User talk:Primefac/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Primefac, wondering if you know why edits for one week at ANI have been blanked, starting right after this edit here [1]? -Darouet (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

​ The edits were suppressed because they met the OSPOL criteria. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: not meaning to bother you but wanting to understand this process, you mean that all 1181 edits by 279 users commenting on dozens of topics over the course of 9 days met OSPOL suppression criteria? It does sound counterintuitive, unless it is somehow necessary / easy to suppress all edits in order to remove a few that meet these criteria. -Darouet (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

​ It's not a bother; it's actually a topic that a lot of people don't quite understand. At a minimum, the first edit that is suppressed is the one that violates the policy (though there may be others in between that also are problematic). The issue (in this case) is that the suppressible material was not noticed/removed until those 1k edits had been already made, and so every version of the page between when the initial post was made and when the content was removed violates the OS policy (because it contains that problematic text). It's unfortunate, but there's just no way (at the moment) to be able to "partially suppress" a revision. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

​ Interesting, and great answer. It does sound like technically, it should be possible to address this problem through a partial suppression that also removes material from intermediate pages (effectively remaking them without the problematic content). Anyway I appreciate your explanation. -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

User rights

Hello Primefac, thank you for your message about the successful RfA. Could you also change my user rights accordingly please (unless I am missing a step in the process, this is all quite new of course)? GermanJoe (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

GermanJoe, that's a brilliant idea! I miiiiiiight have forgot to do that... but it's done now! Primefac (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for the quick fix :). GermanJoe (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

An image

@Primefac: this image should be deleted. Mark Arr (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac:, I have uploaded a totally new photo for Ahmed Rajib Haider, please see the article. see this, thus I think this should be deleted by g6. Mark Arr (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

G6 is not a valid criteria. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a thread at AN, this should really be discussed there to avoid decentralized discussion. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it either...

Hi there, it's some strange idea of an 'editor' to go and be unable to find sources and repeatedly vandalise Million Mask March page. Are you trolling? You definitely know nothing. Go edit some Netflix series pages before we all turn up here. R, Balayka (talk) 13:51, 06 October 2019 23:46 UTC)

Balayka, I'm keeping sourced material and removing non-reliable sources. If you want to discuss the changes, please feel free to do so on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

But how you got the magic wand to arbitrate on "reliable" sources regarding Anonymous in the first place? Balayka (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Generally based on past precedent, actually; no magic wand. The changes being made don't agree with what the sources say, so they're being reverted. Some are valid, so they're kept. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

R you aware the so called sources ur using includes : {official} labelled pages with adds which is contrary to anons philosophy and moreover relie mostly on millionmaskmarch.com whose owner u can check, and is no other than a highly questionable woman? Having one OWNER to the pretended official event page of billions ppl collective is highly questionable in the terms... But here when you check the identity of the owner, it's no other than a woman that anons have been exposing since 2013 on youtube - check Christine Ann Sanders - as spreading fake news like Assange is responsible for the World Trade Center and other bullshit alike? You definitely can't rely on that. Balayka (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but I'm more than happy to discuss it further on the article's talk page so that others can get involved. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Balayka, please see our guidelines page regarding reliable source, and I would politely recommend that you focus on collaborating more amicably with other users. Primefac has asked that you discuss your concerns on the article's talk page, which is the correct place for a congenial debate about the reliability of various sources. That location makes it easier for editors who are similarly interested in that topic to be able to contribute their viewpoints. Waggie (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Waggie Thanks for the gentle reminder, this is now what is going on actually. So to say that it might be sometimes necessary to create the space for a congenial debate to arise :) Balayka (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Moved discussion

Hi Primefac, it appears there is content that speaks to the candidacy in the moved discussion (Jbh's additional reply, in particular). I think it should probably remain in place, at least up to that point. –xeno^talk 14:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I had every intention of only moving the end few comments and kinda forgot what I was doing halfway through. Nice catch, I've self-reverted. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Israel at the World Athletics Championships

what's the fix for the script error in Israel at the World Athletics Championships and Ukraine at the 2019 World Athletics Championships? Frietjes (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Copy/paste error when putting in the switch, I didn't add in the {{{country}}} option. Fixed now. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Primebot

Hello, I have a request about Primebot. I believe that it is adding underlinked tags to many articles that really do not have more potential for links. It is clogging the list of underlinked articles that I am trying to reduce. Please look at 1879, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1892 and 1893 Rutgers Queenmen Football team (seven separate articles). Thank you for your assistance! Rogermx (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Rogermx, apologies if that's happening; I don't know the exact logic behind AWB's genfixes when it adds tags like that, but I suspect it does it when there are something like <5 links on the page. I've turned off the auto tagging, so hopefully there won't be any more pages added to the tracking cat. Thanks for the note! Primefac (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals regarding AfC & NPP

You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR).

---

This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Everett Stern Page

Hi @Primefac!

There are two of us working on a project together in our political science major. Our semester long project has been to research a lesser known politician and contribute our research to Wikipedia or another open source collaboration forum. We have made different types of edits on Everett Stern's page. Initially, we didn't really know what we were doing yet, so the changes got reverted. We maintained our writing, learned how to cite properly and have been trying to get back to it. We are up for grading in 3 weeks. The short of the discussion is, instead of reverting the whole edit, could you delete the lines that are "promotional"? We have read through it a bunch of times, we may be too close to the product to see it that way. But we're hoping we can work through it line by line maybe versus these massive reverts/re-edits. Thank you for your time and looking forward to the response! Sportsplex03 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

​ I will keep this in mind. Note that phrases like Stern reached a resignation agreement from his position with HSBC in October 2011 are overly verbose - Stern left HSBC in October 2011 is succinct and is actually what the sources say. You also completely removed the information about his 2014 campaign. These are the sorts of problems that I'm seeing, and if there are enough of them the "good" edits get somewhat overshadowed by the problematic ones. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You closed the TBAN for this guy so..

At [2] you stated "There is general support for lifting of the TBAN, though I suspect if old habits are returned to it will be reinstated with no chance of an appeal. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)" This editor has been called out at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_AfD_behavior_of_User:Sk8erPrince_at_AfD_Ryan_O'Donohue_article for nominating the same article a third time after the first two times were closed, he blocked the first time, then the second time he getting around the block with a sockpuppet, caught doing that, and blocked again. Can you look at this and tell me if you believe he is returning to his old behavior with his nonstop insistence that everyone else in the AFD is wrong in how they interpret the Notability guidelines? Dream Focus 04:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Normani profile

You removed her profile picture I added and said it’s like a copyright violation? But I’m confused as to how? It was taken at a meet and greet. Do I not own it? Kanyfug (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary Unless the photographer that took the picture of Normani at the meet and greet somehow owns it then I’m in ownership of the photo. Yes, the photographer that took the picture does own the photo. Any person who takes a photograph own that photograph unless they explicitly release it for public use (either by a Creative Commons license, GNU, or makes it PD). I see no evidence that it was released, so it's therefore a copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

AfC

I've just gotten a two week backlog of AfC permission requests up to date. I notice at the beginning of the month some probationary rights are due to expire. How do you usually process those, and how are the probationary rights timed? Is there a script? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've been rather busy with work and fell a little behind. As far as probationary rights go, I just go through the list and mark down who is up for review. No script, just (like everything else) manual observation. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please adjust page protection

Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

• Template:INRConvert
• Template:Annual readership
• Template:INRConvert/CurrentRate
• Template:Inflation/fn
• Template:Coat of arms
• Template:WikiProject Canoeing and Kayaking
• Template:WPVG announcements
• Template:If preview
• Template:Infobox power station
• Template:WikidataOI
• Template:Navseasoncats/navhyphen
• Template:Navseasoncats/navyear
• Template:Navseasoncats/var lasthalf
• Template:Navseasoncats/var season
• Template:Certification Table Entry
• Template:Cite certification
• Template:Infobox dam
• Template:Inflation-fn
• Template:WikiProject Maine
• Template:Birds tasks
• Template:WikiProject Linguistics/class
• Template:WikiProject Linguistics
• Template:WikiProject Languages/class
• Template:WikiProject Languages
• Template:Metadata Population DE-RP
• Template:WikiProject Military history

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not have time to look at these right now but I suspect (much like the conversations at these two talk pages) that most of these will be kept as-is; the number of transclusions mean it's not appropriate to have simply semi-prot, but giving the one (or two) editors who requested access to edit just that template TPE is also not appropriate. Will review and get back to you as soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As a minor (and unrelated) note, Buffs, when you pasted the text above you included a large number of unicode spaces (removed here) - not sure where you were copying from but those spaces can sometimes mess up the rendering of a page. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The joys of pasting from our own sources... Buffs (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

much like the conversations at these two talk pages) that most of these will be kept as-is. You'd be wrong. All but 4 were changed as requested. And of those, I suspect 2 are simple mistakes as of right now. 1 should be kept as ECP, but the rationale updated...we're literally down to a single template (outside of this list above) that are contested in any way. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I was not referring to the outcomes but rather the discussion as to why these templates (and the others) were placed under ECP. As a note I have reduced it for a few of them that were easy but have not looked into the majority of them. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Awards table5

Hey Primefac, could you temporarily restore the templatestyle of {{Awards table5}} to my sandbox? The part of the code was missed in the merge per the TfD result so I'd like to merge it. Thank you. --Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you restore this part Template:Awards table5/styles.css? Sorry if I was unclear. --Gonnym (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Also  Done. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Obvious yet ....

There were of-course no clouds but ain't it a bit odd for a 'crat to state it upfront when that determination ought be made at the time of request for reinstatement? ∯WBG^converse 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux would not agree  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A fair point, and I've amended my statement to reflect current practices. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Topic Ban Violation

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive292#Topic_Ban_for_TakuyaMurata I am drawing your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=922588558&oldid=922587893 in which TakuyaMurata significantly participated in policy discussion regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further topic banned from discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed).. I have invited Taku to strike their comment as being in violation of the topic ban as I cannot find anything to indicate that they have successfully appealed the Topic Ban. I further ask that you apply further sactions as Taku's commentary has been increasingly up to and over the line. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reviewed the old ANI. I am inclined to effect an indef block for violation of the terms of the topic ban. This may be better coming from me as a non involved admin. Thoughts? (FYI: Hasteur. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don’t see how that was a topic ban violation; I am not trying to have a discussion on the polices after all. As I wrote there, stating the fact that Hasteur and I have differing views is not to discuss the policies. If you Primefac believes that that was a violation, in the future, I can certainly stop making such a comment. In fact, in hindsight, I shouldn’t participate in the thread like that at all. So, if there was really a violation, I sincerely hope we can find a way to lessen enacting an indef block to a warning (since I didn’t think stating a mere fact is a topic ban violation l) . —- Taku (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I will take a look at this later today if I get the chance. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also get us some clarification on the language of the topic ban? As said, I don’t see the violation, but I can see “(broadly construed)” can be interpreted in various ways. Depending on the interpretation, it is even possible that me participating in the ANI thread is a violation (I personally think that’s wrong interpretation, though). —- Taku (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:CompactTable

@Primefac: Hi, is it possible to expand the code of this template so it shows 5 columns and 20 rows? It could be very useful for larger lists. Kj1595 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been selected as an election commissioner for 2019's ArbCom election

Greetings! Thank you for volunteering to serve as an election commission for WP:ACE2019. Following the community discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission, you have been selected as an election commissioner for this year's election. Best of luck! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Congrats, Primefac. Hope you will do your best in the elections for a better Arbcom.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing Hily. E-Stylus (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Primebot has damaged headings

Hello, yesterday PrimeBOT has has damaged many headings (United States Park Police, QAnon, ASAP Rocky, ...). Have a look at that list. It seems, all headings with the word "Indicent" are damaged. Can you fix that headings? --GünniX (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Genuinely not sure why that happened, I have a half-dozen safeguards in my code to prevent that... guess I get to look and potentially add another. Thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of {{xx icon}} templates

Hi there, just wanted to say thanks and congratulations for your successful proposal to get rid of those silly {{xx icon}} templates, and seeing the implementation through. Wondering if {{lang-xx}} (e.g. {{lang-es}}) could be next. 2A02:C7D:DA0A:DB00:8C7C:7949:EA9E:7CEA (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Always possible, though someone would need to actually nominate them first. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Page mover rights

Greetings, Primefac.

In August, you granted me page mover rights on a trial basis for two months [3]. I was unaware the trial ended (and I lost the right) a couple weeks ago and have since requested the page mover bit again. I made the request at WP:RFPPM last week but it has not been acted on yet. I was hoping you could review my new request, because you were the one to grant it most recently.

Thank you,

Calidum 17:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to get to this, real life kept sliding this down my list of priorities. Good to see you got it granted though. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Poetics 13 and 14 contradiction

Hello Primefac: Could you state more specifically where in the declined article -- in its current state, after I made adjustments, there is a lack of encyclopedic, neutral writing? It was carefully assembled as a historical report of the discussion of a well-known problem, 500 years old. Are you saying that the list of various theories appear synthesized?

Or are you saying that some of the opinions are not notable enough? I find them to be objectively presented, and highly notable. Even the one by Sheila Murnaghan is very notable--Murnaghan is a famous classical scholar, of the University of Pennsylvania. Are you saying that her opinion is described in too much detail? Or are you saying that it is described from a non-neutral point of view. I tried very hard to make sure it is neutral.

How are you saying the views appear synthesized? They are all very different. There was some back-and-forth dialogue between them, but that dialogue is reported neutrally. It was a historic event, and notable for being many times documented.Cdg1072 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. I believe I might understand why you declined that article. The article is forced to refer to scholars' opinions as if they are primary sources. For example, where it says that Dacier wrote this, and Lessing responded, and then Bywater responded to that. But there is no other way to report this history. There is no other way to report these scholarly events, as they occurred, because no secondary source has ever referred to all of them, as a history. I see -- in that sense, there is in fact no way to write this article for Wikipedia. It could only be done if the entire issue and its history were to be reported in some other source first. However, I disagree with this assessment. For there are issues, theories and debates written about in Wikipedia even though no one has talked about the academic scholars who are discussing the issue. I've already thought about this. If you had to have a secondary source for every academic opinion, then you could hardly write about any scholarly debate in Wikipedia. Is a famous academic debate impossible to write about in Wikipedia, just because it hasn't been reported already in some other encyclopedia?Cdg1072 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

As guidelines state,

"...the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

Similarly, I would suggest that no one would dispute the history of scholarship that took place on this contradiction. The history progressed from Dacier, to Lessing, to Bywater and Moles, and finally to Halliwell, Bouchard and Heath. These are all the most respected scholars within their field.Cdg1072 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Cdg1072, unfortunately our "stock" decline reasons don't always fit the draft that it is being used for, and I misremembered the rationale used in the one I presented you. The issue is, as you say, more that there are no secondary sources about this topic, you are the one collating all of the research and presenting it as fact. This fails our original research guidelines more than our "essay-like" guidelines, which is why I felt it was not appropriate for the article space. I would suggest getting input from WikiProject Philosophy, but they appear to be rather dead, and so I'm not quite sure what is needed to make it a suitable article. I have a lot of watchers of my talk page, though, and maybe they can offer some input. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's why I'd say you're wrong. Divide this submission issue into two parts. (1)--Earlier. All the history from Castelvetro to Halliwell is attributed, in this article, to Arata Takeda, from roughly 1550 to 2000 A.D. Or it can be easily done. Luckily, in 2016 Takeda published that history-- although he made one small mistake in it, that doesn't change the NAMES that he mentioned as authors of contributions. That much he got correct. So in the case of my topic, consider the 20th century and before. All the history in my submission is, in fact, attributed in the article to secondary sources. The part about Castelvetro, is already cited to Takeda's arrangement of the history (2016). One could even cite Lessing, Dacier, and Else from Takeda. But would that be necessary? After all, Lessing's theory has been the most influential. But note that Takeda does account for that history as well, he provides the list of earlier writers who endorsed Lessing on this issue--it's not my research. I can attribute that part to him. Unfortunately, Takeda confused Lessing and Dacier. But that doesn't change the names, again, and the history itself is therefore accounted for.

(2) Later history. Here you're engaging in a double standard, if you say that the most recent scholarship cannot be included without a secondary source.

It seems that you're saying, that since one guy wrote this Wikipedia article, the more recent theories are his research. On your rules, and your logic, how do you allow this?

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

If you notice in that article, Benign Violation Theory has received an enormous amount of media attention. And OK, that can really be used to back up inclusion of Peter McGraw and his theory, and his notability. But there's no way that the other more obscure theories have such secondary backing. There are at least half a dozen in there that could not possibly have a secondary source.

Is there a need to attribute Moles' publication of his 1979 article to another? It is cited by Stephen Halliwell, Elsa Bouchard, and Sheila Murnaghan. It seems to me that many Wikipedia articles enter theories or contributions to an issue that date from the mid to late 20th century and afterward, all the time.

Consider then, the more recent history on this Poetics Contradiction. Is there a need to attribute the mention of Sheila Murnaghan to secondary source? You have a well-established issue, that's hundreds of years old. And Murnaghan is a prestigious, world-class scholar who presents an influential theory that many scholars have read. No one would dispute the fact that she has presented a theory. In my view, you're actually just holding this article to a standard that you're not applying in other cases.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll ask for a second opinion at AFC. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll try to put in more references to Takeda, as the main source of the history. Without him the topic possibly would not have worked for Wikipedia.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's even better, Takeda also accounts historically for the contribitions of Bywater and Moles on the issue, and lastly Halliwell.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Coincidence?

This and this creator geolocate to within a few metres of the article subject and that the draft was moved almost exactly after 4 days and on the 11th edit? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt the IP has a familiarity with the restaurant, but based on the other "BQUB" usernames I don't think BQUB19-SMontero is connected directly; see this and that). I think I'll move the draft back to its proper location and let a reviewer handle it rather than a new user who is likely knowledgeable in other fields, but I'll need to check that it actually isn't valid at the moment. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of images

Hello, I hope that you can provide some guidance or direct me.

I have been working on the page of the Biblioteca Marciana for some time and am currently discussing with the Marciana to be able to use images of the artwork inside the library. If I am successful, the library will provide me with the images for informational purposes on the conditions that they not be used for commercial purposes and that anyone who reutilizes them indicate that the paintings belong to the Marciana. My questions are: 1) is this possible, 2) how would I indicate the source since these would not be photos that I myself took, 3) what copyright would have to be indicated, 4) if the disclaimer for the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, would also be appropriate?

Thank you for whatever assistance you may be able to provide.Venicescapes (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I must admit that I'm probably not the best person to ask this question; text copyright issues are more my area. I would suggest starting with WP:DONATEIMAGE and then possibly proceeding to one of the related noticeboards. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the indication. I'll take a closer look at the various options.Venicescapes (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User right

Could you and Barkeep49 check this out (comment on its talk page) and I'll move it to an appropriate venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Me thinks

that's a poor suppression. ∯WBG^converse 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Election Committee (which as you remember is composed of three OSers) is discussing the matter, but I felt it crossed the line; suppression is easily undone if we determine I was being overly cautious.~~ Primefac (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; FWIW, I do think that basic removal was okay.

Curiously, in these cases, who has the final say? The three commissioners or the consensus over entire functionaries-en? ∯WBG^converse 16:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the three of us are OSers we can likely come to a consensus among ourselves, but if necessary we will ask the full OS list for input. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I presume that if someone took issue with our suppression, and was dissatisfied with our explanation thereof, they have the option to take the matter to the OS team or to ARBCOM. If it was something we felt to be contentious we'd do so ourselves. In this case, Godric, I'd suggest that you don't bother with either of those things; the candidate has withdrawn, as you know, and so the need to subject them to further scrutiny is somewhat lower. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I am unbothered. Idle curiosity, ypu might say :) ∯WBG^converse 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting publicly that all three of us looked at the suppression and agreed it was warranted in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since when was "suppression is easily undone if we determine I was being overly cautious" ever been a valid reason to obliterate content? Per whatever policy it is that covers your actions Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction and per whatever rules of accountability covers your activity in ACE2019, I should like a better explanation please. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, the valid reason to remove the content was because of WP:OSPOL. It was a borderline case but after discussion we determined it was over that border. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean, "No"? No, I'm wrong? You need to read the question before being so dismissive. If I remember the redacted question it concerned the candidate's eligibility for the role and highlighted open WMF content relating to age limitations. How does that breach anything, since the content removed is actually part of the required candidate reading? Hiding behind a group of 3 doesn't really cut it. If it was your action, YOU are accountable. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You asked if "being overly cautious" was a valid reason, and I said "no", giving the explanation for why I did what I did.

The substance of the question is as you remember it, but there's a difference between asking a simple question (which the candidate may or may not choose to answer) and providing "evidence" that goes against the policies. That's about as far as I am willing to stretch OSPOL regarding discussing suppressed content, and if you have an issue with the suppression (confirmed as acceptable by 3 members of the oversight team) then you are welcome to take this up with ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Specifically what part of section 1 of OSPOL covers the removal of an anonymous estimate of age eligibility? Leaky caldron (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The "non-public personal information" part that's bolded in the first line. WP:DOX falls under OSPOL #1. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw no prospect of the candidate's private info. being compromised. Obviously must have missed something. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Assuming the above is about my question, I don't have a huge problem with it having been removed after having been noted by the candidate (who withdrew), although revision-deletion strikes me as pollyannaish. I tried to nudge the candidate earlier in the day with a broad hint on their talk page that they had overlooked an age requirement, but that seemed to go unnoticed; put into form of a candidate question it might have come across as intrusive, but it was a simple case of drawing a logical conclusion from on-wiki activity to ask a very valid question about a public candidacy. Anyway, as I say, removing the question doesn't offend my sensibilities; revision-deletion strikes me as too much but is more indicative of the overprotective way young people are treated these days than anything else. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It does concern yours - as well as the collateral damage. My concern is the fact that we have material being expunged when the case for doing so is dubious. Where does it end and where are the checks and balances? 3 coordinators apparently agreed, yet is was marginal. As Victor Meldrew would say, " I don't believe it". It looks like a collective decision by fiat. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

How many OSers would you like to review the suppression? If ArbCom says it's okay, will that be enough? Does Jimbo need to weigh in? Yes I'm being hyperbolic but the entire point of having both the community and ArbCom approve a candidate to be an oversighter is that we're trusted to make these sorts of decisions. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are being hyperbolic. And it looks childish. Don't get away with the idea that because you have gone through a rigorous selection process that your decisions are for ever and a day infallible or that you cannot be challenged. Continued trust is a 2-way process. My recollection is that there was no identifying material and your oversight was inappropriate. Obviously I cannot be certain, that doesn't dis-entitle me from challenging you. At least one other editor in good standing already raised concern and it is conceded that it was marginal. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to challenge the decision I made; I by no means think that I'm infallible. However, I've explained my position and have demonstrated support for it, and yet you're still saying that I'm somehow wrong. I cannot discuss the specifics of the case because that would nullify the entire reason for suppressing the information in question. Neither of us is likely to change their minds; I'm just wondering at what point you'll either begrudgingly accept that what I did was acceptable or find a higher authority to either confirm or overturn my decision. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither. But be clear - I agree with the very first sentence in this section. And I cannot think of many occasions when I have agreed with WBG. More broadly, censorship has a chilling effect and pointing out to an otherwise anonymous kid that he is not eligible for age seems a strange thing to cover up. It concerns me that if your bar is so low, what else is being removed from sight. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's good that it's chilling. That's part of the point, I think. I only wish that the efforts that were already well underway to inform this editor that they should withdraw for any number of reasons had been successful before someone decided to try to publicly push them. It's not like only one or two people worked out the issue; most of us had the sense not to make a publicly visible big deal about it. Seriously; that edit was entirely unnecessary. Risker (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom election templates

Howdy Primefac, I mentioned it on the election coordination page but I'd be interested in working on improving the templates for ArbCom elections. This is actually the first election I've been around for, and this isn't really a policy area I've paid much attention to, so I have a couple of use case questions before I make any edits:

• Would there ever be multiple elections in the same year? If so, would they be counted as the same year's elections or would they need a new group?
• Is there any reason that the candidates page "create a profile" button needs the username manually input? It could probably be changed so that there's just a button which automatically grabs the editing user's username and creates the page that way, no need to type in your username or have the path editable. I guess there's the possibility that someone would want to create a profile while editing under an alternate account, but to be honest I would consider an alternate account signing the main up for arbcom to be a little weird.

I might start playing around with template sandboxes while the election is ongoing, but I'll of course save any edits to the live templates until after the election is over - I'd rather not be remembered as the guy who bricked the ArbCom election process. If you have anything else you'd like to see done with the templates, I'd be interested in hearing about it - this seems like a pretty good project to practice my intermediate-complexity template writing. Thanks! creffett (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting thoughts. First, at the moment there is no process for having two elections in the same year, so the minor changes that Cyberpower has already implemented to do a {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} should work for most of those templates. Second, as long as we keep using a preloading template to populate the candidate pages we will still need to use <inputbox> and thus need to have them manually input their name; if all we cared about was the page being created then it would be trivial to do a {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}. I don't think there's a good way to automate the pages being created, but the main issue/concern was that the dates (and therefore the links) would be incorrect; ideally those should change/update automatically so that we only need to change one or two templates each year. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Creffett: There is now a process for interim elections to happen between the regularly scheduled annual elections, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019#Procedures for emergency elections. If such elections are held they would be considered distinct from the regular elections that year. All the pages would be nested under the month (e.g. we might have Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2020/Candidates/Example and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Example), but beyond that there is no precedent for templates I'm aware of - the last time there were multiple elections in a year was 2006 when things were quite different. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, good to know - might be best to future-proof by naming the elections with the month and year instead of just the year. Unlikely, sure, but if we have to hold emergency elections we probably don't want to be messing around with templates trying to get everything working right. creffett (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Currently they are named on month and year, though obviously it's currently hardcoded to "December". Primefac (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. I've done my initial reading on the templates (oh goodness, there's Lua in here...), and here's my rough thoughts:

• Make some tweaks to Module:Arbcom_election_banner, most of which involve cutting down on duplication in the ACE template args and making it easier to just click a link and have a page ready
  • Be more flexible with handling dates (surprisingly, it can already guess most of the links from the year param, but of course it assumes December). Add a month param, if unset defaults to December, if not December flags this as a special election.
  • Tweak the links to offer up a preloaded version of the page if it doesn't exist already so that election coordinators can create the yearly election template and then click on a bunch of links to preload the child pages.
  • See if the Lua can play nice enough with templates to be able to pull the data from Arbitration Committee candidate/data without having to specify a half-dozen calls to that template. Probably not, but worth looking.
• It might be neat to automate the Questions subpage, but that will probably need more Lua, and figuring out which candidates have withdrawn will be an engineering exercise. Possible, but might be more work than it's worth.
• Update some of the existing templates to understand that elections might not happen in December.

Huh, I expected there to be more than that. Oh well, that seems like a reasonable starting point. creffett (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoopsy!

Thanks for the catch at Joseph_Caspi, my bad. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Re: AWB permission; thanks Hmains (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:MLB standings

You template-protected this template a while ago, however the module it uses was reduced to semi-protection after a request on the protecting admin's talk page. Would you mind lowering the protection level of the template to match that of the module? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think semiprot is sufficient, but with a certain individual insisting that ECP isn't allowed for templates, I suppose I can drop the template down to match the module. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

add 2020

hi..please add 2020 to Paralympics in Module:Team appearances list/data ...thanks--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

You must feel very pleased with yourself at being able to blank Eric Corbett's page - I am sure you will get huge kudos from certain quarters. However, now having done so, perhaps you could add the following pages to your watchlist, and now take care of them yourself. Happy editing Giano (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If I took pleasure in performing difficult administrative duties I'd likely have been run off the project by now. Someone was going to it, and that someone (this time) happens to be me. Have a nice day. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes there is value in not being the one to do things, Primefac. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

True, but I suspect this message would have landed on the talk page of whichever editor made the change. If anything, not knowing Eric or really having anything to do with him has probably resulted in a milder "rebuke" than if it had been someone more intimately involved. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I agree. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The tags should remain in place until/if EC's is reinstated. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: I wouldn't object, if EC's page is restored (with the tags included), as my Canadian flag & caption was allowed to remain, while I was tagged from 2013 to 2014. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• The tags should stay - and so should his record of achievement. Both are information which future editors may find useful in exploring the context in which they are editing. PamD 15:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• What PamD said (and I said in other words on Eric's talk). How can we tell those who put it on your desk, if you can't decide? Until today, I didn't even know functionaries exist. Do they have a talk page? Or - easier - can you decide that readers need the contribs information? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt: The Wikipedia:Functionaries group could be written to at Wikipedia talk:Functionaries. –xeno^talk 15:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have an inquiry

Hello Primefac, the operator of PrimeBOT, derived from the legendary Optimus Prime (yep I don't know what I'm saying, maybe I'm right who knows, ah haha) — anyway, hope things are well. I'm thinking of requesting the autopatrolled user right which would benefit me and save the reviewers time. I'm already aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but irrespective of this, I already believe that any content added should be cited to reliable independent secondary sources and written from a neutral point of view, not contain any copyvio and so on — after all, if something is not sourced, people will question its legitimacy, how do we know what is being said is true?

On checking the request page, it says: "A suggested standard is the prior creation of 25 valid articles" but I don't think I've created this many yet, definitely created a few - I'm currently working on a new school article off-Wiki and will publish on here soon. My latest one is The Cedars School (be sure to check this one out which shows how I'll be creating articles). Do you think I'd be eligible for this if I was to request it or should I wait? Please let me know what you think, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I see only a dozen articles created over the past 3-4 years. Autopatrolled is really for editors who really "crank 'em out", with the intention being that it eases the burden on the New Pages Patrol. I'd suggest making a few more articles, and if they're being approved with few or no concerns upon review I'd say it's reasonable to request the perm. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I see, awesome, I do have some articles in the pipeline, it's just getting around to them (have been focusing more on the one above). I prefer to create new articles in either Start or C-class as a minimum threshold — I've noticed some editors have created hundreds of stubs and even though some may be ok in that they can be expanded, a lot of them are hardly expanded and remain as stubs for a long time (some look like they've been abandoned). Anyway, I'd say it was mainly last year when I really started editing and it has led me to look at other tools now even though I decided to remain as extended confirmed only, which is becoming a bit of a nuisance haha.

I was looking at page mover, especially being able to move pages without leaving a redirect, having to keep using db templates which can be annoying — do you think I'd be eligible for this if I was to request it? I seem to meet the criteria, my only concern is where it says "have experience with the requested moves venue" - I've listed articles at requested moves before and have seen the round-robin page moves, I know how page moving works, is this "experience" or does it mean actually having done a requested move without a page mover right? Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If I’m eligible, maybe you could grant me this or should I request it at RFP? Please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Primefac, just want to check if there is any update on this? Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Been a busy few days, haven't really been online (or even home) much. Will still check soon. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks Primefac, no rush, please ping me when you have an update Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Arrowsmith School

I think there are some longstanding COI issues in that and a related article. Maybe we should plow through the history--after coffee and dessert. And dogwalking. Dishes. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there weren't those issues. Coffee and dessert sound nice though. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick question

Since you closed Template:mabs as a redirect, what normally happens with the leftover /doc subpage in this case? Should it also be redirected, or just left (or G8 even)? The new target didn't have a separate /doc subpapge, but I just split that out so it does now. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The subpages are generally redirected. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Companies House

Companies House is the United Kingdom's registrar of companies and shows the current status of any Limited company registered in the UK. Please refrain from deleting references to Limited companies which have been verified as being currently active through the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house prior to being used as references.

CH2002 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You are also reaching the point of edit warring. Discuss the issue on the talk page and stop reverting other users. Primefac (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Project FAMOUS

I recently found the Project FAMOUS article. The first sentence of the article expands the abbreviation "FAMOUS" to "French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study". I want to create an alternative name (initialism) redirect page named "French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study" that redirects readers to the "Project FAMOUS" article. A page with the title "French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study" has been deleted by you almost 2 years ago. At 15:08 on 30 January 2018, you deleted page French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study with the reason of "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.187.4179.823, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a140592.pdf". When I tried to create the page I saw a message "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action" (i.e. the deletion). I do not know the content of the page that you deleted but my page would be a redirect page based on a reliable source that connects the abbreviation and the full name - my source is ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/MUST/MUST-report_1974.pdf - this source pre-dates the source you cited and it is also public domain. Do you have any objection or comment about my attempt to create this redirect? GeoWriter (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are only creating a redirect then there is no issue. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. GeoWriter (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

My source https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/badshah-critises-youtube-for-snubbing-him-following-paagals-record-breaking-feat-india-is-at-par-with-the-world-7099161.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisnickey (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

For...? If you're trying to get an article changed, it's best to post references etc on the article's Talk page. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok I got confused it's for the most viewed video in 24 hours record. Wikisnickey (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Ok I just made a new spam page and I don't know how to delete it my bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisnickey (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC) I did but there's no response. Then I thought I was supposed talk on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisnickey (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the internet, not a phone call. Sometimes comments can take a while to get replied to. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ruckersville, Virginia

Hey! Just wondering in what way Christine is not notable for Ruckersville, Virginia. Thanks! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 15:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Lists of "notable individuals" are reserved for people who already have Wikipedia articles. She does not, which is why I removed her from the list. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I gotta ask you a question

Hey Primefac, hope you're well - so I gotta ask you a question, I reverted the first pending edit of this article, but something strange has happened and requires an investigation (ignore this text part haha), any ideas why this was not "automatically accepted"? Had no problems doing this for other articles, now I was using my mobile network at the time I did that edit, so I wonder if it could be something to do with that? Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Steven (Editor), I'm guessing you used the undo button? When editing normally (by pressing the edit button) on an article with pending revisions there's an option to "accept this revision", this option doesn't show up if using the undo button and defaults to not accepting. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I used the "revert changes" button, with Wikipedia in desktop view. Btw, if you use the undo button, it would appear as a tag in the edit Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't say, PC is something I don't really know anything about. Usually when I see it I just convert it to semiprot as it's pretty much useless. Primefac (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I see, I think it could have just been an odd bug or something, I just made two edits to it, I know this is not reviewing a PC but it does say "automatically accepted", ah, maybe I'll wait until there is a PC on that article and see, anyway thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:SMnotice

Can you undo the latest edit at Template:SMnotice by User:Rsmit274, it's clearly (unintentional?) disruptive editing. Also, how would I go about appealing my template and module editing restrictions listed here? – BrandonXLF (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Just replied above a few mins ago and then see you BrandonXLF post this, couldn't you just click on the undo button yourself? Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC) ----just realised Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Differences between SEAP and SEAG

Moved to Talk:Southeast Asian Games#Differences between SEAP and SEAG Primefac (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Normani

I don't want to be rude but please I want you to understand, all I did was giving an explanation of my edits. On the table only important awards are added. The missing awards you were talking about was an ASCAP award that she wasn't credited as songwriter but HER work won. ASCAP awards award songwriters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.186.72 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You've flipped around a dozen awards tables and then used them as your justification for changing other tables; not really kosher. My main concern was removing the infobox, though. Primefac (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not about flipping honey. You're the one who wants to look like a person who knows everything, especially about awards. An artist can either be an ASCAP or a BMI member. Normani is a BMI member, which means she gets awards from this association. Cardi B, Billie Eilish, among others, are ASCAP members, which means they get awards from ASCAP. ASCAP members can't be BMI members. BMI members can't be ASCAP members. Cardi's work won numerous BMI Awards but she didn't because BMI award the songwriters, same as ASCAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.186.72 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I saw an award, saw someone removing that award, and figured I'd re-add it. Removing the award doesn't mean removing the infobox, though, which (as stated earlier) was my primary concern. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok good, the infobox must remain the same for the Billie Eilish awards lis because when you look at the box, the last 2 awards don't show up as I've written a few moments ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.186.72 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I still think it's an issue with your browser, as I see them showing up properly. By the way, it would be good for you to use the "Preview" option so that you didn't waste a dozen edits doing one thing. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please at this point, take a look at the list of awards and nominations received by Nicki Minaj. That page is full of awards that don't have a wikipedia page or either a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.186.72 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

If there's no reference for an award, it should probably be removed. If the award (or the award category) doesn't have an article, it should probably also be removed. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I found a new way to list awards in the box and I tried it on the Billie list, tell me if it's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.186.72 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Billie Eilish

Hello, sorry for bothering, but there's an user who's editing Billie's list of awards and says that wins count must be counted into nominations, but as you said before, that's called double-counting. Can you try to take actions if needed? Oh, and I was about to forget, there's also an user who keeps putting unreliable awards without valid sources and spends all the time doing so in articles such as Nicki Minaj awards and nominations. I ask you pleasantly to take a look at that as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.186.72 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Multiple image question

Hi Primefac. I asked you about this before at User talk:Primefac/Archive 24#Template:Multiple image for reference, and took your advice; however, I never got a response to Template talk:Multiple image/Archive 3#Parameter syntax tweak. Any reason why a template editor or someone such as yourself can't just clean this up per WP:BOLD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

None at all, other than the likelihood that no one saw or cared to deal with the issue. If and when I get some time I'll try to look into it. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for taking another look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:FlagIOC2

Hi, I don't know how but apparently because of your recent change on this template the option of using this code of |name= doesn't work anymore. that was good because in some tables we could use a shortened version of some NOCs with bigger names. I wonder if that's possible to restore that option back ? thanks in advance. Mohsen1248 (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Mohsen1248 could you please give an example or two? Want to make sure that the fixes can be sandboxed properly. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

sure, for example {{flagIOC2|AOI|2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games|name=AOI}} returns  AOI which is a bit too long for some tables, but before the changes it was acting like the other similar template FlagIOC2team,  AOI (AOI) Mohsen1248 (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Currently the "IOC2" variants are the only ones out of the entire family that actually have a |name= option. I know the {{flagIOC2team}} is just an example, but I do wonder if it's appropriate to shorthand something like AOI; I certainly wouldn't know which country it was. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe because it was never necessarry for the IOC template, because countries/teams with long names always had small delegations, AOI was just an example  Federated States of Micronesia is sometimes shortened to FS Micronesia. I just think having that option does no harm. Mohsen1248 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

UN doc parameter replacements

It's troubling that your PrimeBOT replaces the UN doc parameter "docid" with "do". See this diff ("docid=A/RES/50/80" was replaced by "do" with the edit summary "(Task 17 - remove UTM parameters (Google analytics) from URLs"; the URL is no longer working as a result).

Also pinging @WOSlinker and Goatchurch: who are more experienced with Template:UN doc.--Russian Rocky (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. There was a bug in the code which has since been fixed. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the explanation.--Russian Rocky (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi, Primefac - in looking at Ticket#2019080710003201, the author has provided a proper CC-by-sa 4 3.0 license for the material, which I thought would also include a license for the image you deleted at Commons since the author is the same. Your thoughts? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Only the text, not the image, as far as I can tell. If they created the image as well they'll probably need to send a second release. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You had me worried for a moment there, Atsme! But it's OK, I've checked that the licence provided is in fact CC BY-SA 3.0, and so is a compatible licence here (which the 4.0 version of course is not). Hi, Primefac! So should we be thinking about making it standard practice to have some sort of OTRS release notice on the article as well as the talk-page? I can't tell you how many times I've marked something as copyvio, then had to undo when (finally) I saw the OTRS release. {{CC-notice}} or something similar? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, fat finger syndrome, apologies, JLAN. Since you’re handling the licensing, will you advise the author that a separate CC-By-SA license is needed for the image? If uploading to Commons a SA 4.0 is preferred. If you’re busy, I can do it. Just give the word. Thanks all...^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

​ I think it could/should be done that if there is an OTRS release for content on the article, there should be a corresponding Edit Notice so at the very least if you go to remove text you'll see a notice. If that seems like a reasonable thing to do I can start looking in to how easily it would be to implement. Primefac (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s in your capable hands. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

​I know it isn't attention getting, but {{CC-notice}} has |otrs=, which will note OTRS permission. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

True, I forgot about that. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I didn't forget it because I never knew it – thanks, JJMC89! Presumably a similar parameter could easily be added to {{Dual}}? In my opinion, either that or an edit-notice could work; at the moment it's just too easy (however mistaken) to forget to check the talk-page.

Atsme, am I supposed to contact Arnab Das about an image? If so, which one? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers yes, please - graphic is mid-way down, and only substantial image at the site (that I can see). 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

​Added to {{dual}} — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Please reconsider your summary closing of the discussion of community banning Edgar181. As someone who has watched Arbcom for nearly 15 years, I can assure you that there's definitely the possibility that a future committee will make a decision that the current committee considers unthinkable; it's happened several times before. I think we're all agreed this is one of the worst abuses we've run into. There is no harm, and potential good, in taking the belt-and-suspenders position here. Allowing, even encouraging, the community to put its stamp on this helps to broaden the consensus that the behaviour is unacceptable and the perpetrator will not be permitted to return. Risker (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the site ban, and I don't like the extra drama at this time when people are (understandably) stirred up, but I don't think your closure was correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Bans discussion should be held at AN, maybe point people there instead. I do recall at least one instance of the committee unbanning and rather surprising the community that there wasn’t any consultation. –xeno^talk 18:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I'll leave the moving / redirecting to someone else. Figured this was cut-and-dry, but I guess I overstepped. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Primefac. I entirely understand why you thought it was cut-and-dry. I suspect in the long run, an overlapping community ban will make everyone's life easier. Risker (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• As the AN/I OP, and noting that there are now numerous voices speaking up in agreement with me for a community ban, I would like to suggest you refrain from unnecessarily harsh edit summaries like “waste of time” in the future, and that when proved quite wrong, you reach out to the wronged party to admit your error. Such statements carry a sting and create a chilling effect, especially when coming from powerful administrators with RevDel powers. Jusdafax (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Consider me admonished. It was not my intention to insult anyone with my edit statement, and I will be more considerate in the future. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, I appreciate it! Best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

New template question

Hi Primefac. I'm working on a new template (tentatively called "Infobox shogi tournament") based on something similar existing on Japanese Wikipedia. I've been basically using Template:Infobox shogi professional and its doc page as a rough guide and tweaking things as needed. I've created a doc page at User:Marchjuly/Infobox shogi tournament/doc and now am going to move on to the actual template itself. The "problem" (if it's really a problem) is that I did things backwards first and created User:Marchjuly/Infobox shogi tournament without the "/doc" in the title. So, I moved the page, which left a redirect. Can I just overwrite that redirect with new content, or should I {{db-g7}} it instead and then recreate the page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just overwrite it; no need to delete first. Primefac (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Also, an extra thank you for showing me how to create a link that skips over a redirect. I didn’t know you could do that. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind checking User:Marchjuly/Infobox shogi tournament and User:Marchjuly/Infobox shogi tournament/doc for any mistakes or possible problems when you have a spare moment or two? Feel free to make any improvements/corrections you think are necessary. You can also move it to the template namespace if everything looks OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, looks good. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I moved it to the mainspace. I also did some tweaking of the website parameters that seems to work, but might be unintentionally mucking things up in some unknown way. Would you mind giving it another once over? In addition, just a general question, but are WikiProject banners typically added to the template talk pages? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I shifted the {{nowrap}} into the #if so that it wouldn't show when the URL isn't used. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning those things up. It was sort of just trial and error for me, and even though it seemed to work I wasn't sure whether I got it right. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Any time; nesting templates can get tricky some times. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Bot user group

Hi! My bot needs the bot flag to be able to automatically save the JWB edits; may it have that please? It wasn't added when you approved the request. Also, where do you recommend keeping a list of all the sites I'm editing, as you said I should on the request page? Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would assume User:DemonDays64/Bot/Links table since you said you'd be listing the URLs there. The bot has been flagged. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: ok, thanks! I think I'll leave a note on the table page saying that it is not the current one and move a copy of it to my bot's userspace, just because that'll be easier to edit in the same browser because I won't need to switch accounts. DemonDays64 (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Your bot should only be editing the pages in its mandate; it doesn't really matter where the page is located, as long as it's linked from somewhere and updated as necessary by you. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:AFC submission/pending/sandbox

After this edit, this sandbox is showing as a pending draft. Is there a way to suppress the category without mucking up the script? Home Lander (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong parser function. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Holiday wishes

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well P. MarnetteD|Talk 05:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

James The Bond 007 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Primefac! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Primefac, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas, Primefac! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Primefac, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Cheers :)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Primefac, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Particular thanks this year for your advice and organisation in AfC. Hope 2020 goes even better! Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはPrimefacたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)