User talk:Primefac/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Rddif

Hi Primefac. I nominated this article for deletion. The same article was speedy deleted some time ago. After the creator removed the tag without adequately explaining why, another editor readded it. Then the creator did the same thing. Since the creator is not adequately explaining why the tag should be removed, should the tag be added again? If not, how should the issues of the article be solved? All edits of the creator of the article are about this musician. The Instagram account of the musician contains a link to the article. The creator of the article must have connections with the musician. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Creators should not be removing A7 tags, but anyone can remove a PROD; it doesn't matter whether it's justified or not, so the re-adding of the PROD was actually improper. I do see that the page was A7'd, so it's rather a moot point, but going forward the page creator should be warned about COIs and pointed towards WP:AFC. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I read the guidelines of PROD where it is said that the tag can be removed by anyone, and after I saw that an experienced editor readded it I felt a bit confused. I had made before speedy deletion nominations, but not PROD. I made the nomination with Twinkle and I expected to be like AfD where editors vote and comment on the matter and after some time the tag is removed/article is deleted by an admin. Thanks Primefac. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

To nominate for deletion (AfD) an article about a living person I should choose "XfD" option on Twinkle, I am right? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again Primefac. Yesterday I chose the wrong option on Twinkle. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Article problem

I noticed that you undid my edit on my draft. Can you please tell me what the problem is with my draft that way I don't make the same mistake again.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous1941, a reviewer has marked the draft under review, which means that it should not be submitted again until the review is complete. Primefac (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The Ghost (Faroese band) close

Hi, regarding your note on this close...the main point of contention is over whether this ensemble is a band, not "that this is not a band". Also, the nominator previously had a centralized discussion about many electronic duos, and was asked to bring them up individually. I'm not arguing that the close shouldn't have happened or that the decision should be changed (I agree with the closing result), but I just wanted to let you know that the writeup makes it look like you missed a few things in reviewing the arguments. Chubbles (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a fairly clear "not moved" anyway so I've just removed the whole bit. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the parenthetical

(Sorry for making things more difficult) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, all good, you're definitely not the only one that's done it! Primefac (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

YGM ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick

So what can you do with a wholly inappropriate draft about a child suicide? Nothing? KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's sourced to the hilt and the subject is dead so it doesn't meet any of our OS, minor/privacy, or BLP guidelines for deletion, so MFD is really the only way to go. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Chrissymad disagrees, and it's now been "under review" for 5 days. Thoughts on how to progress? KJP1 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this: the draft is at MFD, and as a courtesy to other reviewers we tend to mark such pages as "under review" until such time as the MFD finishes. Chrissymad was actually in the process of reviewing it when the draft was put up for MFD (she can verify, hence the ping), but now that the MFD wheels have been put into motion it should stay as-is. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

In other words, if RoySmith hadn't nominated the page for MFD, it would be sitting in the article space. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And the four days it was under review, before it went to MFD? I think the template suggests 12 hours. KJP1 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

At least at MFD, we'll get a resolution one way or another, which is better than edit warring with templates. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's fair enough, RoySmith, and it wasn't a criticism of your action; I had just talked with Chrissy on IRC about the draft and she said she was in the process of reviewing it when you nominated it. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

KJP1, it's very possible the language (and/or the ethos) of that template needs to be discussed at WT:AFC. The first step should be to contact the reviewer, not just blindly remove it because it's been 12.00001 hours. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Chrissymad - You're quite mistaken. I've removed nothing. Just as Chrissymad is mistaken in thinking I initiated the MFD. KJP1 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Chrissymad And the "four day" review remains unanswered. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

KJP1, you might want to check your pings, given that Chrissymad hasn't responded at all to this thread. Additionally, no one said you were the one that started the MFD or removed the template, but a number of other editors did exactly that, which likely kicked off the whole MFD thing. As a minor note, Chrissymad has no need to justify why she didn't immediately review the page, though based on past instances it's likely she got sidetracked with real life and was unable to return (and/or forgot). This is why a friendly note is preferable. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"I had just talked with Chrissy on IRC" - no, nowhere near. KJP1 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, actually, quite near. I was discussing the draft with her (her exact words were "I think I'm going to accept it") when I got a notification in my inbox that Roy had nominated the page for deletion. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Primefac, you have helped our beautiful project time and time again, and here you are yet again. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help! Primefac (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Like SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Testing AfC drafts in New Pages Feed

Hi Primefac -- I wanted to get in touch with you directly to ask if you can test out the New Pages Feed in the Test Wiki. We're pushing our changes there first, so that reviewers can bring up issues before changes go to English Wikipedia. The feed now contains AfC drafts, and we definitely value your opinion as someone who weighed in so much during the early part of this process. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I've created a highly representative draft for testing on: testwiki:Draft:CORPSPAMMMM :P Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist vandal

Hi Primefac. Thank you for actioning my recent request. The vandal is active again. I've reported them at WP:AIV. Could you please RevDel their latest contributions, listed here and here? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, shoot me an email, just to keep things from getting too visible. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

PrimeBOT and WP:DRAFTNOCAT

Hey!

I noticed your bot (per WP:DRAFTNOCAT) disabled a category on my draft. Thing is, the category was Category:Drafts about geography and places, a subcategory of Category:Draft articles, both maintenance categories. Does WP:DRAFTNOCAT apply to draft maintenance categories? If it doesn't, you should probably add an exception to the bot for those categories, but I honestly don't know if it does. Cheers. Hecseur (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hecseur, it applies to all drafts. If you want to put it in the maintenance category, use {{draft|subject=places|catonly=yes}}. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh alright, thanks! Hecseur (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick advice from you

Hey! Primefac, what if I come across a draft that I think should go to the mainspace but the creator is blocked as a sock or for any reason whatsoever? Dial911 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If the page was created after the master was blocked, and they are the only substantial editor, then the page should (ideally) be deleted under G5. If you want to take responsibility for the draft, you can make substantial changes and "take ownership" so to speak and then it would be acceptable for mainspace. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Bukharisaeed

"'most convincing piece of evidence towards reform was provided by the various Urdu Wikipedians"..? You mean the Wikipedians who were openly admitted by Bukharisaeed to have been canvassed through phone and emails and editing WP:AN for the first time ever? Do you really count such violation of WP:MEAT as "convincing"? For what it is worth, Bukharisaeed can't even answer the question I had asked him no matter how many times he try [1] per WP:CIR. I definitely see no reason why he had to be unblocked. Kindly revert your decision. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am uninvolved here and I agree with the message above. Opposers thought that BukhariSaeed should not be unblocked because of more general issues and failure to understand what is a sock puppetry or canvassing. By letting him know that "any gross misbehaviour" will result in a block, you have indirectly allowed him to engage in general misbehavior which is only going to make it harder than ever to block him again. There was no consensus to unblock. Maybe BukhariSaeed should try again after 6 months without canvassing any of his pals. As of now, there was consensus entirely against any unblock. GenuineArt (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's put the pitchforks down please. Part of being an administrator is interpreting and weighing the arguments made by both sides, and occasionally making tough decisions. As I said in my close, it was a close call, but I felt that the weight of consensus was (barely) on the unblock side. In the 12 hours since being unblocked they have done nothing except properly revert vandalism and improper edits. Let's give them a shot, eh? Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My main concern was to raise the issue and hopefully it has been. Given other editor objected too I feel I was right after all. In place of escalating further I would agree that we can give another shot and have a strict watch. Thanks. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I asked Primefac to close this (put an open notice about it in the admins IRC channel) because there was a question on meta as to if he could be renamed. I obviously opposed the unblock as I think WP:ROPE rarely makes sense when it comes to unblocks and that people don’t ever read the bit of it that says when it shouldn’t be applied (which is basically every time it is invoked in a SO discussion...) That being said, I think he had a fair reading of consensus and that I can’t really fault him for the unblock. Despite what is often claimed, reblocks after an unblock are usually very difficult, but I think this will be the exception to the rule: if he messes up, there are a ton of people willing to report and multiple admins who would be willing to block. Let’s move on. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For handling the challenging WP:OTRS tickets that no one else really wants to handle. Probably among the most stressful and thankless tasks you can do to help Wikipedia, especially since it's done in private, and most Wikipedians will never know about it. Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC) The Invisible Barnstar is awarded to users who make significant and helpful contributions to the project, but have kept to the background without seeking recognition or reward for their work.

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. I hope you are well. Would please take a look at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#adding talkpage banner? Your help will be appreciated a lot. I am also pasting this same message to Xao, and Rob. Thanks a lot in advance, —usernamekiran(talk) 22:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Your recent editing history at Trayvon Martin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I'll also note that there is a discussion here, but other users have also removed the sourced content, plus your comment at user-talk, here. Aside from that, your edit-summaries seem tendentious and contradict the wp:RS sources which, in fact, have noted issues as "controversial".-Wikid77 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:African Union flag.svg

Hi Primefac. Someone has recently added the non-free File:African Union flag.svg to a number of templates which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Actually, they might've only added it to one which is being transcluded into lots of others. I can't seem to find the one template to remove the file, so I'm wondering if you can. This happens every so often with this file, so I'm also wondering if there's any way to make it known not to do this kind of thing in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I figured it out (at least I think I did) and was able to remove the file. I'm still wondering though if there's some kind of way to prevent this from happening again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There isn't, really; anyone can put a file pretty much anywhere (makes the template vandals such an issue). Glad you were able to work it out though. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit to my talkpage

Can you explain? It consisted of some baseless accusations of sock-puppeteering against someone whose account name is also their RL name; those same accusations got posted a zillion other places, too, but it looks like you only changed them on my user talk (?). Thanks. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you have edited several times since I posted this query, I would like to clarify that this is not meant in a hostile way: I do not understand, and would appreciate if you would explain, the point of your edit to my page in context. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies Joel B. Lewis, I was not "not responding" to you because I was ignoring you, I've been discussing the matter off-wiki with some of the members of ArbCom. When I did the initial suppression, I did not see that the message had been posted in multiple places, and they're still deciding if all of the messages should be suppressed. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that makes perfect sense. All the best, JBL (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes

WP:MED is generally very supportive of infoboxes. Please do not remove them. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

​ Infoboxes are great, but blank infoboxes? They do nothing except clutter the page. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No, they key the reader into what the article is about (ie a diagnostic test). They also improve our ability to study Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely don't mean to be snarky with this comment, but the gigantic header text and the bold in the lead doesn't clue the reader into what the article is about? How does it "improve our ability to study Wikipedia"? If you're thinking about tracking diagnostic articles, a category works just as well. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It makes it clear that all "medical diagnostics" are part of a category, so we disagree. Sure many of them are a work in progress.

I agree with User:Ozzie10aaaa here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't, but since we seem to be at an impasse a) I'll leave them alone (for now), and b) I've started a (slightly) more general discussion at VPT. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

responded at at VPT--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Confusion

Hi,

You said i am not allowed to create new pages in the Article space - i must use the Articles for creation process. I am confused about making redirects. Redirects are also prohibited? — Bukhari (Talk!) 18:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

​ Yes. Use Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, i have made Muhammad Tamizuddin Khan and M.H. Gazder, because i was confused about redirects. Please delete these, then i'll request for redirects. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You're fine, it was my fault for not being more clear. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Lower protection?

Hi, would you be able to lower the protection settings for the following pages:

• Template:WikiProject Languages
• Template:WikiProject Languages/class
• Template:WikiProject Linguistics
• Template:WikiProject Linguistics/class?

Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alizzz

hi there,

i am just updating this wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alizzz but i noticed that you reverted it to an old version. Can you tell me is there is an issue? all the best Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmfc75 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There are no references from independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. See WP:42. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

i am adding these in to the former version, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmfc75 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Check out WP:REFB (section 3.1) if you want to learn the best ways to add references. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

hi again, hopefully the citations are credible. best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmfc75 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Distingiush2

Hi, I've been poring over Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Template:Distinguish2 and I can't seem to understand why the "merge" outcome of that discussion should have led to the deletion of the old template, rather than, say, it's convertion to a wrapper. – Uanfala (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two types of mergers, really. There is a "content merger" where something like {{infobox former country}} is merged into {{infobox country}}, but the old syntaxes and parameters are kept in order to not break functionality (and avoid the unnecessary task of replacing all of the old template calls). Most infoboxes have this happen - look at all the templates that redirect to {{infobox person}}! Then there are "process mergers", where one of two templates with nearly-identical functionalities is replaced by the other; there is no need to keep the merged template if the base template can handle both functionalities, so it is deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. So, because the functionalities are near-identical, then it is assumed that the "merge" outcome would automatically entail deletion? That's a sensible assumption, but given that it wasn't explicit in the discussion, and that it was more or less challenged by the subsequent creation of a wrapper template at this title, I wish it wouldn't have been enforced by what so far appears to me like an overstretched application of a speedy-deletion criterion. Maybe that new template wrapper could be restored and a TfD started if deletion is specifically wanted? On a side note, I'm finding the broad situation rather dissatisfactory: before these deletions, if I wanted to make any of the hatnote templates that I know output custom text, I would simply add "2" to the template name; now, for some templates this doesn't work anymore because the templates (and the wrappers) have been deleted, so I have to use the |text= parameter; the trouble is that there are templates for which this parameter doesn't work (and can't sensibly be made to work), so I still have to use the old trick for them. But now I also need to remember which templates use one, and which use the other. It turns out, the system of hatnote templates has become even more complicated than it used to be! – Uanfala (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hatnotes are a very strange section of the template community, as there have been a number of recent TFDs related to them in order to (what seems to intend to) enact a complete smashing of every hatnote template into one base module with varying outputs depending on circumstance. I'll be honest, I haven't read into to the various discussions (other TFD regulars have been doing the closing/relisting of those particular discussions before I see them), but the "fate" of the hatnotes as it were will likely involve some larger/centralized discussion.

For example, I completely agree that if a template syntax is overly complicated (and for lack of a better term, "verbose") then a wrapper probably should be created. No point in having three parameters if you can hard-code two of them in a wrapper. In this particular instance, though, I can see where the delete camp was coming from; adding five extra characters (|text=) isn't a huge burden on the end-user. But again, maybe a centralized discussion about this should happen. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue with the use of |text=. In fact, the only reason I came whining here is because I attempted to start consistently using this parameter, only to find out that there are templates that don't (and can't reasonably) support it. I'm aware of the recent TfDs for the merger of the various modules, but I really don't care how the backend is ultimately going to work. I'm only interested in how the templates can be used, and if anyone comes up with any ideas for major overhauls, a large centralised discussion will of course be in order. I'd be happy with any outcome of that, but unless and until that happens, I'm not happy having to put up with a situation where past (and possibly abandoned) efforts at piecemeal improvement have resulted in the whole system becoming on the overall more complicated.

So, is there any way you could restore {{Distinguish2}}? If you're looking for an excuse, then G4 didn't technically apply: the wrapper template isn't, as far as I remember, "substantially identical" to the one that was previously deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It was, actually. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, what was the content of the old template then? – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It started off as the text of {{distinguish}}, then it was converted to a wrapper. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't sound lilke "substantially identical". – Uanfala (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

What you restored was identical to the deleted content. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I've misunderstood then. Apologies. – Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties

I wonder if I could get your opinion about Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties. As you know, "Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers", per WP:TG. For example, if the population of a city in Texas is 101,000, then a template at the bottom of the article entitled "Cities in Texas with a population over 100,000" would be helpful. Readers would have no question about the purpose of the template, because the title of the template is obvious, and the population would be listed several places in the article. With Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties, without some explanation in the article about what a majority minority county is, the template does not assist readers. I left a message with the article's creator, though I am reluctant to nominate the template for deletion without a second opinion. A way to make the template more useful would be to add some text to the article explaining what a "majority minority" county is, but there is no guarantee this will be done by every editor using this template. Your opinion would be appreciated. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit clunky of a phrase, but if I sat and thought about it for a minute "a majority of people are minorities" does kind of stick out as the most plausible definition of "majority-minority". I think the largest issue with this template family, which you pointed out on the creator's page, is there isn't anything specifically saying "this is a majority-minority community/county/etc", so the initial "I wonder which other places are like that?" reason for having a navbox isn't immediately there.

I can see a TFD going either way; the keep camp will say "just add a sentence or two regarding majority-minority" and the delete camp will say "there's no reason to tie these cities together in this way". Depending on who shows up and how persuasive the arguments are, I honestly couldn't tell you the outcome. However, I think your arguments for nominating the template are sound, so if you think that will overcome any opposition then by all means go for it. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, August 2018

Bots Newsletter, August 2018

Greetings!

Here is the 6th issue of the Bots Newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM

• Nothing particular important happened. Those who care already know, those who don't know wouldn't care. The curious can dig ARBCOM archives themselves.

BAG

• There were no changes in BAG membership since the last Bots Newsletter. Headbomb went from semi-active to active.
• In the last 3 months, only 3 BAG members have closed requests - help is needed with the backlog.

BOTREQs and BRFAs

As of writing, we have...

• 24 active BOTREQs, please help if you can!
• 5 open BRFAs and 3 BRFAs in need of BAG attention (see live status).
• 54 approved bot tasks since the start of 2018. Of note, Community Tech bot 5 (the #10 Wish on the 2017 Community Survey) was approved to notify users concerning problematic images and files from Wikimedia Commons.

Also

• If you're a bot operator that can help with Tidy/Linter error cleanup (see discussion, discussion), please file a BRFA!
• 8 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion, discussion, discussion).

Discussions

These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active.

• Use of tags by bots – Exploring the use of a new 'bot' tag.
• Mass page moves – Bot policy question/clarification about mass moves.
• Creation of redirects – Bot policy question/clarification about the creation of redirects.
• Guidance on disruptive use of semi–automated tools? – Related to meatbots (see also MOS discussion, which resulted in small addition to MOS:VAR).
• Discussion concerning WP:BOTFLAG/WP:RC – A reminder that bots should use the bot flag when it makes sense to use it (see also VPT discussion and CREATEBOT update).
• Out of curiosity... (to all bot operators) – BotPasswords vs OAuth usage amongst bot operators.
• Introducing Toolhub – Toolhub is looking for feedback.

New things

• {{Automated tools}}, a new template linking to user-activated tools and scripts has been created. It can be used in articles previews, and can be placed on any non-mainspace page/template (e.g. {{Draft article}}) to provide convenient links to editors.
• AWB 5.10.0.0 is out, after nearly 20 months without updates. If you run an old version, you will be prompted to install the new version automatically. See the changelog for what's new. Note that the next version will require .NET Framework 4.5. Many thanks to Reedy and the AWB team.
• BotWatch, "a listing of editors that have made >2 edits per minute [without] a bot flag", is being developed by SQL (see discussion).
• Massive updates and improvements have been made to Citation bot in the past few months (see discussions, discussions, discussions). You can activate the bot here, amongst other methods.
• HTML Tidy has been phased out (see Tech News #28).
• {{Newbot}} has been reorganized a bit (diff). In particular, it links to previously approved BRFAs (see discussion).
• Wikipedia:Bots#See also has been reorganized a bit (diff).
• The bot dictionary has two new entries, context bot and context-sensitive edit.
• The bot request header has been updated to include better guidance (see discussion).
• The subcategories of Category:Wikipedia bot requests for approval have been sorted in a consistent manner to make past BRFAs easier to find.

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 15:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

---

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Main category

Hi Primefac. I just want to know what will happen and the impact it will have on the project if the main cat [2] is deleted? Many editors (myself included) just use main when adding cats. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing, the template itself is not going away, just the module, and it's only being discussed as an issue in the category namespace. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Re:Fostina Dixon

The DOB that was removed is directly footnoted to a reliable source (The New Grove), not unsourced as you say in your edit. Must it still be removed? Chubbles (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There was a request from Dixon that the specific date be removed. We tend to honour those requests when the subject is not a widely-known or otherwise "famous" individual. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-free file showiing up in Portal:Anti-nuclear movement

Hi Primefac. File:Nuclear hand.png is being displayed as one of the "selected images" in Portal:Anti-nuclear movement. It looks like the portal has been set up to transclude content and images from various articles. I think I found the spot in the template when the images are being called, but I'm not sure how to change the syntax so that it ignores any non-free files. Is there a WP:MAGICWORD or something which can be added to the portal page's syntax or the source article page's syntax which will stop the portal from calling up the non-free file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Marchjuly: The image is added by {{Transclude files as random slideshow}}. The maintainers need to fix the underlying module to prevent the use of non-free images. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've asked about it at Template talk:Transclude files as random slideshow#Non-free images being included in slideshows. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

List of 2009 UCI Women's Teams and riders

In your edit of 04:37, 4 January 2017 of List of 2009 UCI Women's Teams and riders, you introduced the line

<small>(Riders template: {{view|edit|talk|template=CWT2009riders}})</small>

which is a mess, and I do not know what you intended. Please fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I intended to subst out templates that were being deleted, hence the edit summary. I apparently didn't see that there were links back to the original template. I have removed them. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Afc queue jumping

Hi Primefac, an ACPERM queue jumper. Morten Pilegaard, Hennedub by user:FrederikTWTTW. The Pilegaard article is brand new this morning, and he is not autoconfirmed. scope_creep (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking me here. ​ Primefac (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The Morten Pilegaard was recreated after an previous Afd several weeks ago, and I flagged it up. That was after looking at it for a wee while, something clicked in my brain. It has now been G4'd. Thanks Primefac.scope_creep (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

European Corporate Governance Institute

Hello Primefac,

I'm about to create a wiki page for the organisation that I work for 'European Corporate Governance Institute'. It had been deleted previously by you and I want to avoid that happening again. I will be taking information from our website in order to create our wiki page. Can you please advise how I can do this correctly and without the page being deleted? I haven't used wikipedia a lot so your help would really be appreciated.

Thanks, Vanessa.koenig (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessa.koenig (talk • contribs)

Vanessa.koenig, the page in question was deleted because it was copied directly from the ECGI website. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, so anything you write will need to be in your own words. I highly suggest using the Article wizard to create a Draft, which will then be reviewed by experienced editors for accebtability on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Help!

Are you online? Please reply. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you have a question, just ask. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please delete this redirect: "The Quiet Man (video game)". I want to move my latest submitted article to this name so that it becomes un-orphaned. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why didn't you just create the article at The Quiet Man (video game)? Why start a new page? Primefac (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible? Will you delete "The Quiet Man (video game)" article so that I can submit it again. Please don't say no, it took me 3 days to write it and I want my name to be mentioned as the creator. Please give me justice. Previously I couldn't submit the article with name "The Quiet Man (video game)" becuase a redirect already existed. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If a redirect already exists, then the article should be written on the existing redirect - there's no need to create a new page (unless you're sandboxing it to work on it long-term until it's ready). You can get directly to a page by appending &redirect=no to the URL, or using a template like {{-r}}. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! What a coincidence, I noticed the url pattern you mentioned above just an hour ago. Still got so much to learn here. No problem if I'll not be tagged as the creator of "The Quiet Man (video game)" but I can at-least boast about creating it on my user page. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Kindly please help.

Hi greetings, Sir I placed a request in BRFA. I used pywikibot for the bot. You and other users gave advice to me that AWB is better than python for doing my bot's tasks. Now I realized that AWB is good and I would like to replace python with AWB. But I have some problems. I am using linux. Is it affect the bot's functions? Sir, when I place request for AWB, from which account I should do it? From my normal account or bot account? Kindly please help me.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 06:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You should probably apply with your main account, if only to get used to the interface before using it with the bot. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sir, I tried to install Wine from software centre and with apt-get. But I could't install it. Is there any alternatives? Please help.PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 08:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea, I've never used AWB on Linux. You might want to try asking at WT:AWB describing the issue. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

page creator

Hi. Would you please tell me who created Thiripuram? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiripuram mentions a Mrgrockz created the article, but this cant be corroborated on xtools. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mrgrockz created the draft page, which is why it's likely not showing up in the Articles section of their creations. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the information. Yes, when i checked xtools, the default namespace was "main". After getting your reply, I ran the xtools again with all the namespaces. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:52:57, 17 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Anonymous1941

• Anonymous1941 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't want to make the same mistake again but other than the sentence that you told me to remove is there any other sentences in my draft that need to be removed. In order for the draft to show a summary of the events leading up to her suicide. Do you want me to find more information using more references to find out about more events that led to her suicide. Please let me know what I can do to make the draft better. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

Anonymous1941 (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

​ I'm not going to tell you every sentence that needs trimming; I don't have the time, and if I were to do that I'd just edit the draft myself. The key thing is to think about what's relevant, and what's an unnecessary amount of detail. Is the cutting important? Yes. Is the fact that she was pushed in the hallway after returning to school important? No. As I said in the decline, we don't need a blow-by-blow account of the events leading up to her death. Someone reading the article should be able to answer the following questions: was she bullied (yes), were there signs she was depressed (yes), what were the potential causes of her death (bullying, death threats, depression, etc). If they want more information about the incidents described, they will be able to read the references and learn more about how she was bullied. Obviously some amount of description is necessary, just not as much as you've provided.

I think you have plenty of information about what led up to her suicide, and should really focus on the "aftermath" - aside from reactions, what (if any) were the long-term affects this case had on public policy, laws, etc? In other words, why makes this death different? Why is it important to know about it? Primefac (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Iv'e tried my best to find information about how her suicide impacted laws and public policies and I changed the Reaction section of the draft to Aftermath and reaction. Are you able to take a look at that section of the draft and see if you approve the new information I added about the aftermath. Unfortunately quotes can't really be paraphrased.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably not in the next few days, but if you don't hear from my by say next Friday feel free to drop me a reminder note here. You can also ask for advice/assistance at the AFC help desk. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way you promised next Friday you would take a look at the Aftermath and reaction section of my draft and today is Friday so can you please take a look at my new information I have provided on that section. I would really appreciate it.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It still has what I feel might be a little too much detail about specific events and circumstances, but the addition of material specifically related to the aftermath might be enough to overcome that - Articles tend to get edited/tweaked a lot more than Drafts do, since more people see them, so minor issues can always be dealt with later. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I want to know your opinion whether this draft should be moved into article space or not. Please let me know.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it stands a reasonable chance of being accepted, but I do not re-review draft submissions and instead let someone else do the formal review. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way thanks for helping me out with fixing most of the issues. Without your help I would never have succeeded in finishing this draft.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help :-) Primefac (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Former polities of the Cold War

Hi, I'm a little puzzled as to the inclusion of First East Turkestan Republic and Bukharan People's Soviet Republic in Category:Former polities of the Cold War as they were well before the Cold War. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't. I added it to Category:Former polities of the interwar period but I didn't change the edit summary (I did the Cold War cats right before the interwar cats). Primefac (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I'll be less trusting of your edit summaries in future then! DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

So will I! Primefac (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense - I didn't have a problem with the edit summary, rather the category - was just bemused about its addition. So no worries. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Coolio. I figured there would be some pages that were improperly categorised by the old template, but I figured "incorrect addition" was better than a page not being found because it wasn't in the proper category. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out.

I understand and have read WP:YOUNG, and can assure you I am safe, the only information I put on there is my age and hometown, where I currently do not reside. Not only that but I haven't visited that place in over 2-3 years. Thank you for looking out for me, I have been really safe over the internet and never give out for information that can harm me for years. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamkasai (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Welcome to Wikipedia! Primefac (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Needs an admin close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taki (Soulcalibur). - was opened Aug 18th. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it got relisted on the 25th. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was, but I fail to see a convincing reason to extend it. There’s a bit of disruptive history behind that AfD that I was hoping to avoid. How much longer does it have to run? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Do you use a script to handle AWB requests such as this? It looks like a userRightsManager edit summary, but AFAIK that script doesn't do that. Are you just doing it manually? Swarm ♠ 05:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

​ Totally manually. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit/Abuse Filter Helper Requirements

Hello, thank you for getting back to me on Extended Confirmed. I would like to ask what the requirements are, if possible? Thanks.

Signed, StarlightStratosphere (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The requirements for granting are at WP:EFH#Requirements for granting. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Template editor request

I see you put down guidelines 5 and 6 as 0 and 0. I have many request and I done many edits in sandboxes of protected templates. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 14:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but no significant requests for protected templates, which is what the guideline calls for. Asking to remove an unnecessary #if statement isn't significant. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

My requests for Module:time were significant. It ended up adding a lot of new functions to the module. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 14:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I honestly forgot to check the module space (it's still a relatively new addition to the TPER guidelines). Primefac (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox country testcase

Hi! Totally no rush if you're not done with this, but if you're through with testing (as you commented you would be in our previous conversation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac/Archive_19#Template:Infobox_country/testcases), would you mind if I reverted back to the last version which doesn't cause it to show up in Category:Templates with missing files. No worries and I won't ask again if you're not, just was doing some cleaning and wanted to help reduce the cat if I could. Hope you're doing well, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 20:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the reminder. Primefac (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Protection level Template:Metadata Population DE-RP

Hi, could you reduce the protection level of {{Metadata Population DE-RP}}? I want to update it to December 2016 figures, but I can't. I have never seen vandalism on this template, or its siblings. Probably semi-protection should be enough. Markussep ^Talk 07:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Markussep ^Talk 07:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

WarnerMedia

Hey Primefac, it's me again, hope things are well. I've been going through all the articles that were using Time Warner/WarnerMedia template (almost done, few left) and changing them to AT&T. I was going to reply to the second user who had commented to redirect to ask them if they would now consider deletion once I had gone through them, the first user had already commented to "delete". Any chance you can open it so I can add my comment? I want to consolidate on the redirects and the template can always be created again in future, it's pretty much just a holding template with 4 dedicated templates set as a child templates. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a valid redirect, so there's no reason to delete. Thanks for checking, though. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For clearing the ETP backlog! I wasn't quite sure about all of those ISO 3166 reqs, and it's great that they got resolved. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your stalking. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Something to wash the cookie down with! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

PrimeBOT

Could you run PrimeBOT to remove draft cats in Category:AfC submissions with categories? On the category page its says to contact you to start the bot, and I'm too lazy to removed all the categories myself. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you start it again please? And maybe make it run automatically every hour/day/week since this category gets filled up very fast? L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of templates

Hello Primefac. I noticed that you declined my speedy deletion requests of a few Singapore election results tables because it wasn't a valid use of T3. My understanding was that if the template is duplicated by a hardcoded version of the same thing (in these instances, the wikitable was simply hardcoded into the article rather than in a separate template), then it was eligible to be used. I got a couple of hundred of these unused templates deleted in 2015 and 2016 with this rationale (the most recent was in 2017) and don't recall any being turned down. From what I can see there's been no change to the T3 criteria in that time. Cheers, Number 57 21:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I can think of a few admins that don't care about what reason is used, they'll just delete anything with a CSD template. WP:T3 pretty specifically mentions that it needs to be a duplicate template. I have tried multiple times to get some sort of "Template PROD" system going, wherein an unused (or otherwise useless) template can skip the TFD process and be quietly deleted, but for some reason I cannot fathom, it's never gone through. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd support some kind of template prod if you were to repropose it. Perhaps it might also be worth proposing an amendment to T3 to reword it to cover all duplication (template or otherwise). What do you think? Cheers, Number 57 11:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Breached

Looks like I've accidentally breached the PGM restriction by moving Kings (musician) out of the draftspace. Please remove me from the page mover group. Thanks. The editor whose username is Z0 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If you've let this slide then thanks and I'll be more careful next time. The editor whose username is Z0 05:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

In a word, yes. I do appreciate the honesty, which is why I'm leaning in that direction. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Production codes for Bob's Burgers

I noticed your bot is adding production codes for articles of Bob's Burgers episodes, for example Human Flesh. What is the source for the production codes? Bright☀ 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

BrightR, I don't think you've got the right bot - I only adjusted parameters in the infobox. Which edit were you looking at? Primefac (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. Bright☀ 10:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 Meter Breaststroke

We briefly discused this move at User talk:Drmies#Move at Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 metre breaststroke. The AfD has been closed as keep. What's the best way to go about getting the page moved back to its former title? I don't do lots of page moves, so I'm not exactly sure what's needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There was no history at Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 metre breaststroke so you probably could have just moved over redirect, but since I was looking at the page I just did it myself. For future reference, though, if a move-over-redirect doesn't work for you (e.g. if there's more than one edit on the page) then either put {{db-move}} on the redirect or list it at WP:RM/TR. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this and the info on how these things are typically done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Most Views in 24 Hours

You have edited this, and it’s false information. The Idol MV - BTS, posted on bighit on YouTube, had 56M views in the first 24 hours. Facts.ab (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

at no.20 you need to update twice - dance the night away it has 20.6 mil in 24 hrs ... Rupeshmahadik38 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

most view videos in 24 hrs

Hello , You need to update this list as TWICE - DANCE THE NIGHT AWAY cross 20.6 mil in 24 hrs. So you should add this video on list at no. 20 Thank you. ... Rupeshmahadik38 (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Author plz see this !!! Rupeshmahadik38 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Rupeshmahadik38, my talk page is not the place to discuss article content issues (especially for that page). Please use the talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

For your robot!!!

Qwerty number1 has given you microchips! Microchips promote WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day more efficient. It is the food best preferred by bots. 🤖 Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else microchips, whether it be someone you have had robot wars with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of microchips by adding {{subst:Microchips for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:26:57, 10 September 2018 for assistance on Frank Wilczek

If this isn't the correct place for me to ask, please correct me. I think there's a magic link that needs to be updated, but I'm not sure how that's done. The link is =osti and it goes to a retired product page. Can you help? Thanks.

Update: I found the appropriate template and will follow up. Thanks! NLWASTI (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Template questions

Hi Primefac, I've just made a small change to the documentation of {{Infobox football biography}}, per the discussion here. This is now reflected in the Usage section, but the previous text still appears in the TemplateData section. Is there something else that needs to be changed by a template administrator?

Also, a while ago, I suggested that {{signit}} be added to the TemplateSubster. As usage is low and the creator is no longer editing, there haven't been any responses to this. Do you think it would be OK to just go ahead or should I post the suggestion elsewhere? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

​ To answer your first question, the TemplateData section of the /doc just needs updating (no TE needed).

As for the second, that seems like a reasonably suggestion, and I've implemented it. You'll probably want to add some categories as well so that people know it exists! Primefac (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure how I missed that. I've added {{signit}} to Category:Talk namespace templates, I couldn't see any others that were obviously appropriate. Nzd (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Poke

Hey, I know your life has been busy of late, but when you get a chance, can you look at the straw poll about the RfA edit notice at WT:RFA and see if there’s consensus. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

i didnt know you too have gotten busy :-/
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

AfC backlog drive

Hi! I was thinking of proposing another backlog drive. I know one concern you raised was that such a drive would result in many low-quality reviews, as people would try to rush through them as fast as possible. Is it possible that strict requirements for re-reviews could be added to a drive to fix this issue? For example, to qualify for an award, a participant must have at least one-tenth of his/her reviews passed, and/or done at least 20 re-reviews of other participants' reviews, to throw some numbers out there. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

​ Yes, there would definitely need to be (somewhat strict) criteria for it. I think the biggest thing we could do is reach out to our "inactive" reviewers - we have almost 600! The backlog has grown so big recently because we lost half of our "top ten" reviewers, but if we could get a handful of inactive folks to pick up the mantle again I think that would help us immensely. I've never done the mass messaging thing before but it couldn't hurt (and if someone wants to be removed entirely from the inactive list, we can do that too!).

If you (or I) get a chance, we should start a draft page for a backlog so that we can workshop it and make sure everything makes sense before it goes live. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(TPS) I need to get back into doing a daily bit of reviewing. My overall WP activity level has been very low for the past few months as I've had to deal with health issues, but with that solved I need to just get my rhythm back. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear Roger. I think that happened to a few of us this summer! Primefac (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. What do you think about 1 point per review and -5 per failed rereview (appeal-able to the drive talk page)? And for rereviews, -50% (off one's points total) for <5 rereviews, and -20% for <20 rereviews; Teamwork Barnstar for 100 rereviews. And barnstar thresholds would be the same as they were last time. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:National Register of Historic Places in New York

This is a basic navbox template, there is no reason it needs to be template protected, so its protection level should be reduced. —Eli355 (talk | contribs) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If it were heavily-edited or heavily-watched, I would agree with you, but it is neither (10 edits in 4 years, with 6 watchers). Primefac (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Isn't approving drafts for music topics breaking Z0's editing restrictions?

Hi Primefac, per the edit summary I just tagged you in, can there be some clarification on what Z0 is allowed to do? As you know and set out, to keep their page mover right, they agreed not to move pages relating to music, but they're still continuing to accept drafts on music topics and move them to mainspace. That sounds like a breach of their editing restrictions. Editors are certainly allowed to tag redirects (Narcos (song)) for speedy deletion to move a draft they accepted, but a user subject to editing restrictions who even apologised for their "slip-up" the other week (that you let slide), who is continuing to do the same thing...? They said they would be "more careful next time", but looking at their recent edits, they're still assessing music drafts and I assume they would be moving them as well if they were acceptable as published articles. This looks like they know/don't care and are blatantly disregarding their own editing restrictions. Also, just a note: I won't be replying here again (as I know Z0, when they come online, will start bickering), just asking for your assessment of someone's editing restrictions. Ss112 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Replied to the main thread here. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Funtime (manufacturer)

Hi there, would someone mind taking a look at this recent edit of Funtime (manufacturer) done by PrimeBOT? It removed quite a bit of content (not just the infobox parameter mentioned in the edit summary), and pretty much trashed the page. I've undone the edit but figured I should bring this to someone's attention. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

​ Oh my! I hate to sound blase about it, but it was a one-time run so there's not much chance of that happening again, but I'll do a check of its latest edits and see if there was any other odd business. Thank you for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I took a few glances at the bot's recent history, and I didn't see anything with character counts that high. Hopefully it was just the one-time weird little tantrum. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Z0

You have logged restrictions for Z0 on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Unblock conditions however it reads like it better belongs to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary since Z0 agreed to no longer page move voluntarily. You should probably move to Voluntary page from Unblock conditions. Kraose (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm going off the "Final Warning" part of the title, not the Unblock Condition part of the title. It is not a voluntary restriction. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

AWB request

Hi greetings, I added a request for using JWB for my bot in WP:PERM/AWB. Is it correct? Am I place the request in correct page? Kindly please help.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 12:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please answer.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 14:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Replied at AWB PERM page. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Revdel req

On Capreol (last IP edit). Thanks, Nzd (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox question

Hi Primefac. Not sure if you remember, but a while back we were discussing nonsense drafts/sanboxes at WT:AFCH#Fanfiction types of drafts/userspace drafts. I'm wondering what you think about User:Nadavhirshfeld/sandbox. I come across lots of stuff like this in sandboxes, etc. and at least the parts about dog shows and ship wars in this one seem to simply be made up fantasy content. I guess it's possible for this to be considered a "template" so to speak for future article improvements; but these fantasy pages seem to have quite a lot of detail added to them and are not just intended to be a placeholder. I understand Wikipedia encourages editors to use their sandboxes to experiment, etc., but this kind of thing is really taking things to the extreme. FWIW, I'm not sure if blanking or deletion would really needed with pages like these, but I'm just curious as whether they are generally considered OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of reasons why someone would want to create sandboxes like that. The first would be to test out coding and try making tables/pages (even if they're just made up). Another option is that they're making a "fake page" to link to from somewhere else, but I'd say unless the content starts making its way into article-space content, there's nothing wrong with it. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Mahuika crater

Moved to Talk:Mahuika_crater#1491_question (diff) 22:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In Regards to Stern Article on Killshot (Most viewed videos in 24 hours)

I have already posted this on Lirim.Z's page as he was the one who edited the article with that source but I wanted to let you know too.

I believe using the Stern article(even though it may be a reliable source) as reference to the views of Killshot in 24 hours is wrong, because nowhere in the article does it refer to how many views it got in 24 hours. I quote from the article(translated to English by Google): "Not even 24 hours have passed since the release of the audio clip on Youtube, but "Killshot" has been clicked more than 30 million times and 1.6 million times licked." "The fans seem to like it, the numbers bear witness to that - and the comments are already calling for breaking the Youtube record of 50 million views within the first 24 hours."

They themselves know that it will reach more views in 24 hours, so using the article as the source is wrong and it would be better to use an alternative source(even if inaccurate by a little margin) than the Stern article. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBCoder (talk • contribs) 06:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss it on the talk page, not here. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Restore

Please restore "Template:Infobox commander in chief" as a user sub page on my account. And delete those: 1, 2, while you're at it. Thanks Colonestarrice (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Primebot

Your bot broke infobox template on Ecobank Uganda which I have reverted,[3] but I don't know if there are more similar instances but you would like to look into them same code was used for the task, I guess. Capitals00 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are another three edits ([4], [5] and [6] that messed up the infoboxes and caused the images to be tagged as orphaned. Aspects (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Definitely a GIGO situtation that I did not foresee (who the heck puts a parameter on a separate line from the pipe?). Thank you for finding and fixing those. This particular bot run is over but I will make sure to keep this in mind for similar tasks in the future. Primefac (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Bot bug?

The edit on Canad Inns removed the entire company template. (I'm not sure how to link to the specific page version). --Ben Stone 18:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, Benstown; this was the only edit made by the bot and it doesn't look like it broke anything. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused your edit with the next one. --Ben Stone 19:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Roman colonies in ancient Levant

Primefac, may I consult you concerning this template? You previously closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 28#Template:Roman colonies in ancient Levant as merge. The two templates identified were merged at the renamed Template:Colonies of Ancient Rome, and this template was redirected. One or more editors at the same IP address have now twice reverted the redirect. Concerning the content, the outcome is, where there were once Templates "A" and "B", with this revert of the redirect, there is now Template "A" and Template "AB", which is not desirable. Procedurally, I'm not sure whether the appropriate response is to identify for TfD again, or continue to push the redirect and advise the disagreeing editors to seek a remedy at deletion review. Would appreciate your advice. --Bsherr (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Procedurally speaking, the closer of the TFD (i.e. me) should be contacted, and if that discussion is fruitless then DRV is the proper venue. I have temporarily protected the template to minimize further disruption. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Bsherr (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox FIA Formula Two Championship race report

this merger is done, just need to move Template:Infobox FIA Formula Two Championship race report over Template:Infobox FIA Formula 2 race report, which is the new name for the series going forward. and, I added Template:Stadiums of the Cactus League back to the holding cell because it is still tagged for some reason. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

​ Just to double-check, you're saying the "Formula Two" template needs to be moved over redirect to the "Formula 2" page? Should be doable without admin intervention, but happy to move if necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

nevermind, you are correct, I can execute the move myself. Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Good to know I wasn't going planning on moving the wrong templates around! Primefac (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

hi

I hope all is well. Can you please remove the edit summary of special:diff/861808723? It is gross profanity in hindi language. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Smash Wrestling

I looked in the archives and you said you'd send the information via email. Is there a way I can get it on here and not have it be emailed? Would rather that. Ping me so I can get notified of a response. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan Cooperative Bank & PrimeBOT

broke page.

Taiwan Cooperative Bank oldid=859774291

69.181.23.220 (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a known glitch. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Hindu temple

Hello, hope this message finds you well. Could you please tell me the status of this merge request, The reason is I am asking is, I wish to expand/copyedit a few articles in upcoming weeks, before that I am interested to know if I should continue using this template or not. --Titodutta (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't necessarily tell you the status, but the end result of the merge will still be a usable template, so don't feel like you shouldn't use it. If and when it is converted from a wrapper to a true redirect, any existing parameters that aren't currently functional will be converted properly, so I guess what I'm saying is feel free to keep using it. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Things to keep an eye on

SO I was looking at your user page and like me, you have a list of categories you are 'keeping an eye on'. I thought you might like this template I created. {{Category count}}. Basically it gives you a link to a category and a current count. When that count is larger than 0 (or some other pre-defined number) it will turn red. Kinda cool.... :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice! Will definitely look into that. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a fun little nugget. If you have any suggestions for improvement, feel free to make them! :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby football league season

Hi, can you help me out with something in the above template. Currently it has three sets of parameters relating to the season's most valuable player |MVP, |MVP2 & |MVP3. These are hard coded to produce Man of Steel (MVP) or Player of the Year (MVP2 & MVP3) as the award name. As more and more divisional awards are being named and/or the phrases currently in use are inappropriate e.g. the RFL have introduced a Woman of Steel for the Women's Super League, I think it would be better to remove the default wording and make use the article link name. I'm fairly useless at coding templates but I've had a stab at it in the sandbox replacing
| label27 = {{#if:{{{MVP_link|}}}| [[{{{MVP_link}}}|Man of Steel]] | Man of Steel }}
with | label27 = {{#if:{{{MVP_link|}}}| [[{{{MVP_link}}}|{{{MVP_link}}}]] | Man of Steel }} in the first example leaving Man of Steel as the display text if |MVP is defined but an article link (|MVP_link) isn't. This gives the desired outcome as seen at Template:Infobox rugby football league season/testcases but can you check my syntax for any errors that I can't foresee. If it's ok I'll do something similar for the other occurrences and then I'll do an AWB run to check that change hasn't broken or to fix any of the transclusions. Nthep (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

​ The only unnecessary bit of coding I can see is the redundant parameter after the pipe in [[{{{MVP_link}}}|{{{MVP_link}}}]], but otherwise that should have the desired effect. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Got it, so [[{{{MVP_link}}}]] suffices? Nthep (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry found a problem for myself. If the entry is Man of Steel this needs to be a piped link to [[Man of Steel Awards|Man of Steel]] but I can't work out how to nest a second #if: statement. I can't simply use Man of Steel as this is a disambig page. Nthep (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed it? Primefac (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Does it, I thought that defined a default value if MVP_link isn't defined but MVP is? That's really a fallback and although it works it's a bit of a negative way of doing it and is counter intuitive - "leave this field blank if you want it to say Man of Steel". I'm looking for a positive way of entering Man of Steel in MVP_link and getting the piped link not the dismabig page.

If someone wants it to link to Man of Steel, then the param should be left blank. The other option is to pipe it. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

draft → afc → ms

Hello, P. Say, if I create a (music-related) page in the draft space then accept it myself via AFC by swapping with an existing page (i.e. a redirect) with the same title in the mainspace, would it be exempted? Flooded with them hundreds 13:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a terrible idea, and the root of the original issues. If the subject is notable, just create the page on top of the redirect. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

We've discussed this before - doing that wouldn't be fair to me as the content creator. There are editors who create redirects just for the sake of gaining credit for the content written by the next editor and for boosting their article creation count. Why should I help these editors achieve their selfish goals when I can create the article myself? I mean it's not like I'm seeking credit for something that isn't mine. Flooded with them hundreds 17:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone looking at the history of the page will see you created the content. There are many ways to demonstrate that you were the creator/primary content editor for a subject, not just having xtools tell you so. If you want to make it so that the primary content creator must always receive credit (i.e. we delete all redirects that preceded the content) that is a matter to bring up at a central location such as the Village Pump. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Keeping track of my created pages is more accurate and convenient with xtools and I'm not saying that all primary content creators must always receive credit, but just that if they desire credit and a valid speedy criterion like G6 exists to facilitate it, then why shouldn't they be credited with the article creation (by being the first revision)? Swapping the pages from draft to mainspace via AFC circumvents my restriction, which I have carefully abided by, but it is for the good of Wikipedia, is it not? I could alternatively use WP:RMT to have my created page in mainspace, as you have previously recommended, but it is time consuming and delays the final result. Flooded with them hundreds 18:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I added the exception for AFC because your work there is valuable. Using PGM in the manner you've described uses AFC to bypass the entire point of the restriction (which was to have you not use PGM improperly). You're welcome to put a draft through AFC, request the article be G6'd, and then accept the draft - you'd still be working via AFC but not using PGM. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's nice, thanks! Flooded with them hundreds 04:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You can also keep a list as a subpage of your user page, which has the advantage that one don't have to do weird things with redirects to keep xtools happy. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Module subpages

You seem to have forgotten to delete Module:Key people/sandbox when you deleted Module:Key people. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed, ta. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

please update protected template (either that or give me template-editing rights, since I revamped a lot of these years ago)

Please replace the top of Template:Infobox language/ref to the following.

thanks — kwami (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Hi. my sources tell me you already have template editor flag, since September 10, 2015 :) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Oops, you're right! Sorry, I saw the page was all pink and thought that meant I couldn't edit it. Don't do this much any more. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: no problem. You have no idea about the booboos I make See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You

probably measure this as a part of AFCSTATS and quoted the data at some place but I don't seem to find or recall it:( What's the acceptance rate of an average reviewer, reviewing randomly?∯WBG^converse 16:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite literally, the rates of acceptance range from 0% (no accepts) to 100% (all accepts). Of course, this is sometimes skewed by how many one reviews (someone with 3 accepts is obviously in a different category than someone with 50 accepts). Of course, the all-accepts category generally are from folks who do less than 5 reviews a month, and the all-rejects camp are likely either folks going through the "tough calls" or the ones who are looking for the easy/quick fails. As an aggregate, AFC helpers accept about 10-20% of all submitted drafts in any given month. Looking at the second-twenty reviewers (i.e. the reviewers who have done the 20-40th most reviews in a month) their acceptance rates tend to fall in the 5-20% range, but there are obviously exceptions on either end.

If I read between the lines of your question, though, there is nothing unusual about someone accepting everything or declining everything, or declining more/less than someone else (or even the average). The only time there it becomes an issue is if there is some habitual reason for declines (i.e. always accepting articles on Bollywood stars or always declining TV series). If you want to talk specifics about any particular user you're always welcome to send me an email, I might not necessarily throw someone under the bus but if you think there is something to look into I'm certainly willing to give my opinion. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)