? I'm not aware of a history of problematic edits, and quite a few of the people who look after it are not template editors. – Uanfala (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I also request the same for Template:Infobox given name? The situation is analogous. – Uanfala (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant, but Template:Infobox language used to have full move protection, which has now been reduced. – Uanfala (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac! Could you please change the protection level of Template:Post-nominals and Template:Post-nominals/GBR back to extended confirmed? There are a number of us non-template editor/non-admin biography editors who equally update these templates as we need to during editing. There has not been any vandalism on these templates that warranted this change. Thanks. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi -- asking that you reconsider the template editor protection for Template:NRHP date for lists/dates. Although it has a decent number of transclusions, it is frequently updated (several times weekly, to alter the dates in it), and its basic structure is stable. Most of the editors doing this (most frequently me these days, but I'm not alone) probably don't have (or otherwise need) template editor status. Thanks for your attention. Magic♪piano 20:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Asking similar for Template:WikiProject Canoeing and Kayaking. It is maintained by members of the project, not all of whom are template editors. There has not been any vandalism on warranting the change. Thanks -- Ham105 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame

you missed a transclusion. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

same with Template:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't yet checked the skipped pages after the bot run finished, but thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Template protection again

From the series of requests above, I'm beginning to have doubts where the idea to protect all the 2,000 or so templates was a good one. Has that been discussed anywhere? A lot of these templates appear to be relatively simple (wikiproject banners, data subtemplates etc.). They don't have the sort of intricate code that is easy to mess up by newbies and that is what I imagine the template editor right was created for in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts were something like that for talk page only templates protection should be for 4000/6000+ or higher since they have much lower visibility. Primefac, what do you think of lowering to semi-protection for everything on User:Galobtter/Unprotect_list (all templates on database list /2 where their name starts with wikiproject) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I got a request for a reduction in protection from a 6500-page-transclusion template, and thanked for a half-dozen 3000-page-transclusion templates. There is a different preference for every template out there, it seems. I'm not batch-protecting (or unprotecting) anything else until a solid consensus about "when do we use X/Y/Z protection" comes about. Given the back-and-forth that happened when I just tried to get pages semi-protected at the Village Pump, good luck with that. However, I will take individual requests (within reason). Primefac (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with reverting the new protection for the template's on Galobtter's list. That counts as an "individual request", doesn't it? – Uanfala (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Individual not mass. Anyhow, I was looking through the list, and at the same time I see the templates are very rarely edited (mostly the only edits in the last 7 years are protection changes..), and most don't need to be edited either. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two reasons to protect a template. The first is to stop vandalism, like the string of it that led to the mass-semiprot a few months ago. Obviously that's drive-by vandalism, but there's non-porn vandalism that happens on occasion from editors who do have AC (or ECP).

The second reason to protect a template is because it is used on a huge number of pages and if something gets broken it will affect thousands of pages. If everyone was competent we wouldn't need anything other than semiprot (or maybe EC) for even the most highly-used templates, but just check through the TPER requests you'll find a huge number that are either contentious (which would waste resources updating thousands of pages every time) or would break things (which is why we ask to sandbox stuff).

Sure, most of these high-transclusion templates are talk page things like WikiProject banners and probably don't need anything more than semiprot (and yes, I'll drop down those protections), but just from a "don't cock things up" perspective I'd personally prefer to have TE for anything over 4k transclusions (which is what I stopped at, I believe. And no, don't "correct" me if I realy went down to 3.5k). Again, it might be worth an RFC to codify the lead of WP:HIGHRISK. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we all agree that some templates ought to be well protected, but the disagreement, if there is any, is about the criteria and the threshold. Anyway, I don't want to be pursuing this further, I would just like to share my own personal experience. The group of templates in my area (I don't know how representative they are: there's a few infoboxes, a bunch of inline formatting templates and a large number of navboxes) is in a generally suboptimal state. That's not because people have done things they ought not to have done (vandalism is rare and incompetent edits rarer still), but because there aren't enough people to do the things that ought to be done. Restricting people from editing the templates only exacerbates this situation of overall undermaintenance. – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Scott Rodriguez

In regards to this article you moved to main space, it seems to be a hoax. I can't seem to verify anything with him, and a lot of the sourcing seem to just be from Bill Goldberg. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I tagged for speedy deletion, its pretty much an edited down version of this revision of Goldberg's page. I didn't move back to user's page as it's a fake article and will only cause confusion again in the future. Not that the user is active anymore anyways. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. I was dealing with removing a template from a bunch of articles, saw an "article" in the user space, and figured I should move it to the proper location since it didn't appear on the surface to be U5-worthy. Thanks for letting me know; I'll be sure to dig a little deeper next time. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I figured it was something simple like that with you coming across it. The article looks legit at first glance, I only noticed it when looking at a new pages report for reality tv. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A God awful mess...

So... I was trying to transfer Template:TED speaker to q:Template:TED speaker... which seemed like it should have been simple enough... but didn't work at all, and so I tried to also transfer Template:PAGENAMEBASE to q:Template:PAGENAMEBASE, which is apparently required for the first template to work. And, the second template is also apparently dependent itself on something else to work, so nothing works, and at that point I had well gone beyond my technical expertise. Halp. GMG^talk 13:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You used the wrong magic word; it should have been BASEPAGENAME. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

PAGENAMEBASE template strips away the stuff in () (e.g Chiton (genus) gives Chiton) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but PAGENAMEBASE doesn't exist on Wikt, and GMG's usage doesn't work because Module:String doesn't exist on Wikt. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So... does that mean apologize profusely and request someone there delete the whole mess? GMG^talk 13:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

PAGENAMEBASE template GMG transferred, but indeed module:string isn't there, so I transferred it, thankfully doesn't depend on anything; GreenMeansGo everything should be fixed up now.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, was in the process of doing that but ec'd. Yeah, you should be good now. For what it's worth, my version would have worked but as mentioned you'd occasionally end up with the (dab) at the end. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You are both gentlemen (or women) and scholars. GMG^talk 14:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait. So that means that q:Template:PAGENAMEBASE is entirely superfluous and should go away then... GMG^talk 14:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No. the PAGENAMEBASE template on Wikt will give you Foo even if the article title is Foo (bar), whereas BASEPAGENAME will give you the whole thing. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No no, it's needed and used. It's a useful template anyhow, the same with Module:String Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)(edit conflict)

Cool. Just wanted to make sure I didn't leave a mess, and I'm glad I didn't hit save on the speedy request. Thanks again. GMG^talk 14:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

CV in Ajami Nakhchivani‎‎

I see you are around, could you handle the copyright violations in Ajami Nakhchivani‎‎? URLs:

• http://nakhchivan.preslib.az/en_d1.html for Special:Diff/794318456/827726916
• http://nakhchivan.preslib.az/ebooks/24.pdf for Special:Diff/827726916/next
• Special:Diff/827727885/next is copy pasted from Juma Mosque, Nakhchivan without attribution

Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. ​What are the chances of this being reverse copy? Can't find any internet archives, but the text is 100% the same and they're copyrighted to 2004. I know that doesn't mean that the text was added back then, but it might be something to look into. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I can find an archived copy of http://azerbaijan24.com/about/azerbaijan_cities/nakhichevan/naxchivan_city/momina-khatuns_mausoleum/ dated 14 October 2017.

The article was created in 2006. Over the next 11 years, it did not change a whole lot.

I guess theoretically Wayback Machine could have skipped archiving the azerbaijan24.com page for 12 years, but I do not find it likely.

Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports a violation with a confidence of 79.4% between the current article revison and the azerbaijan24.com page.

But between the first 2006 revision and the azerbaijan24.com page, the violation confidence is reported as "only" 62.1%.

So, if our article was the copyright violation, the editor should first have altered/rephrased the text in 2006, and later other editors should have copypasted more text from the azerbaijan24.com page? Doesn't hold water.

Add to those observations that azerbaijan24.com says "© 2004 — 2017", but they are exaggerating: the domain was registered in July 2005.

I'd say it's a reverse copy. Your thoughts? Should we add a {{Backwards copy}} to the talk page? Sam Sailor 14:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Ta. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

PrimeBot17 and bot war

Hi, my bot WaybackMedic is bot warring. [5][6] WaybackMedic checks the WebCite API for the URL it was saved as (at WebCite) and updates onwiki to match. It's surprisingly common how often they don't match. So it looks like I need to strip tracking data so we don't bot war. Is the Regex listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 17 the one currently in use by PrimeBot? -- GreenC 17:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

​The most recent regex is at User:PrimeBOT/Task_17#Regex_updates. I think we're warring because I didn't include webcitation.org in the lookbehind, so it's removing both sets of code. If I include that in the search, will it still war? For example, this only removed the tracking from the original. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter as Medic would edit |url= so it matches the url in the path of the WebCite URL. I'm guessing in AWB there is an additional regex statement for cmpid, any other? -- GreenC 18:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah. At the moment I have confirmation for the bot to clear utm_, cmpid, and mbid, but I also occasionally run manual scans for CNDID, sp_rid, sp_mid, WT.ec_id, and sp(Mailing|User|Job|Report|Pod)Id. That last one is regex since there are five different sp__Id options. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is for Medic to detect for those key terms and leave alone if they: "exist in the URL obtained from the WebCite API and not exist in the URL onwiki". Rather than trying to strip the tracking, which is complex and changeable. My language uses a different regex engine so it would be hard to mirror a parallel set of regex that wouldn't lead to Medic undoing the work done by Primefac. -- GreenC 19:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)