User talk:Primefac/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

still around?

Hi. If you are still around, would you please asses a procedural request at PERM for AWB? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

​In the future, please exercise some patience. You put the AWB request up and posted here what, 8 minutes later? Nothing on Wikipedia needs doing immediately. I'm always willing to grant perms when necessary (I wouldn't patrol them if I wasn't), but not when it feels like I'm being forced to. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I have been wanting to have a bot since like ages, and that bot request was open for almost three months now. And I accidently saw you online, so I took a chance. I am very excited lol. I apologise for being impatient.

Also, I logged in AWB with the bot, but it says "bot=false". Is this supposed to be like that? —usernamekiran(talk) 17:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I was just dealing with a lot of stuff all at once and my reply was a little more snarky than necessary.

Yes, your bot won't have a bot flag until it's formally approved - during trials bots are just "regular users". Primefac (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Still, the apology is called for :) I was unduly impatient. So during the trial should I make the edits just like I was making them regularly? —usernamekiran(talk) 17:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I am still not sure if I will pass the BRfA, but in case I do, is it possible to change the bot's name? I have a few in mind. KiranBOT, RayBOT (kiran is Sanskrit for ray), DumDumBot, SillyBOT (there already is a DumbBot). Do you have any suggestions? —usernamekiran(talk) 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's always possible to change the name of an account. Bots are usually named somewhat after their owners, unless they have a specific task (like the DeprecatedParam bot or IABot), but there's no requirement for it (see ClueBot). If you want it to be a shorter name I'd go with your first choice, but it's entirely up to you. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So no to the DumDumBot? I will go with KiranBot I think. RayBot is good too though. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The only issue with DumDumBot would be possible confusion with DumbBot. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:ANI#page swap of portals. I hope you have some input for it. Would you please take a look? Thanks :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on template deletion

Hi, After you relisted the Template:People of Khorasan on May 9th, there have been three votes to keep the template, versus two votes to delete. Even if you count in the single vote in the first round, you will have a draw. User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric concluded the discussion with deletion. Is that the right decision? Can these close calls be made by non-admins? Thanks. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I watch Godric's talk page, and I'm keeping an eye on the situation. I'd prefer to wait for their reply before taking any action. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied:) Will be interested to hear your take..... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac:, User:Winged Blades of Godric said he will not not be amending his decision. The main purpose of these discussions before deleting any page is to seek the wikipedians consensus. There was clearly not a consensus around deleting the page, rather three users suggested to keep the page (including me, User:Wikaviani, and User:Randy Kryn), versus two who voted to delete. User:Winged Blades of Godric's wrap-up of the discussion is clearly subjective, and he did not approach the issue objectively.

Even if the discussions are not about voting, User:Galobtter only responded to my example of Template:Chinese philosophy. His argument does not apply to the other examples that I gave: Template:Ancient_Greece_topics (see subsection for People), Template:Astronomy in medieval Islam. Later, User:Randy Kryn responded to User:Wario-Man's point.

User:Winged Blades of Godric is not in a position to take a cut on controversial decisions, and wrap-up a discussion subjectively. Let me know what's your take on this. Cabolitæ (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I just replied to you on Godric's page, the nutshell of which was that this should go to DRV. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I filed an appeal here. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just want to thank you for your diligence in handling the discussion & process. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your revdel at Yugoslav Wars.

Hi. You recently revdeleted over 200 revisions of Yugoslav Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) under WP:RD1. I don't know what exactly the copyvio was, but judging on Huon's last edit, it affected 420 bytes of text. However, WP:RD1 requires Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. I don't think that 420 bytes qualifies as "blatant" whatever the contents (that's about three sentences), and even then, revdeling over 200 revisions seems to "remove attribution to non-infringing contributors" (at least, it kills the useful history). I'm not too well versed with this stuff, but there ought to be a less intrusive manner to deal with the copyright issue – this is akin to killing a mosquito with an intercontinental missile. No such user (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It was 968 revisions, for what it's worth. Technically speaking, the attribution is still there - you know who edited and when, and the text is visible to admins. "Removing attribution" is likely a holdover from the pre-2010 days of selective deletion, when in order to get rid of a copyright violation you'd delete the entire page and then restore only those edits that didn't have the copyrighted text in it. For as long as I've been editing (and more recently, adminning) it's standard policy to revdel all of the revisions between the addition and removal of the copyvios. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, in the meantime I saw the RFC at WT:REVDEL that attempted to clarify the wording but got derailed by people misunderstanding the practice (and only then I understood what "removing attribution" was supposed to mean). Still, I don't think that 3 sentences of copyvio are "blatant" enough to justify nuking ~1000 revisions. I understand what the practice is, but I urge you to reconsider. I planned to ask at WP:Copyright problems but I'm going to a wikibreak, so I'll leave it up to you for the time being. No such user (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - yeah, it seems like overkill to me too. I don't know what the legal position is, though. Does "attribution" require us to be able to identify an author for every line of text in the article? Or does it just mean we must retain an unordered list of all people who've contributed to the article in however large or small a way? And on the flip side, what is our obligation when it comes to copyvio text. Clearly we must nix it from the live copy of the article, but is retaining it in the page history also illegal? I think this question needs a much more thorough examination so that we all know the correct procedure. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio admins like myself, Diannaa, Sphilbrick, and TonyBallioni have all done removals on the order of hundreds of revisions (and I know that in at least two instances the copyvio went back to the mid-2000s); every revision after a piece of copyrighted text is added is an infringement of copyright, because every revision is released under Creative Commons. There's no way to separate out "good" parts from the "bad" in a given revision (i.e. we cannot partially redact) so a full redaction is really the only way to go. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If everything Huon removed was copied, it is enough to warrant revdel in my view. Attribution is maintained in the revision history through the usernames and by the fact that admins have access to the deleted revisions so who wrote what it isn’t actually gone. Re: why we do it: Wikipedia’s license certifies that all text in every revision of every page is free for reuse under the terms of CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL for any reason, including commercial. We hide it so others don’t infringe on the rights of others relying on the terms of our licensing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've done quite a few Revdels, so I was initally troubled to see the language highlighted by @No such user:, as it seems to suggest, on its surface, that if a rev-Del would remove contributions from non-infringers that the rev-Del should not be carried out. However, as others have already pointed out, this may not be a correct reading of the language. It might be worth discussing (this doesn't seem to be the right venue) exactly what we mean by "attribution".

I did a bit of digging to see when the language was added and it appears to be with this edit

It may be worth noting that the editor who added this language is not an admin, and permanently retired a month later. (I don't mean to suggest anything negative by mentioning the retirement will be impossible to ask that editor and about this edit).

While non-admin's are permitted to be involved in the writing of policies, I think it is a bit unusual for significant change to a policy to the enacted with zero input from admins. One possibility is that it was viewed as benign so no particular need for in-depth debate which would be consistent with an interpretation that it doesn't really preclude the usual use when removing copyright violations.

While it doesn't help this particular situation, I think it is worth noting that the implementation of copy patrol Means that many copyright violations are identified very quickly so that most rev Dell's apply only to the edits involving the copyright violations. (Special kudos to Diannaa who does the bulk of the work in that tool.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think if we were going to apply strict rules to this then the revdel should be accompanied by a revert of everything, to the last good version of the article before the offending text was inserted. Otherwise we are leaving in text for which an author cannot be identified, unless (a) you're an admin, or (b) you're happy to just use a full list of all contributors, without knowing who wrote what. Like I said above, I don't know what the Creative Commons licence in question says about this, and I'm not legal expert, so I have no idea if this is an issue or not. I'm also not sure if this has been thought through by anyone though.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The text of the license requires credit be given to all contributing authors, but it does not require that each author be credited for the specific prose that they wrote. For re-use, our terms of use specify that one of the available methods of providing attribution is by providing a list of all contributing authors. Based on these documents, my opinion is that attribution does not cease to exist when the edits are revision deleted, as long as the contributor's names are not hidden. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

But note that Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use says that it's a judgement call whether to do large-scale revision deletion on a busy page when to do so would be disruptive.

It makes no sense that the policy page says the material at WP:CP takes precedence when WP:CP does not discuss revision deletion at all, and is not a policy page. The policy page needs an update to better align it with current practice and to make it clearer what to do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa, CP should likely be updated to be more in line with WP:DCV, which I updated in December to reflect current practice, which has CP dealing with more complex cases and straightforward ones being dealt with by individual admins. On this particular case, while there are a lot of revisions hidden, I would call it necessarily an active page, and I don't see the revdel as disruptive. I think that the large scale use bit was thinking more of boards like ANI or talk pages where hiding other users posts under RD2 or RD3 could cause more disruption, and draw more attention, than just subtly removing. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

AWB tips

In case you would like to add some, I've posted these to our new AWB users: User talk:AfroThundr3007730#Some AWB tips    — The Transhumanist   17:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Michigan Highways

You broke the entire portal when you moved it without redirects. Because there are no redirects, everything is redlinked everywhere within the portal. In the future, please use extreme caution when performing such an action because now I have 260+ pages to edit to restore the portal to proper functionality. Imzadi 1979 → 18:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Imzadi1979. I apologize for the mistake; I was going to batch-restore by I had to run some errands. I'll un-dbatch them right now. Never mind, it looks like you already have done so. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Article about Maharshi Kartikeya

Hello there! I wanted to create an article about Maharshi Kartikeya and saw that you deleted one about him because of copyright reasons. I'm not sure if I understand it correctly: did you delete it because the article used contents of www.kundalini-yoga.ch? Thank you for your reply! Goldmaki (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Goldmaki, I deleted the article because it copied text directly from the other website, which is not allowed per our policy on copyrights. You're welcome to recreate the page provided everything is written in your own words. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, thank you for your reply! Great, I will recreate the article in my own words then. Goldmaki (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ramesh Behl

Hi Primefac. Draft:Prof. Ramesh Behl and Draft:Ramesh Behl are back after your G12. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left them a note about copyrights, if they try it again I suppose we'll have to start handing out blocks. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's back again, at Draft:Prof. Ramesh Behl, and we (presumably) have a sock. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked all involved, we'll see what shakes out. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Page mover

Sorry, I didn't quite understand what you meant. Every time I move a page it leaves a redirect and I thought page mover stops this from happening. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

​ It does, but having the ability to suppress redirects in that particular circumstance is not what PGM is primarily used for, or why we give it out. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, same thing happens in main space I know, but 90% of the time I want the redirect to stay, I just find it annoying that it always leaves redirect in my userspace and thought it might help. Govvy (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Another question about page mover, I have two sub-pages in my sandbox userspace that have move protect on them, does page mover allow move protection and any ability to stop people moving my pages out of my userspace or do I need to request an admin to move those pages? Govvy (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) you can ask that it be deleted per U1, but part of the reason for the redirects is in case it has been linked to elsewhere. I typically U1/G7 anything in my userspace I’m not using either, but I agree with Primefac that this isn’t why we hand it out. It’s an allowed use if you have it, but typically isn’t a reason it’s assigned.

Page mover does not allow moves through protection (though I think it should, but that’s another discussion.) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, it's a little annoying leaving redirects in userspace but it's easy enough to deal with. Well if I am ever in doubt about something I can only ask! :P Govvy (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Maine

Hi, I re-opened the project last week and just now realized why the template wasn't getting updated on all the pages.. I don't have the rights to edit this page, and was wondering if you could restore it to its active state. Template:WikiProject Maine. Appreciate the help! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Paid Drafts

Hi Primefac, How are you mate? I wonder if you can help me. What is process for paid drafts? Specifically this Draft:Ellansé. Take a look at the external links section. It has already been posted upt to coin. Thanksscope_creep (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much how you've done it: ask the user to disclose, take 'em to COIN if they don't, and (in this case) block the account for being a username violation (in addition to the UPE). Should probably add a {{connected contributor (paid)}} template to the draft talk. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Refund

Hi, would you be able to restore Draft:Meyer's Law (Linguistics)? – Uanfala (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Portal subpages G6 speedies

Dear Primefac,

There's a list of portal box-footer subpages to be speedied at User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox21.

These ones are now obsolete, and can be batch deleted.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: There are a few redirects on there. Those can be speedied too, right?

• Shouldn't it be the newly minted admin Pbsouthwood doing it? :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Galobtter, I am happy to oblige. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  Pbsouthwood, looks like you've only made it about 13 pages in - it's much (much) faster to use Twinkle's d-batch functionality. Allows you to delete all bluelinks on a page. It's very powerful but is perfect for stuff like this. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am taking it very slowly and making apparently unnecessary checks to learn the details of the tool, as the other project use cases were slightly different, and never more than one at a time. Also I am not a Twinkle user yet. I don't want to rush into this, but am happy to take advice. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose it's better to take it slow than to muck things up on your first day ;-) Primefac (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my thinking. I tested d-batch a few times then ran it on the rest. It took a while to finish, but seemed to work well. Is it appropriate to run a batch job of that size in one go? I got a couple of warning or error messages, ("bad request") but could not find any actual problems with the results, so am considering it a successful test. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes when you've got a big job the API hiccups a bit and you end up not deleting a page or five, but I've never had it actually break anything. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Protection of the article wizard

Hi, why is Wikipedia:Article wizard protected? Yeah, it's got some template code that we wouldn't want people with thick fingers to mess around with, but most of it is text (and hence more akin to template documentation (which remains unprotected) rather than template code) and yes, parts of it have been backed by consensus and so shouldn't be changed without discussion, but to make it editable only by template editors? – Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's possibly one of the most visible pages on Wikipedia that's viewed by new editors, and I placed the protection shortly after someone added an entire article to it. We shouldn't be changing it every other week because this party or that party has started a new spat about exactly how to interpret the AFC guidelines. Additionally, the old Wizard was template-protected so I figured I'd stick with that. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The template protection of the old Article Wizard was applied by Tom Morris in 2015. Maybe they could explain why? And if the rationale for protection is to prevent "new spat[s] about exactly how to interpret the AFC guidelines", then the protection level should not differ from that of an policy or guideline page: none of these are template-protected, are they? – Uanfala (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason I protected it back in 2015 is fairly simple: new users were being directed to the Article Wizard as the place to go to create an article. They clicked edit and started writing the article over the top of the Article Wizard, thus disrupting access to the Article Wizard for other users. It may be worth reconsidering whether the protection level is too high. Semi-protected or Extended Confirmed protection may be more appropriate at this point. Given that changes to the Article Wizard have happened by proposing a new version then having an RfC to confirm the changes, it seems reasonably fitting that the protection level ought to be reasonably high. While it isn't a template, it is more like an unofficial part of the MediaWiki interface than it is a policy page, and as such a reasonably high level of protection seems appropriate. If another admin wishes to override my protection decision in 2015, they are more than welcome to though. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Something I noticed (see there) is that the wizard seems to reflect the realities of the pre-visual editor days. Is that right? Doesn't it need updating? If an update is indeed needed, maybe it would have happened long ago if the protection weren't so high? – Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've been looking down the wrong hole. – Uanfala (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Alan Foster Friedman

Hi Primefac -- I identified the above as a potentially usable draft but the tone of the text suggests it's a copyright violation. I realise that my edit has saved it from G13 for another 6 months, which is a problem if it is, in fact, a cut & paste job. However, neither I nor Earwig have identified a source, and so I'm bringing it to your attention as an admin who specialises in both drafts & copyright problems. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The majority of the text seems to be cribbed from this obit. Note how the adding of things like "Friedman" to "Susan Friedman Galpert" keeps Earwig from noticing it. Haven't looked deep enough to figure out if it's a far-enough paraphrase or just really good copyediting to fool the machines. Interesting catch. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. How did you find it, btw? I put a couple of sentences in/out of quotes into google without getting any relevant hits. And why didn't Earwig find it? I thought it checked the internet rather than just going off listed sources. I fear it's a lot less of a useful check than I had thought. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's a very useful tool, but it only finds exact matches, so it would catch his sister Susan Galpert of Pasadena but not his sister Susan Friedman Galpert of Pasadena. It was actually that last "obit-like" sentence that got me to finding it - I did a GSearch for it (no quotes) and when I saw the majority of it flagging it gave me a starting point. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Altman Comment

Regarding the above linked draft you recently completed an SD on. I initially contested the speedy delete but then saw the egregious self-promotion and sockpuppetry that was apparently done by the subject themselves. And fully agree with the SD.

However, a few days after that initial emotion of disgust, I revisited my initial reaction, which was based on the subject being first author on two peer-reviewed theoretical physics papers in a respectable (though not top) journal. Article 1, article 2. I assume these are the same person. I do a lot of biographies and for me, 2 peer-reviewed papers in a decent journal is usually base threshold for WP:Academic. However, the egregious editing nature of the subject biased me against inclusion, as did the previous votes to delete.

And that is where I'm at a today, a few days after the fact, with less desire to punish and more of a "stick to the inclusion criterion" attitude. So I decided to reach out to you to see if you thought there might be something to salvage with this subject. An article that just sticks to their scientific publications and not much else. I also reviewed the other two wikipedia articles that were included in this sock-puppetry and self promotion, and did not see any reason to revisit them.

Anyways, thanks for your two cents regardless. Cheers --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Dkriegls, I have no issues if you recreate the draft. The deleted content was copied (almost verbatim) from https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Altman and wasn't really modified all that much so that's probably a good place to start (otherwise I'd email you a copy). Primefac (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country/testcases

Hi, when you get a chance you may want to look at your June 5 edits to this template again. You appear to have broken multiple filenames, which is causing the template to show up in Category:Templates with missing files. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

KatnissEverdeen, I'm doing generic parameter testing to see if the template is even putting the right things in the right places. I know I broke multiple filenames, but only because I didn't want to hide the alt text/captions behind a fake image. I hate to sound like an insensitive asshole, but with only two templates (currently both testcases) in the category, is it a big deal if it sits there for a while until I'm done testing (genuinely curious)? Primefac (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not a big deal. I patrol that category regularly, so you have to realize I run into a LOT of people who break filenames accidentally. There was no need to be passive-aggressive, as if you re-read my message nowhere did I accuse you of doing it on purpose or out of bad faith, I was simply checking to see if you knew you had done it, as a lot of people are unaware that they broke filenames. To use your words "I hate to sound like an insensitive asshole," but I also would have expected a more professional reply given you're an administrator, as in honesty this is probably the worst response I've ever receieved to a friendly inquiry. No hard feelings, but you may want to assume good faith next time and cut the passive-aggressive BS. Regards, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

​ This is the downside of the internet, I suppose. I genuinely was curious as to whether it was a big deal (i.e. I needed to do something about it or just should). I was not in any way shape or form trying to be passive aggressive, and I sincerely apologize if that's the way it came across. I was merely trying to explain why I had done what I had done. I prefaced my statement with the "insensitive" comment in an attempt to dispel any concerns that I was being rude... Again, my sincere apologies. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies as well, looking back at my reply I see I overreacted a bit as well. Agreed that it's the downside of the Internet, I guess I took the "I hate to sound like an insensitive asshole" comment to mean you were being sarcastic, which in hindsight I shouldn't have presumed. Take your time, it's no big deal if it sits there. Just was trying to be friendly and make sure you knew that your edit put the template into the missing files category. Sorry we started off on the wrong foot, and very nice to meet you. All the best, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 00:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I'm almost done with that phase of the testing anyway, so as soon as it's feasible I'll be dropping those tests and focusing more on what'll get me bollocks chopped off by the hardcore merge opposition ;-) Primefac (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A few questions

Hi, Primefac - I'm trying to get a few things sorted out properly in my head, so following are some questions that I'm sure have already been answered somewhere, but trying to find them is a root canal. I'm thinking about creating a FAQ page (or the like) in an effort to help make things a bit easier to find. The following questions all relate to the same example, and please rest assured, somewhere in my confused mind, there is a method to my madness :

1. How do we treat articles that are still in the AfC queue that were created by non-registered contributors prior to ACTRIAL? Example: this article appears to have been created by an unregistered user. I created their TP when I declined the draft.
2. Is a single commercial and/or government sponsored travel guide acceptable as meeting notability/verification requirements when approving geographical locations?
3. Can/should an article be approved in AfC and moved into namespace despite obvious issues with either/or MOS, references, grammar?
4. If yes to the last question, is it proper for NPP to move the article back to draft space or should that reviewer fix the problems?
5. If yes to the last question, shouldn't AfC simply not approve the draft in the first place?
6. How soon after approving an article for namespace does it end-up in the NPP queue, and once in the queue, can it be located via search?
7. If an admin or editor with autopatrolled rights approves an article in the AfC queue, does that article still go into the NPP queue?

Ok - I've reached my question limit for this session. Thanking you in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 18:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in (7) myself; I seem to recall I asked recently and was told admins' AfC moves do go through NPP, but mine look to me not to have done so. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so... here's the Earth...

1. The same as any other draft? Draft space is about the only place unregistered/unconfirmed accounts can make a page. I guess I'm not understanding your question.
2. No. It depends^†
3. Can? Yes. Should? Sure, provided it meets WP:GNG, WP:V, and/or the relevant SNG. I'm assuming when you say "references" you mean "they're terribly formatted" rather than "they're not present", because obviously if it fails WP:V it shouldn't be accepted.
4. It's not improper, but there better be a good reason.
5. If Reviewer A thinks that it's a good draft, and NPR B thinks that it's not, then it gets kicked back to draft and it's hopefully discussed somewhere.
6. Immediately, and if by "search" you mean "Wikipedia's search" then the answer is "however long it takes the servers to recognize the move", which most times is also "immediately".
7. Yes*

*there's a glitch with a phab task associated with it, because for some gawd-awful reason if a draft was created more than 90 days ago, when it's moved to the article space Wikipedia essentially ignores the fact that it was just moved to article space, and it doesn't enter the queue.

Hope that helps! Primefac (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that the bug you mention will affect all G13-eligible drafts moved to mainspace? Is there any way of marking these for NPP attention? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm the one who is misunderstanding #1, Primefac - re: autoconfirmed - most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits (including deleted ones) are considered autoconfirmed. Looking at the example I provided for this discussion, the user who created the article was clearly not autoconfirmed much less confirmed, yet they created an unfinished/unverified article. How/why was that possible? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

​ They created it in draft space. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, TonyBallioni knows about the issue, but until we get some traction on that phab task yes, any draft that is 90+ days old will automatically be indexed as soon as it's approved, G13 or not. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I learned a while ago that having a breath-holding contest for things in phab ends with everyone losing... TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to know, thanks. So anyone (not just admins) moving stale drafts into mainspace, needs to be very careful that they are really of acceptable quality. This should be more widely advertised; I'd assumed it was because I was an admin. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah hah!! Thx Primefac - that cleared-up my confusion over #1. I was thinking (not sure why) that article creation requirements (confirmed user) applied to draft as well. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) 7 was interesting stuff:) On a sidenote, Primefac, are you sure about 2 ?! I am actually quite comfortable in accepting drafts based on a single government-travel-guide reference.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Government-sponsored travel guides have a vested interest in promotion. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

^† I guess that should have been a "sometimes" - it really depends on what it's being used for. If "City is a place in Country with a population of #<ref>...</ref>" was the text being referenced, it would probably be acceptable. I sometimes forget GEO basically says "if it can be verified it's notable." I've amended my statement above. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok - copied and added to my explanation file. Thank you kindly for your time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:flagteam

Hello, I notice the IOC code is shown for this template. Is it possible to remove it? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you mean - other than a brief edit which I reverted, I've never touched this. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

For ex. here [1] the relay teams have the IOC code showing beside the country's name (the individual medal template does not). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If the country code shouldn't be shown, then it's the wrong template. In your example {{flag}} should probably be used, though why you'd flip the order of the flag/medalists just for the relays is beyond me; just use {{flagmedalist}} with appropriately placed <br> tags. The template itself is doing exactly what it (and the other "flag team" variants) should be doing. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point, will change it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

What should I do about the Articles for Creation?

Hello, and first of all. Thanks for reviewing my request. In your response, you said "come back in 2 months". May I request your reasons why? I'm just curious. And, what should I do before reapplying in 2 months' time? Thank you. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 18:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. Are you sure you're not looking at your old decline? Primefac (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't realize you added my name to the list. Are you giving me it for 2 months? If so, thank you! P.S: What should I improve on in order to get it indefinitely. Thanks. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Demonstrate that you can accurately review drafts according to the guidelines and be amenable to constructive criticism and there shouldn't be any issues. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 19:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	thank you, i'm just a new editor who uses sandbox Bondboy9756 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	thank you for correcting my mistakes! Bondboy9756 (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

please retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement

Hi Primefac,

Noted that you have deleted the article "Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group", kindly help to retrieve it for improvement. Will take out those advertising words. Thanks a lot.

Kittychan1132 (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. The page has been restored to Draft:Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

yes, my mistake. Sorry! Bondboy9756 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, thanks for your help. Kittychan1132 (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just to let you know, there is a lot of vandalism going on at List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. I am trying my best to revert it all, which I would say I am doing well. However, I would say we need to protect the page so the anonymous users that were editing it can no longer edit it. Thanks for you help, SportGuy002 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC) .

Sorry, I'm not always online, wasn't expecting there to be a new video dropping that would necessitate a 600+ edit war over 24 hours. I've protected. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars Participants

Hi, um .... Why did you delete the Dancing with the Stars Participants category. There was a POV discussion that was placed and everyone voted in favor for it to be listed. Why did you think you had the audacity to remove the whole thing. Clearly you were unaware of what took place and a discussion about it.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

List is here.. (talk page watcher) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Primefac needs to spend a lot more of their time deleting Featured Lists...  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I only did that once, and it was by accident... Primefac (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcometothenewmillenium, as Galobtter has said, the list of participants exists and thus the category was emptied and deleted. I was very aware of the deletion discussion, because it's how I knew the category was up for deletion in the first place. If you feel the discussion was improper and should be revisited, Deletion Review is the way to proceed, not simply ignoring the overwhelming consensus and re-adding pages to the category yourself. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Was just making sure you just didn't make changes out of being spiteful and not considering a consensus discussion. I too voted on that discussion and was wide aware of the result. Majority said List. That does not necessarily mean but I think I see what you did. There was already a list so no need for a category. I will go back and double check but I do not think everyone voted in favor for the category to be deleted. Everyone just want a list to be created. We can keep the category without having a list since there is already a list. If majority said delete I think delete would have been the perfect outcome.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Read the result of the discussion, which was "listify and delete", is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter if some of the people !voted to keep the page, since the end consensus is what's relevant. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Your eyes please....

I am concerned that Northstar College may not be an accredited college and that it is simply a school to teach people the English language. I nominated it as A7 which was declined per the ed establishment exclusion. I was thinking about a fiasco from the past regarding an educational institution that ended-up being a rip-off so I'm exercising caution by seeking your advice before I take further steps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say go for the jugular (i.e. AFD). Not sure which fiasco you're referring to, but based on a quick read of the article and the non-existent references, I'd say it exists but that's about it. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I recall something about a fake university that was ripping-off students by issuing fake diplomas, (non-accredited), and that perhaps an admin had been involved in that scam - not sure if it was unknowingly, or the result of a paid COI or inadvertent. Do you remember that incident? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not, but I have no doubt it happened. Looks like this is more of the standard "I've been there, it must be notable" junk that good-faith users think should be on Wikipedia because it's "important" (to them). Primefac (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Found the case I couldn't remember - good ol' Google...WiFi One. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Schools, again

Hi Primefac. Barry Ne has created seven articles on South African secondary schools since March. I took one to AfD. Is there a simplified statement on schools and notability for me to point him at, rather than referring to the RFC? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac and Curb Safe Charmer

I agree that ground rules need to be laid out. Things that make schools notable are according to me:

1. Age of the school (Historical)

2. Past world well known pupils

3. School is in memory of an well-known event or person

4. Exceptional (national recognised) performances in sport, academic field or culture

This should go with large media or book reference coverage.

Important things to remember:

1. Primary schools are not notable

2. The schools position in its country of existence should be taken into account.

3. Abnormal or contentious issues that made the news may make it notable

By the way Schools are one of my fields I have the biggest interest in

Barry Ne (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, the short and simple version is that schools must meet WP:NCORP. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Whilst I have my own views on the notability of schools (which nearly aligns with PFac's opinions), I'm afraid that the afore-mentioned advice isn't very/any good, if you don't yourself to be branded as a deletionist and subsequent branding of being an incompetent NPR and all.......Irrespective of the travesty that the RFC has generated into, the simplistic advice is that:--

Any secondary school (or above) is de-facto notable by our community standards.(It's thoughts for another day whether the community in this case refers to a set of power-users with voices too loud.....).If the article creator can link to a reliable source (government directories etc.) which verifies the secondary status of the school, the article is almost always going to be kept, even if AfDd.

I am damn certain that the linked AfD closed in the particular manner courtesy the particular user who closed it and that a host of school-AfD-regulars were absent.

Any primary school is almost always non-notable and they are almost-always redirected to the school-district.

Pinging The Banner who has quite a lot of experience in the topic-area.I know that some articles are being deleted but am I correct about the majority?

Also, see this very relevant discussion.Best,∯WBG^converse 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No, schools are not always notable. That is a fiction created by a few editors but has no policy base whatsoever. Just like other subjects, the notability of the school must be proven by sources in the article. There are no policy based arguments for assuming that schools are notable because in the past school were kept because in the past schools were kept etc. There is also no policy based foundation for arguments as "if you can not find sources, you did not search hard enough". The Banner talk 09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Overall, I do like PFac's idea/assertion and it's worth adhering to.But, be very prepared to see arguments in AfD along the lines of --We will keep all secondary schools because we are keeping secondary schools and then seeing the AfDs closed as kept.See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph College of Bulacan for one.∯WBG^converse 01:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

IP 192.0.240.50

Hi Primefac. You indef'd Fshy89 a little over a week ago, but it appears they are back as an IP based upon this added to John from Idegon's user talk. My guess is that they posted the NPA on John's user talk as the IP and then logged in to blank their user talk. The IP has already been blocked twice this month, so it appears to be this editor's way to lash out at others. I'm never sure whether long-term blocking of an IP actually prevents further disruption or just prevents others who are non-involved from editing, but in this case the account doesn't seem to be being used by anyone to edit constructively. Do you think just watching it for further disruption is enough or should an SPI or ANI started instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You might want to consider removing Fshy89's talk page access after there last post on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, been surprisingly busy. Looks like the block of the IP and account have been enacted as you suggested. If after 3 months the IP starts messing around again let me know. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Texas stuff

With what you said in your reversion comments, I'd like to hear how we can blue link in one spot, and red link in another, what would the titles be? Cards84664 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Cards84664, why would we need a bluelink in one spot and a redlink in another? Primefac (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll explain my reasoning with Spur 16 as an example. Anything linking to Spur 16 should still redirect to the spur list, but the link for spur 16 on the list of spurs itself should be redlinked or the link should be removed, since clicking on it from the list doesn't go anywhere. When you click on the red link, my idea is that the redirect to the list would be overwritten when the article for Spur 16 is created. Cards84664 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you want there to be a link but have it not be a redirect, you could use {{-r}} on the target page. If we were to use Texas Park Road 5 as an example, that would change the link to Texas Park Road 5 on List of Park Roads in Texas into Texas Park Road 5, letting whoever visited the page know it's just a redirect and could/should be overwritten. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

AN revisions?

Hi, was it you who deleted countless revisions at AN? [2] I don't know what to make out of it. Thanks, — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't "countless" revisions (it was 38), but yes. Another OSer removed some content, but missed something, so I finished the job. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I suppose oversighting is kind of intended to ensure that almost no-one is able to make anything out of it  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that many revisions being deleted without the usual Revdel log in the page history was certainly surprising (since an edit of mine was deleted too), but I figured it must have been something being oversighted. Blackmane (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I needed to link to a diff but unfortunately the OS action made any linking impossible. Is there perhaps a different way of content cleaning? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could give the #Section link with a permalink to the first-available revision (which for reference is Special:PermaLink/847218042). If you really need that specific diff (i.e. a link to the discussion "as it was" won't do) then I could copy/paste the content. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Followup

Thanks for the help in clarifying things for me. One thing for sure, I'm glad that I don't have to depend too much on my writing skills to make a living! -- Dolotta (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

thanks for that

hmm, I do get cu format very confused at times... JarrahTree 13:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

JarrahTree, don't know if you use Twinkle, but if you do, you can go to a user's talk page, use the "ARV" option, and it will do all of the "paperwork" for you in filing an SPI. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that JarrahTree 00:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:States of Nazi Germany

I think that you may have misread the consensus in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 5#Template:German administrative territories and the related discussions, as you've closed with a merge to {{States of Nazi Germany}}, a template that all participants in the discussion agreed should be deleted. If you read all the discussions as one, I think there was no consensus for the merge, and certainly not to that target. {{Administrative divisions of Nazi Germany}} seems to handle the topic much more appropriately with its links being to Nazi-specific articles. --woodensuperman 13:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I specifically stated that the end target of the merger was up for discussion, and that it didn't really matter where it ended up. I see you've nominated the template for deletion anyway so I'm not really sure what I could do even if I agreed that I had misread the consensus. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Shall I withdraw the nomination? --woodensuperman 08:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No point now since there's been another !vote; we're basically at a pseudo-DRV stage so we might as well see where it ends up. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm....

I chanced upon this article and intented to source the Academics section.And there-in lies the problem:)

If I go to this link (which is the most reliable source in this regard), fill the left panel as (State:-West Bengal, Year:- 2017-18, Program:-Engineering and Technology, Level:-UG) and click on submit, a list of colleges appear as a list.Once I search for Abacus and click on Course details in the sole entry, the fact is verified.

But, I'm at a complete loss as to linking the source in a manner wherein the reader can click and verify the info at a glance.....

Any ideas?∯WBG^converse 04:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's probably not what you want to hear, but I've removed the section entirely. We're not a course guide. But to directly answer your original question - no, I have no idea how you would best source that information. Does the school itself not provide this sort of thing? Primefac (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No qualms:) YGM-∯WBG^converse 12:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Goal

Hi Primefac, you protected the template Template:Goal. I would like to see the template to be expanded, besides options like "o.g." and "pen.", with an option to indicate a "golden goal (g.g.)". This might need to be discussed first. I could prepare the change in a sandbox, but considering the simplicity of the change I don't know if there's a need to do so.--Sb008 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, there's a separate template for it Template:Golden goal --Sb008 (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-free image in portal

Hi Primefac. File:Lylestuart.jpg has been flagged as being used in Portal:Nautical, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. My guess is that it's being transcluced somehow onto the page, perhaps from Lyle Stuart, but I can't find any mention of him either. Since you've helped me out with similar issues before, I though you might be able to figure this one out as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have resolved itself, so nothing further needs to be done here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, good! I do apologize, I seem to have missed seeing you post this, so I'm glad to hear it's resolved. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser

Hi, I have done the 250 edits at en.wiki, could you give me the permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser? Thanks in advance, --Elisardojm (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Could" I, sure, but I don't respond to permission requests on my talk page. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll get to the AWB requests when I get to them. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

My PageMover request

Hi, Can you please take a look at my WP:RFP/PM. I have requested it again as I needed it while helping on Image FileSpace. It would be helpful if you could share your thoughts. Thank you. --DBigXray 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been very busy lately, and can make no guarantees about when I get a chance to look at your request. The page is on my watchlist, however, and eventually I will see it. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ok. Sorry for the extra trouble. I had to message you as other admins prefer [3] that you take the call. Thanks --DBigXray 09:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I legitimately haven't had time to deal with perm requests lately, but I'll do what I can. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Spam on my talk page

Hi. I wrote on May on administrator's noticeboard (here) about a spammer on my talk page, who harassed me. I noticed a few minutes ago that he did it again. I blanked my talk page, but I really need my talk page being protected and maybe some action against him, even if he's a dynamic IP and I don't know what can be done. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Any ideas?

Hi Primefac, hope things are well. I'm still sorting out the unsupported parameters for Infobox school, but at the moment I've been searching through articles for people who currently or have worked at BT, and adding its people category. I came across an article that is duplicated with one in the mainspace and one as a draft, I wasn't too sure who to ask, but maybe you know what's best, if you could take a look I would really appreciate it, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In this particular instance, the draft creator was also the article creator, and no one else really edited the draft (just some bot edits), so converting the draft to a redirect is sufficient. If someone else had done the copy/paste move, then it would be a {{histmerge}} issue. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

mail

Hi. I just sent you an email. Your discretion is requested. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your response was very helpful as usual. But unfortunately, i dont have access to a computer for a few more days. So i cant do any experimenting. And the entire source code is there in the discussion. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 501 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Congrats P. That is a whole lotta typing :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That makes me wonder, how many keyboards did that cost? lol —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

MarnetteD and @Usernamekiran:, do you really think I typed that out? I copied from elsewhere! ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 04:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: I was referring to all the typing that Primefac put in to get to 100,000 edit. Cheers to everybody. MarnetteD|Talk 05:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Oh! I misinterpreted that. Sorry. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries :-) MarnetteD|Talk 05:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, I've been using the same keyboard for 13 years. Of course, I've gone through a half-dozen mice in that time period... Primefac (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: :D
Do you mean you have the IBM style white and gray keyboard? —usernamekiran(talk) 12:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Nah, just the bog-standard Gateway KB 2961. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:San Bernardino County Fire Department

I have read the article and done some research. However, I found that in section Specialized Programs, most of the content are copy and pasted from the source. Should I decline the AfC submission with reason copyvio? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It has been removed. Nvm. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

​ It's still a valid question. In that particular instance, a cv-decline wouldn't necessarily be appropriate because there's still a pretty good amount of content. cv declines should be used when the remaining content isn't significant enough for the page to be acceptable in the article space. Either way, when copyright content is removed a {{revdel}} request should be placed.​ Primefac (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Seems I don't have much experience yet :( ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We all have to start somewhere! Primefac (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

AFCP

Hello Primefac. Could you please remove me from the participants list? I've made too many errors and I have to take my responsibility. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your contributions over the years. Let me know if/when you want to rejoin us. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Pilgrim State (book)

Hi, you've just deleted the page Pilgrim State (book) due to copyright infringement. I was working on the page to fix this, can you please restore the page with the summary section removed which was the reason it failed copyright? Tanbircdq (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

​ From tip to tail it was copied from somewhere. The opening sentence, which was the only full sentence not copied from elsewhere, was Pilgrim State is a 2008 family memoir written by British activist Jacqueline Walker. I can either email you the content or list the infobox/references here, but I will not restore the article as-is. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain how exactly the "Release" and "Critical response" sections fail copyright? If this content isn't "copied from somewhere" and adapted for article then they'd be WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanbircdq (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, the critical response section was properly attributed quotes, and the first sentence of the release section was not copied directly. I cannot in good faith restore the page to the article space, but I am willing to draftify it. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Reg this request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vishalgarg85

i want to create in english language not other because people search in hindi but i can give reference not write new english from those words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalgarg85 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Kitronik document

Hi,

I had been building a page for educational electronics company Kitronik. In June of this year, it appears that you deleted it. I have returned to finish up the document so that it complies with the points that were raised the last time it was submitted.

Has this information really been permanently deleted or is it archived in some fashion? I would like to complete the page, do you have a link to the work that I did previously.

Here is the information on my sandbox page, which was where I had the page: My Sandbox

Mark Donnison (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Mark Donnison, the page has been restored to Draft:Kitronik. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

LG7

Why was the account name globally suppressed? Is there anything libelous about it? L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Revealed personal info. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know it was personal. One of LovelyGirl7's socks posted it on Oshwah's talk page and I'm not sure if it was RevDel'd. But if it is personal info, then there's another one you'll have to globally oversight. I sent you an Email. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeahhhh... good times, right? ....... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(post-email-reading reply) There's a slight difference between a "name account" e.g. User:Joe Bloggs saying "I'm a sock of User:Example", and creating an account called User:Jane Doe is UserX - the former is a self-disclosure, the latter is most likely a self-disclosure but could also be outing. Since the account was glocked and suppressed I'd say the stews felt it was an outing concern. As for the former (which is what you're now asking about), the account is also glocked but I don't think it requires suppression. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The limits

Two users, (called twins by an another editor), have made hundreds, probably thousands of edits, editing a small number of pages regarding Polish-Jewish contacts, imposing radical Jewish-Israeli anti-Polish POV. Shall I pretend the editors are neutral? They don't pretend. As I have written - everything Poles did during the war was wrong according to the editors. The Polish editors have a long tradition of internal conflicts, the two editor perfectly cooperate figting any opposition.

I have my limits of tolerating anti-Polish rants.

If this Wikipedia accept Icewhiz and doesn't accept me, becauue Icewhiz is smarter and he sets the rules, so I may afford joining another project. This Wikipedia has already topic-banned a serious Polish editor. You have serious ethical problems. Your whole para-legal system is Nazi-like. An editor accuses, condems and defines the punishment.

Xx236 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Would yoube so kind to censor some edits by the twins? Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Xx236, if you have an issue with an editor (or a pair of them) and a talk page discussion is not yielding results, then you should visit the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or WP:ANI and file a formal complaint.

For the record, Icewhiz does not set the rules, but I also notice that they're not trying to subtly insult you or claim that you are anything that you are not in the talk page discussions. As I said on your talk page, it doesn't matter if they do have an agenda, you should debate the issues and not the editors making them. Of course if you can prove (without revealing any personal or off-wiki information) that they have an agenda, they can be topic banned from material, but if you really want to go down that road just remember that such proposals often backfire on the person making the complaint. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

My removal from AfC team

What was the reason? Inactivity? Will I ever be added back again? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if someone asks for access and then doesn't use the tools, they get removed from the list - especially when their original addition was on a probationary/"let's see how you do" basis. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not like I didn't wanted to use those tools but when I searched for topics to review; they were already done. I think I was being way too specific. I want to reapply. Will I be added again? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. For what it's worth, don't feel like you have to review something if you're not comfortable/familiar enough with the content or the subject material. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Thanks, I hope I will be of some use this time! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 02:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for answering my newbie question on how to use talk pages. My other question is about over-editing articles as if there were a lack of space as in hard copy encyclopedias. It becomes somewhat cryptic for a reader when editing seeks to shorten sentences to the degree I've seen in wikipedia articles. If you want a case in point, I was looking at the article entitled Gabor Szabo where the section "Early Years" does not give a reader a clear picture of what really happened and is actually misleading. I improved it by making the two sentences into five clear and neutral sentences which did tell a clear story but User:PaulCHebert undid it immediately. I would like to find a user to help improve that article of a truly notable artist. Is there a process for asking for this? Thanks again Metaphysics Man (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject History of photography

Template:WikiProject History of photography has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Photography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Qono (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

AfC

Hi Primefac, Greetings to you. Just found out AFCH 0.9 helper script is not on my menu tool bar today. Kindly advise and thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, the script came back up. Not sure what had happened. All is good now. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

AfC script

Hey, how this user can access the AfC script without listing in reviewers list? Thanks ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1997kB, I see no indication that they have access to the script. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

They came to -en-help and said that they have access also this edit in their contribution shows they have access. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't have access. For what it's worth, a few months ago we had an editor who was manually recreating the AFCH notice, so it's possible that's what they've done. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In past they added their name twice in the list and got removed, maybe this is the issue? or maybe they are faking this. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Could be a cache issue on the AFCH side of things. Never hurts to ask them. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply to me

Hello. I see that you commented on my bot idea, suspicious user watcher. I didn’t make a joke request. It was a real request. SandSsandwich (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was just vague enough that I wasn't sure. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I changed my name

Hello Prime. Today, I changed my name from 'In Memoriam A.H.H.' to 'The Duke of Nonsense'. Due to the name change, I cannot review draft articles with the AFC toolbox. Can you please change my name on the AFC user list. Thanks. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?}. 20:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Food Truck Festival

Thank you for a lively discussion on the Chicago Food Truck Festival. I read your post and seek clarification. In deleting the page you stated a strong consensus for delete had form from the relisted discussion. Can you please elaborate specifically how you interpreted a strong consensus to delete? Again thank you for a lively discussion and moderation. Thelegaldude (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Following the relisting, there was one !vote to delete and two for redirecting. Your comments were taken into consideration, but they were much in the same vein as what you had already spent numerous thousands of bytes opining over. Thus, the weak consensus turned into a stronger one. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to Atmospheric refraction

You recently deleted an edit to Atmospheric refraction, removing the name TJ Kukkamäki from the "See also" list with the explanation "not relevant to atmospheric ref." The edit was probably correct since Kukkamäki is a relatively minor figure, but since he has published on levelling refraction and parallactic refraction, which are specialized subdomains of atmospheric refraction (I have one of his publications in my refraction folder), the explanation that he is not relevant overstates the point. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and my edit summary wasn't the most accurate. My apologies. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Going to Wikimania?

Hi Primefac -- I just wanted to check in because I'm headed to Wikimania in a few days, and I'm hoping to meet some AfC reviewers. I'm wondering if you'll be there. Let me know! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't even know it was going on! Primefac (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If you arent going, then i am not going either. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is it happening though? Dial911 (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dial911: - https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania - Cape Town, South Africa. SQL^{Query me!} 04:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Will work hard, save some money and maybe go next year :P Dial911 (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dial911: It will happen somewhere else in 2019 though. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Dial911 (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Kitty Hawk Corporation

This isn't a copyvio issue, which I know you are interested in, but is an attribution question. The above article was created by a cut and paste move from Kitty Hawk Flyer. Normally I would restore both articles, and inform them to "move" the article (which most likely would include a housekeeping request to delete the redirect to make way). However, this is the first time I've come across a cut and paste, where they've actually included attribution from the original article. Is that enough? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Copy/paste page moves, even with proper attribution (which this didn't have), are extremely discouraged, because it's simply too easy to misplace the original text and lose attribution. Ideally pages should only be split, merged, or swapped. I've undone the copy/paste and added attribution for the previous merge from 2017. Thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting on fixing it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

OmarGhridaBot

Hello, Please unblock my Bot OmarGhridaBot, I want to take tests for I reques bot falg now thank you ! --Omar Ghrida (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Omar Ghrida, you are welcome to place a BRFA, but the bot should only edit when a BRFA has been approved. If you need to do any test edits beforehand, you should use your main account. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I did . but I have a question: Why do not you block them: Category:Unapproved Wikipedia bots ? and thank you --Omar Ghrida (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the unblocked bots in that category had approval at one point, but then lost it when they (or their owner) went inactive. There are a fair number of blocked bots in that category. For example, BackfireBotII hasn't edited since 2010, and its bot flag was removed. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

yes ok, Thank You (: --Omar Ghrida (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at Talk:John_Taylor,_Baron_Taylor_of_Warwick#RFC_discussion.
Message added 12:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looks like Subjects opinion prevails, so, Close the RFC. DBigXray 12:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, one vote is not a consensus, even if it is the subject (or their agent). This is why we have RFCs. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for clarifying. --DBigXray 12:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Modules

You seem to be sometimes forgetting to delete all the subpages of modules you delete following TfDs, for example Module:Ranking movements/testcases and Module:See also/sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I do indeed. Thanks for the reminder. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Netflix templates

May I create these templates for Netflix since you made that decision (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 26#Template:Netflix original series)?

• Template:Netflix original current series
• Template:Netflix original continuation series
• Template:Netflix original ended series
• Template:Netflix original upcoming series

— Landingdude13 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Landingdude13 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's done, you could get rid of these two (Template:Netflix original series & Template talk:Netflix original series). Landingdude13 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

​ No. I specifically said that the template would be redirect and attribution (by way of {{split article}}) would be needed on all relevant talk pages. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. I redirect both of them. Landingdude13 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the appropriate attribution. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Cfd relist

So what do you think? I see no reply from you, cheers Hhkohh (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a third opinion would be good, because I realized a few days ago that TFD is also an exception. I don't think anything should be removed, and if anything maybe just a sentence about "leave a redirect" referring to R/T/CFD, but again there should be some form of consensus, even if it's just between three people. I haven't had a lot of time to think about this particular issue, but if/when I get time I'll write something up. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Primefac

Hello I came here after checking the request log for membership to the AfC. You are obviously more experienced than me and thus I thought it would be courteous to notify you in your talk page before posting a request there.

Please assess me!

I started off some 8 months ago and I got active support from Noyster and Mr. Bogdan through email.

If you see my edits log (here) you'd easily recognize my struggle days. By February this year, I got accustomed to the wikimarkup and since I was careful from the beginning, I took the user namespace as my sandbox (I though regret for not using my own sandbox) to prevent possible vandalism.

Then the following months , I took a break from editing. I resumed myself to read on the Wikipedia guidelines(I promised to be a good editor).

I just came back this month and started active contributing. Recently I enabled Twinkle which spurted my edits. (Though I have no symptom of Editcountitis!) I welcomed a lot of new users with my own template "wdj"(which is named so for its utility on my keapad phone and a good customized shortcut for my Android).

I also played a vital role in clearing the "double redirects" and "broken redirects" and deleted useless pages (check my csd log).

The criteria states:—

Criteria:

AfC reviewers must have:

• a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old.
• a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles.
• thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions.
• a demonstrated understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability categories.
• a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews.

In reference to the above, I can say I just not fulfilled the 2nd criterion. (For being having just about 180 main edits, a bare 26% of my total edits) . Rest I think I have proper experience to fulfill the other 4 criteria.

For a better knowing, I am also accustomed to WP:N though conflicts arose on my creation Sinha Roy(currently under AfD) since I found no reliable sources on net , literally!

But it is my own surname and I also know my family history! But not on net however the surname is quite famous .

I already gave myself a headstart and I feel it ok to grant me reviewership as it would not take 2 months "Probation" to meet the 2nd criteria and I have a 4 months duration of guideline reading out of my 8 months of "Wikipedian life".

Hope this much is enough! I am waiting for your ping!

Dr. Sroy(talk to me!)

19:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Also please see if I am eligible for the NPR rights. I would be over satisfied if I would get a mentorship from you.

Dr. Sroy(talk to me!)

19:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of the review criteria are subjective, while others are objective. If you don't meet the edit count criteria, I cannot make an exception for you. As a note, a good reviewer would know not to even write an article if there were no sources, leading me to think you actually don't understand WP:N (and potentially WP:V). Keep editing and learning, and you are welcome to apply when you do meet all of the prerequisites. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I see I really missed that point and thanks for showing neutrality . I promise to get a better understanding of the guidelines. Again, thanks!

Dr. Sroy 18:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Sroy (talk • contribs)

Template:Infobox volleyball biography

Hi, I made an protected edit request, can you look into it and see if it's okay? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Latter Day Saint biography

The TfD for this template, which you recently deleted and removed from the holding cell, was never actually implemented. The TfD asked to substitute all the subtemplates, which was never done. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The template itself was never substituted, from the looks of it, and so I deleted it as having no more transclusions. I do see that the subtemplates are still in use, so yes they should be substed and deleted. Primefac (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for modifying the Template:Infobox former country. Now, this is quick service. :-)— Ineuw talk 22:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Constance Savery

In May you reviewed Constance Savery, a page I have been editing, and you criticized the article for extraneous detail, for too few citations, and for the article's tone. I hope I received those comments in the spirit in which they were intended, and I have addressed those concerns to a greater or lesser degree. Should you have time, I would appreciate your comments on what progress I have made. Anobium625 (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

For the reply...the silver lining was, at least it reminded me to get the lamb shanks out of the freezer  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything to help someone eat tasty meat :-) Primefac (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata_property

Hi. This is a friendly visit. I once misread something in a discussion and incorrectly closed, and you made a similar mistake. There were two RFCs relating to Wikidata. The Template:Wikidata_property TFD quoted and linked to one RFC, but you mistakenly quoted the wrong RFC and based your closing on it. The wrong RFC was no consensus on retrieving Wikidata values in infoboxes. The RFC which I quoted and linked in the TFD did reach a consensus. Consensus: Wikidata should not be linked to within the body of the article except in the manner of hidden comment(s) as to mentioning the Q-number.

No consensus on using Wikidata values, where a central concern was reliability of that data.

Consensus about links to Wikidata, where a central concern was that Wikidata links were confusing and inappropriate for readers.

Your TFD close reads as follows:

Your quote of the wrong RFC should be cleaned up. However I particularly note ...if a future RFC determines that WikiData should not be linked to in the article space (or similar outcome that would have the same effect). We already had that RFC. I ask you to consider whether the TFD should be revised as Keep, for non-articlespace use. The majority of people in the TFD did explicitly distinguished between article-space use and non-article use.

Thanx. And again, I hope you accept this is a friendly visit. Alsee (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)