User talk:Primefac/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

rounded million

4 votes to 2 votes, isn't that a consensus? I'm assuming 4 to 3 because you're against as well? This is the better typographic format for running text... Feelthhis (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I genuinely have no opinion. My read of the consensus is 3-3: you, Doc, and Ythlev for, Matt, Dekimasu, and US Man against (note that USM is only in favour when it hits 10 million). Primefac (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

?? personally I think it looks better as "1.02 million" in running text. This is what Dekimasu said Feelthhis (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

They also point out MOS:NUMERAL claim, which brings a level of formality to it; generally speaking a pretty strong consensus is needed to overturn the MOS. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 :)Feelthhis (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The other argument to make is that the discussion has been open for only a little bit over 24 hours; it's not the end of the world to have it sit for another 24 to see if anyone else has an opinion. Maybe even a note dropped at WP:VPP? Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why so much resistance... never mind. Thanks for the template btw. Feelthhis (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a crat, it's what I'm paid to do: evaluate consensus. There's a lot of "meh" and I'd like to see a bit more of a consensus. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!

Wishing Primefac a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

2 draft articles for Yacht Club in Lebanon

Dear Primefac (talk Kindly note that i followed your instructions sent on my talk page on March 30 and have created 2 separate drafts one for Beirut yacht club : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beirut_Yacht_Club and one for Lebanese yacht club: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lebanese_Yacht_Club and have placed the reference properly, can you please check them when you have time and revert with your feedback. as later on i will create a category will name it "yacht clubs in Lebanon" or "Oldest Yacht Club in Lebanon" and will list them there... much appreciated your feedback as i am still learning in this phase all about wiki Thank you in advance and hope you are safe and home. Peace. Princesse Marissa (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Princesse Marissa

Marcia Pally

The material that you removed as "unsourced" concerns matters that are "notorious", although not of the type that would be covered by the newspapers, even though widely known. The subject's engagement was anounced publcly, her fiance was introduced to the congregation, and the issue of granting him synagogue honors was publicly and hotly debated. Several of the subjects heterosexual relationships are also publicly known, as two of the subject's male partners in the 1990s were well-known scholars and members of the Ansche Chesed congregation. Pally's seven-year relationship to a member of the congregation (a rabbi) in the 2000s was also very public. For example, the subject and her partner presented themelves as partners in public, sat together in the synagogue, attended public events as a couple, were invited to weddings as a couple, and sent holiday cards as a couple. PaulKovnick — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulKovnick (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

PaulKovnick, please read through WP:V, or at the very least the "in a nutshell" summary at the top. Everything on Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living persons, needs references. There are only a very small number of exceptions. This is not one of them. If there is no reference, it should not be included. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulKovnick (talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sex (Cheat Codes and Kris Kross Amsterdam song)

Hi Primefac--do you know where that weird, red comment in note 45 comes from ("type, position, AND certweek ARE REQUIRED FOR SWEDISH CERTIFICATIONS AFTER 2011.")? I think it's related to Template:Certification Table Entry, but I'm not sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

In a word, yes. The template needs the week/year of certification in order to properly form the URL. I fixed it. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Primefac

You are the biggest fool whoever you are. Cheeky creature. Adolf bijili (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you blok me

Mr.primefac akdu men Adolf bijili (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've left no less than half a dozen notices on your talk page, and we've had this discussion at least a dozen times. If you don't know why you've been blocked, then you will most definitely stay blocked. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You have written an article here, you are giving Badrinarayan's name, you are absolutely wrong, if anyone writes the wrong thing, then you will accept it without reasoning.

Sources of vision and contemplation are absent without literature. This feeling, along with the growing urge to construct an assertive identity and the sense of being deprived of history, led the Pasi community towards the invention of heroes, histories and myths and their documentation in the print medium.[7] Adolf bijili (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Can i talk u personal

Please give me provide your email ID or number then i will talk with you

Adolfbijili@Gmail.com Say me hai Adolf bijili (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep this conversation on-wiki. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Pasi Wikipedia is wrong

You are responsible for presenting false information about the Pasi caste. You are spreading confusion in the world. A case will be made against you.

The information given on Wikipedia is read by the whole world.
And the whole world believes the truth after reading the information here. Confusion is being created in the minds of people towards the Pasi caste. If you cannot define a Pasi caste, do not write wrong things about it. For centuries, the Pasi caste has been known by the name of Raja, Soldier and Chowkidar, the army of Topchi Nawab.  But you and some leftist and right-wing historians are denigrating the Pasi caste as a boar. When the word Dalit is not written in our Constitution and the word Dalit is banned in our country, then how is it that you have called the Pasi caste as Dalit? Do not discredit our caste because of the dirty politics of the country. There is more casteism in our country.  If you are doing this, we will consider you as racist. Adolf bijili (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The case has been made and thoroughly refuted. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wat do you think about pasi caste

What do you think about the Pasi caste that you are not correcting Wikipedia.? Adolf bijili (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there are certain individuals who want to pretend some parts of history never happened. I think those individuals should not be able to put their biased opinions on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And according to me, there are some people who pretend to be true of Wikipedia. Adolf bijili (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You are racist and racist because I do not understand how some people can sell their faith for money Adolf bijili (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That is more than enough of that. One more stupid baseless accusation of racism and you will be blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

See the Wikipedia of Ahir caste.

1. ethmology 2. History 3. Subdivision 4. distribution 5.culter

Look at the Wikipedia of the Ahir caste, the way you have divided them into five parts and the way they have been well-distributed. I want you to disburse the Pasi caste in that way. Adolf bijili (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, Primefac, this editor has now been blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking care of that. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-linking templates

I see that you've moved some of the template-linking templates( {{tn}} to {{Template link with linked braces}} etc.). Although I've recently complained about how complex this system of templates is, and their new titles certainly make it clear what their function is, I don't think renaming them is a good idea. The more philosophical consideration, and one with which some people will disagree, is that inline formatting templates should have short names – that's the whole point of their existence. More pragmatically, they functions chiefly as typing aids, so whatever their current titles, people will continue to use the short redirects, so we will all have to eventually learn both the old and the new names. This sort of newly added complexity is also readily apparent on the template pages themselves: the templates might have been moved but they're still referred to using their older names in their own documentation and in the documentation of other templates. – Uanfala (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a very (very) large debate when {{interlanguage link multi}} was merged into {{interlanguage link}}. The crux of the argument was whether {{interlanguage link}} or {{ill}} should be used as the "base" template; everyone and their mother uses {{ill}} but it's not an intuitive name. In the end the "full name" version won out, but I'd guess 90% of the uses are still {{ill}}.

I've been debating these templates for a while now, and I've come to the same conclusion. Everyone (and their mother) will continue using the shortcuts, but if I click on {{tlp}} I should know immediately from the page name that it's {{template link with parameters}}. Hell, I expect people to still use the shortcut names, but I also want newer editors to be able to quickly learn what they "mean". My eventual plan is to re-do the documentation so that it runs from a central page (with appropriate examples on each template) so that it's a lot more obvious which templates should/could be used in which location. But to circle back to the original point, the names should be clear to anyone visiting the template without having to decipher the documentation. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Primefac - As I mentioned in our dialogue on the AfC participants page, I am trying to find out about policies on the topics I raised with you. I am not disputing your decision. I am not complaining about you, or anything along those lines. You obviously work very hard on continuously improving Wikipedia and I respect all you have done and continue to do. I simply wanted you to know what I'm doing since I referenced our discussion in my query at the help desk. Best regards   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You are most welcome. ¶ I received some very helpful advice over at the Help Desk. Here is my concluding remark at the help desk: "You all have provided me with the most important information I needed, namely "Where do I go from here?" As I noted above, I will follow Girth Summit's advice, i.e., I'll gain some experience conducting AfC reviews and after a few months, I'll start a discussion about these interrelated topics on the AfC talk page." - All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Revdel request

It appears that the many edits in Jennifer Hudson needs revdelling. I'm referring to the dozens of edits that I've rollbacked but missed Bongwarrior's revdelling. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 14:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

A wee rant

Not targeting you specifically, you just happen to be active in AfC and have OS permissions. I've been reviewing EF 964 from the backend for several months and continue to find many instances of reviewers declining requests with oversightable material in them. I know I sound like a broken record, but is there no way to really impress upon AfC reviewers that BLP applies across the project and blatant violations should be removed upon sight when declining drafts? And that drafts/sandboxes like this (seriously?!) should be reported to Oversight? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I know it's an issue, and I know there are a few reviewers who are good about notifying us, but I do agree that a reminder may be in order. It's likely that the best (only?) good way to get in touch with everyone is to send a mass message to all of the reviewers, since not everyone checks WT:AFC. Might even spur some folks into reviewing some articles... Primefac (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this the correct way to remove WP:CSD notices?

I have found Mamak railway station and Cebeci railway station unsuitable and tagged a WP:CSD WP:A1. But an editor User:Phil Bridger is removing the tag and saying this User talk:Amkgp#Cebeci railway station and Mamak railway station, which is quite rude in nature. Is this the correct way to remove WP:CSD notices?

Previously, User:Phil Bridger did similar thing User talk:Amkgp#Accueil, but being new I did not oppose? You can verify from page history, he reverts speedy deletion notice without proper reason. Please help. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, I can understand the tone Phil used when he contacted you. First off, those articles (and a few of the other nominations I've seen you make) should never have been marked as A1. A1 means "no context" (there are a few examples at WP:A1), which means that if you open up the page and read what is in the article you would now know what it was talking about. "Mamak railway station is a railway station in Ankara, Turkey" is pretty darn clear to me. Same thing with furniture museum; at the time you speedied it the article started with "A furniture museum is a museum with exhibits relating to the history and art of furnitures." That's a pretty clear context to me.

Second, the frustration that Phil is expressing is largely due to you edit warring to add back those nominations. With very small exception if another editor removes your CSD, leave it off.

I would highly recommend you do the following:

1. Re-read through the WP:CSD criteria, in particular the As and Gs. Once you do so, you'll see why we almost never use A1.
2. Enable CSD logging (see this section, third bullet). You've only temporarily been granted NPR, but after a few mistakes now is the time to show you know what you're doing. If you can point to your CSD log and say "yes, I've made good decisions" then you're more likely to retain NPR when you re-apply.
3. Follow Phil's advice. It might have been in a tone you don't appreciate, but he is giving good advice.

While I have not really looked at your AFC history, your NPR history makes me a little concerned, so please treat your reviewing of Drafts the same as your patrolling of Articles: read through the reviewing instructions and take your time. I also encourage you to ask questions if you're not sure about things; we'd rather spend a line or two (or in this particular case, five paragraphs) preventing a small mistake than having to dig through your contribs and undo dozens of that mistake.

You've got a ways to go, but I can tell that you're trying, so keep your chin up, ask questions, you'll be just fine. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Primefac Thank you, for clarifying everything I will follow the guidelines as advised. Amkgp (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

RFPP

You semi-protected Template:Inline cleanup tags over two years ago in response to a temporary vandalism wave. Doesn't seem to need it any longer. It's just a snippet of template documentation, which anyone should probably be able to update.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to argue that it's not a "temporary wave", there was a topicon hit a few days ago that caused almost 100 pages to be marked as sockpuppets. I would also say that with only two IPs ever editing that page, since it is just a snippet of template documentation that it's unlikely to have IPs needing to edit it. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about edits

Hi Primefac, I edited a Wikipedia entry for the first time and noticed that you removed my changes. Could you explain why? Here's the article. Thanks, David

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_College — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.j.savage (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Links to "notable alumni" or other related individuals should be people who are notable according to Wikipedia, i.e. have their own Wikipedia articles. The names you added did not, so I removed them. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 22#Template:Infobox nuclear weapons test

This hasn't been done properly. Should I revert it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the issue? As near as I could tell every similar param was the same, so all that was needed was copying over the new params. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you're talking about the fact that I "merged" in the wrong direction, which has now been fixed. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• The wrong direction had serious side effects. It caused all of these pages to break because they used a redirect, "Template:Infobox Nuclear weapons test" instead of "Template:Infobox nuclear weapons test".
• The doc page reported an error, which I have corrected.

Thanks for your swift response. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I'm honestly not sure how |target= got dropped from the final product, but if you think it doesn't need to be in the template then by all means we can keep it out.

For future reference, starting your message with the actual mistakes saves me a lot of time trying to figure out what I did wrong. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Article:Saqib Iqbal Shami

Dear, Primefac can you please tell me when will this article will be patrolled because It had been in the main space since 3 to 4 days thanks have a nice day Maizbhandariya (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There are about 8000 unpatrolled pages, but they are reviewed in no particular order. It could be a couple of hours, it could be a couple of months. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

N/A template

Hello Primefac,

Why did you revert my edits? Do you like the changes amended by Jonesey95? I have a major concern. It looks too big and confusing for me. Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the smalltext concerns are valid, and I don't see a need to have tiny "N/A"s in the boxes. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure that the results must have the same font size for all tables including the N/A template? How can we adjust the font size since the template is permanently uneditable? Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh... I didn't realize that the results tables generally had smaller fonts anyway. I would still prefer to have a wider discussion about this. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz, please read MOS:SMALLFONT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Block of 197.210.0.0/16

Hi Primefac, just checking if you intended for this block to be indefinite and if you meant for ACC to ignore or not ignore it? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes to the first, and I removed the account creation restriction so registering (whether through ACC or not) should be possible. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

: your are most welcome sir, i look forward to exploring the more

--Lizzyduu (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks? Not sure what I did but always happy to help... Primefac (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism noticeboard

I can teach you better how to vandalism with large unwanted images. Natureium (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits on the vandalism noticeboard. This is not a place to joke around. We use this to detect and revert vandalism. Thank you. --Legis Regis (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Legis Regis, I am an admin. I know what I'm doing. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Primefac sir, please stop doing the vandalism. Natureium (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Dammit, you got me! I'm vandalising the anti-vandalism noticeboard! Primefac (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Natureium: I don't see how that image would be unwanted. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is worse: vandalizing an anti-vandalism board or removing vandalism from a pro-vandalism board? creffett (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this page now a pro-vandalism board? I'd be down with that. Natureium (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't turn into ANI 3.0. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If I am a shill for Starbucks, is Natureium a shill for Costco? Asking for a friend. Praxidicae (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If it gets me an 8-foot stuffed bear, I don't care who they represent! Primefac (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have retired from Wikipedia

Dear User:Primefac, I have mentioned you on my retirement messege on my userpage. I hope you can be cleansed of your ties to the corporate establishment in the future. Enjoy your Starbucks Crappy-Frappy-Dappy-chino Kind regards, --Legis Regis (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Never stop trying to stick it to the man. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

uiiurnpwewnbhasdfuirhgufnpan Drmies (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Whelan

Dear Primefac You just removed an entire section from Patrick Whelan's Wikipedia page i.e. Pádraig Óg Mo Chroí. Can you please let me know why? Helen Larkin (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, it was a copyright violation. You cannot post the entirety of song lyrics on Wikipedia when they are not freely available. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Think it's out of copyright now Primefac, as it's come down by word of mouth as is the Irish Tradition. It was written in 1916. Would I need to ask permission from Solas in that case i.e. publishing rights? Helen Larkin (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please check AfC requests

Can you please go through the WT:AFCP list because it has been a while since anyone has approved any requests? Thank you. Nikolaih^☎️📖 03:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It was only a week, but yes. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Husnlal Bhagatram

Hello Primefac, This was a posthumous felicitation on behalf of music director, Husnlal.
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 19:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

My rationale for removal is that neither the caption, nor the file information, indicates that the felicitations were intended for Husnlal himself, but rather for the wife (maybe for being there?). Primefac (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

Why block me please Ozone001 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ozone001, are you referring to an account I previously blocked? You only have one edit, and it's here. You are not blocked. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward with an editor.

Primefac, I'm reaching out to you because you you assisted in my recent unblock request. I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts (socking) and took a standard offer, taking more than a year off Wikipedia, and returned anew to be unblocked. However, during my initial sock puppet investigation, one user, in particular, was aggressive in getting me off the project. At first I thought that he was just an enthusiastic enforcer of policy, but his tone, tenacity, and aggression leads me to believe that there's something else going on, e.g. a battle ground. Less than a month back on Wikipedia I hear back from him with an ominous "hello again". He left a couple of notes on my talk page challenging some recent edits, some were credible others we not, however it did seem like hounding to me. I'm fine with people challenging my edits but it does seem like he's purposefully trying to dirty my clean start by positing things like "it's difficult to keep track of which of your many, many sock puppets" and escalating content disputes to WP:ANI. You're neutral in all of this -- your advice is appreciated. Should I take this to the admin notice board... or Dispute resolution noticeboard? Is there another venue? I would like to work with this editor to move forward productively. Thank you for your help getting me back on my feet and look forward to hearing from you. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 04:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look as soon as I can. Generally if you two are working in the same areas, it is likely you will "butt heads" on a regular basis. If they usually don't edit in your areas, then chances are they're following your edits. I haven't looked into it enough to really give much more thought than that right now. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to call people "butt heads". EEng 05:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As an adjective, no. As a verb, sure! Primefac (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you all the same. I'll continue to work with them and hopefully find a middle ground. Best, Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox parameter bot help

Could your bot help me out with cleaning Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters? If not, that's ok, it will just save me a lot of time doing this manually for almost 10k of items. The reason for the high number is that I've updated the tracking code to track invalid and empty parameters. Most of the 0-9 entries are {{Infobox television<zero-or-more-spaces>|. --Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, ish. It's not just as easy as "remove invalid parameters", I would need a list of the most-common errors to remove. Conveniently it's almost the end of the month, so if you set up the TemplateData in the next day or so for the infobox it will return the most commonly-used invalid params (I think it skips blanks, but it's somewhere to start). Primefac (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The edits that are being requested appear to be removal of empty whitespace between pipes, which does no harm in templates that do not accept numbered parameters. See, for example, Is Harry on the Boat?, where the infobox template name is followed by a pipe, a line break, and then another pipe. Removing one of those pipes would be a cosmetic edit of the lamest sort. The best way to remove the tracking category from this article is to restore the infobox to the normal practice of tracking of unknown parameters that have values in them and ignoring empty parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering why one would ever want to include blank params on the param check, but I figured there was a reason for it. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

People copy/paste these infoboxes from pages to pages and then also fill them up eventually. Clearing these parameters in one swoop makes these cleanup processes less likely to happen. As one of the people cleaning the infoboxes that does help me. I really don't see this as a cosmetic changes but as something that is very helpful to the people actually working in this area. I've generated a list at User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests4 of what I could find. --Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, just as a general comment, even non-empty parameters "do no harm in templates", yet that was never a valid reason not to do it. --Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Template:RefDesk help icon/sandbox

Hello, Primefac. Could you please clarify if protection of the page Template:RefDesk help icon/sandbox was intentional? I don't see any vandalism in the page history. Thanks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I protected about 250 templates today as a preventative measure due to long-term vandalism. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, in thinking about it there's no reason to protect a sandbox (which will generally only have 1 transclusion) so I've removed the protection from the /sandbox templates. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Slight Problem with this weeks EOTW Banner

This weeks Eddy is being presented to a Wikipedia Project rather than an individual. I've started to create the banner in advance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame/2020-05-03 but the recipient line remains a red link in spite of varied entry attempts. Can you fix? Thanks. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. For future use in these sorts of situations, just add a value for |nouser=. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You're too quick :)

I was all getting ready to withdraw my BRFA when you had to come in one minute later and spoil all of the fun... --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC) seriously though, thanks for your work :)

Always happy to help ;-) Primefac (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

On a more serious note: Template editor permissions would be fairly helpful for the {{link language}} wrapper TfD conversions (both creating the wrappers themselves and substing them, as User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster is TE-protected).

I'm pretty sure I've now reached the requisite requirements from my prior work on the conversions, but since that work involved tagging them all for deletion after I was done, all of those now-deleted edits now don't show up on XTools. Do you think it'd be worth making a request anyways, or should I wait? Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In the short-term, let me know exactly what needs doing and I can do it. If you think you qualify for WP:TPE, you're welcome to apply here. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:BAB-E

Can you undelete that template? It's the same name as a template used on the German Wikipedia, and it should remain for translation purposes, although it should be substituted by default going forward. Imzadi 1979 → 03:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Imzadi 1979 → 15:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

More bot runs

Primefac, how's it going? Thanks for running Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 31. Results look great. Along the same lines, can we run the same process on Template:CBB Standings Entry (college basketball) and Template:CBSB Standings Entry (college baseball) to change the #s to "No."?; see Template:2005–06 ACC men's basketball standings for an example.

Also, in the Michigan football articles, there are many external links, in both in-line references and external links sections, pointing to pages at http://bentley.umich.edu. These links are now broken and redirect to the domain home page. But simply converting http to https will resolve the problem and direct the links to correct pages. See my last edit at 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team. Can we run a bot to update all these URLs? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I can probably manage the first; probably try and get general approval for these sorts of things in the future. As for the URLs, drop by User talk:DemonDays64, as their bot has a http → https task they run. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Primefac: DemonDays64 took care of the https issue. Thanks for the referral on that. Keep me posted on the that bot run for the standings templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to it later today. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

page move fuckery

Can you fix this nonsense when you get a sec? Praxidicae (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Nick beat me to it. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

AfC reviewing

Hello Primefac, User:1292simon is reviewing articles in AfC without his id listed in Participants-list and also without the AFCH script. Is it ok? --Gpkp [u • t • c] 17:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not forbidden for non-AFCP members to review drafts, or move them into the article space. Of course, if they are incorrectly reviewing drafts then they will need a note. Of course, if they're reviewing things properly, we might as well invite them to join AFC and get access to the helper script. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 17:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Spring of Bandusium

Hello, please explain why you think this violates the name convention. I believe that this name is appropriate in this situation at times more than what is available now, in addition, I have cited sources. If you have no more reasons to create a dispute, then I do a rollback of the article. Bandusium (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please provide reliable sources that definitively state that's the correct name, Bandusium. Praxidicae (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A Google Search, as well as the references currently in the article, indicate a strong preference to use Spring of Bandusia. If you still believe your naming is correct, start a move discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Without problems. I hope that we can come to a compromise with you at least in the situation with the article Spring of Bandusium. The spelling of Bandusium, rather than Bandusia, depends primarily on the translation of Horace's ode. In many sources there is a reference to it Bandusium. For example:

https://books.google.nl/books?id=23sWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=ad+fontem+bandusium&source=bl&ots=Q9QcDblGRu&sig=ACfU3U2oX19Uuai5g6Yrgr3Mo8OPiuMRwQ&hl=ru&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fontem%20bandusium&f=false

https://books.google.nl/books?id=k-E9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=ad+fontem+bandusium&source=bl&ots=BOSFsbF2tY&sig=ACfU3U0oosVj0LSjupdVCtc8DuInnVKhBQ&hl=ru&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fontem%20bandusium&f=false

https://books.google.nl/books?id=HdDDH0JLcScC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=bandusium&source=bl&ots=cZw0mvq-YE&sig=ACfU3U1ryHV5d7sZVtGKS89tdK7FRlmIHQ&hl=ru&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bandusium&f=false

And other examples. Also, you should understand that even in some old dictionaries of the Russian language, there is a mention of this spring exactly as Bandusium: https://books.google.nl/books?id=LDKOBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=bandusium&source=bl&ots=vH5W8P7xYq&sig=ACfU3U03-uJoB0mkVD2vror9ES7Yt2NWig&hl=ru&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bandusium&f=false

in the German dictionary also has a reference to it Bandusium, not Bandusia: https://books.google.nl/books?id=NvYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=bandusium&source=bl&ots=eVIIMngQgt&sig=ACfU3U19IoOvgHQxGEckPlMcQ9xFv2eL7w&hl=ru&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bandusium&f=false

Also be sure to mention the British author Thomas Love Peacock, who in his book Crotchet Castle refers to this spring as Bandusium: https://books.google.nl/books?id=V_BuDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT989&lpg=PT989&dq=bandusium+thomas+peacock&source=bl&ots=cj51CKD5SM&sig=ACfU3U1DlXPWrUQpotmL1EF4dlKNDkdI2w&hl=ru&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bandusium%20thomas%20peacock&f=false

Thank you in advance for your answer, I hope that you will agree with me, because all these are weighty arguments Bandusium (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny. The links in the article are not fully filled in, maybe that's why there are more mentions of another name? At least, I have given the most weighty arguments above, especially those that were indicated in the article initially, which I referred to. Bandusium (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have started a move request at Talk:Spring of Bandusia. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Franc Solina

Dear Primefac, thanks to your message I hear about Wikitia for the first time. Please note the page there has been stolen from Wikipedia submissions line and put there without my consent (see the publication dates). Can you please put back the draft and continue the publication process of this page on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis Trcek (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, with apologies. It is incredibly rare for a draft to get copied to any other location (Draft articles are not indexed, meaning one would need to know it existed to copy it because it does not show up in a search), so I didn't even think to check the history of the other site. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Denis Trcek (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Ps.: Will contact them to remove the unauthorised copy. --Denis Trcek (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

New template editor

Pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#‎Change to all our welcome templates.--Moxy 🍁 13:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, seen and replied. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind?

Can you pop in and approve my request here [[1]] Unbroken Chain (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, should be free(er) in the next day or so. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

How do we add a new video to a list on the following wiki entry List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours it is a protected page and there is a new video that would rank 6th

How do we add a new video to a list on the following wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_online_videos_in_the_first_24_hours it is a protected page and there is a new video that would rank 6th https://www.facebook.com/dharmannofficial/videos/539337050336118 Nikkidm (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you've already figured it out; starting a thread at the talk page. Primefac (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga protection

In Feb. 2018, you protected the subtemplates of Template:Infobox animanga (/Print, /Video, etc.) citing WP:HIGHRISK. Various discussions on the template's talk page have gained support for changes to the templates, and I am not sure now what the proper channel is to get them implemented. My questions: 1) Is this level of protection still reasonable, or is it too high? 2) If the protection level will not be lowered, what is the proper channel to have proposed changes implemented? Thank you. — Goszei (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

{{TPER}} on the talk page. And yes, with multiple thousands of transclusions, the protection level is still necessary. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

About Gooba's addition to the most viewed videos in 24 hours list

I saw that it was initially added to the table with a headline planet source (unreliable) and then updated with a Variety source, except that the Variety article does not state anywhere in its text that the numbers officially came from or were confirmed by YouTube, as Billboard for example normally does. They just quoted the same initial view count that anyone following the numbers would have gotten. Wouldn't this be incorrect? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to contest it, feel free. I know that nothing is "officially confirmed by YouTube" but the only thing I can see changing is the "official" number of views - if the unofficial count was 41 mil and the Variety count is 43 mil, regardless of where it falls in that range it's still enough to get on the list. If YouTube verifies all that will happen is a small numbers change. I can't find the diff but until about 2018 we didn't have YouTube's official counts, and had to make do with what was reported in RS. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for granting my request

Firstly, thanks for accepting my request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. I'd like to address the concerns you pointed out. I'm unsure if you're referring to the issue with the Michael Bennet article or the conflict with Drmies, since both of them have the same section header. The issue with the Bennet article was that the campaign article was a redirect and the existence of WP:CSD to delete the redirect so I could move my article in had skipped my mind at the moment. (Note to self: Don't edit Wikipedia at 9 PM on a school night.) The conflict with Drmies just boils down to stubborn stupidity on my part. That was a mistake and won't happen again. Thanks, Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It was the second one, and being on probation doesn't mean much other than it being easier to remove someone from the AFCP list. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Bot maintenance

Hi Primefac. Was paging through some articles. Notice the bot did some maintenance on the infobox of article Tommy Thompson (rugby union). It however seems that it did not recognized the persons military information that apparently was embedded in the rugby infobox. The military stuff is now scattered at the top of the page. Can you help? Regards --Tamolyn (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting little glitch. Thanks for the note, I've fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Revelation 13:18 (rapper)

Hello Primefac Nice to meet you I appreciate your feedback on the article can you look at the article and make edits and corrections to the sources and written marterial per Wikipedia specifications so it can be stripped down so the reviewer doesn't have to wade through allot of unnecessary information to make it easier on the reviewer like mentioned. I would appreciate your contribution to the article and Wikipedia. Thanks Allot For Your Time — Preceding unsigned comment added by KplusWequalsU (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RFPP thank you

Hey Primefac, hope you are well and safe. I just wanted to give a quick thank you for helping reduce that backlog over at RFPP. Thank you again! -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) Primefac (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Mass template protection

Hi, I've been running through a few lists of indefinitely protected pages and I noticed you recently mass protected some topicons, such as Template:User WikiProject Kosovo topicon, that only have single-digit transclusions. Was this intentional? I don't see any vandalism in the histories. Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There were a series of about a dozen topicon templates that were vandalised; we kept protecting the "obvious" ones, and they kept going for obscure ones, so I protected them all. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Piping

Hi Primefac — re this, the reason I introduced piping there was that it allowed the tooltip to display the spelled-out name of the acronym (which many readers may not know), whereas without it, the tooltip displays just the acronym itself. Is it okay if I undo your reversion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to avoid a shortcut link, then use the actual target. Don't put one redirect link and then pipe another. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Page blank by PrimeBOT

On The Dr. Oz Show, PrimeBOT blanked the whole page, but the edit summary only said "Task 30 - updating infobox parameters in Template:infobox television + article genfixes". Can you fix that as soon as possible? CrazyBoy826 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This happens occasionally if the servers are lagging or there's a "hiccup" in the system. Thanks for fixing the issue. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam Heydt

Dear Primefac, I was wondering why you blocked a page I was trying to edit? How were the changes I was making perceived as not being constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeliaEnvoy (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

CeliaEnvoy, I protected the page because of edits made by others. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Expand Vani Bhojan Wikipedia's page

Hi... please expand Vani Bhojan Wikipedia page. including early life, career, personal life, reference. I hope you expand Vani Bhojan Wikipedia's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:20B:A63C:E4DA:B343:6D43:E344 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have much interest in Indian actress articles. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please This one article you edit please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:20B:A63C:E4DA:B343:6D43:E344 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said it's not really my cup of tea (or my wheelhouse, or whatever metaphor you'd like to use). Primefac (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

cewbot

I would not recommend approving the bot until the issues are addressed. -- GreenC 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was as big as that. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

IMO the bot could do more to avoid error, not look beyond the first line that starts with a bold word, to mitigate the chance of incorrectly moving a template from the article body. Maybe it will miss some that way but better safe and leave the rest for manual cleanup. -- GreenC 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Short description

Hi, it appears that PrimeBOT moves the short description to after hatnotes. Per MOS:ORDER, the short description should be first, before hatnotes. Please see this example. Thanks –hulmem (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a known issue with AWB, as has been discussed here. Might be worth a bump there to see if any progress has been made. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, hard to believe it's been an issue for so long —hulmem (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for the suggestions. Admins like you, are the reason people signup to share their contribution on Wikipedia. Thank you again. Beritagsier (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. At a certain point we all have to take a step back and realize we're all fixing the same ship :-) Primefac (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

JWB

Requesting JWB script rights. KMagz04 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

KMagz04, please apply at WP:PERM/AWB. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Primefac: I applied at WP:PERM/AWB by now. I only joked posting a request here. KMagz04 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, good to hear. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikipedian Page Paswan

Hello. I am a new Wikipedian here on Wikipedia from March 2020. I wanted to say that I had edited the Wikipedian article Paswan page as it was written in the references available on that Wikipedian page itself. I had not edited as per as I wanted. I had edited as per as written in the references given on the page supporting edit on the page. But my edit was reverted/undone by this specific user Sunny313356u again and again who alleged me of vandalism. I would like you to check the article' references which itself says about the same. I have also cited why I have edited and removed some part from the article. Please check the reliability of the resources in the given article. What I have edited is wrong, then it should be immediately removed from the article page. ItWiki97 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97

PrimeBOT 32 approved

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 32 has been approved. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Arindam Sharma

Hi there, I can see that the page Arindam Sharma is now protected from recreation. I have searched on google about the person and I have found six e-links including his interviews and other links. Therefore, would you kindly grant the page to be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omishx (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Omishx, you should continue working on the draft at Draft:Arindam Sharma, and submit it for review when you think it is ready. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, surely I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omishx (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Primefac, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bug report for User:PrimeBOT/30

In Special:Diff/958660536 a ref tag with a pipe | symbol in its name got broken. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That is quite the unusual bug. Thanks for letting me know. I found another one last night that I'm still debugging, so I'll add this to the list. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

And another one from Special:Diff/958826610. The bot replaces ' with plain apostrophes, breaking mark-up. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

That's actually an AWB genfix, and not something I have direct control over. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't mean to pile on, but here's several more with the pipe issue mentioned above, in some of those edits it's wrecking the infobox as well. diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8– Isaidnoway (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I hate GIGO issues. Surprisingly, those are issues with AWB's own regex and not something I can easily fix. I will go back to the drawing board and see if I can change some of the code to ignore pipes where they "shouldn't be" (but for some reason are still "allowed" by MediaWiki software). At the end of the day, though, people are dumber than the code that was written for them, and will invariably find ways to break things... Thanks for the notes. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

For anyone coming here about this issue - I have disabled those genfixes and for the rest of the current run I am not doing any "infobox genfixes" (only the standard changes built in to AWB) and only running the deprecated parameter changes. Please feel free to fix the issues you're encountering, and let me know if there's something that is not covered above (i.e. I don't need to be told by fifty people that it messed up the pipes in an infobox, because it's now a known issue). Primefac (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This was a bad edit, but the intentionally-visible HTML tag <wbr /> could have been coded better to begin with. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Next time I do a bot run I'll make sure to turn off the unicode genfixes, since that seems to be an issue. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

March edits

I've found a different problem with this task, in this edit where the previously-valid {{WikiProject United States |USSL=y |USSL-importance=}} got munged into {{WikiProject United States |USSL=y |USSL-LI=yes|LI-importance=}} - neither |USSL-LI=yes nor |LI-importance= are valid for {{WikiProject United States}}, but the second is valid for {{WikiProject New York (state)}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

That's rather odd. For the record, though, it's the same "BRFA task" but a completely different "edit run". There were some early regex issues that I thought I had gone back and fixed, but this one clearly slipped through the cracks. Thanks for fixing it. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Muhammad Mokaev

Hi Primefac

In line with our IRC chats, i have added the 3 links of neutral reports to the article and also amended a few of the bare link to include more detail and fixed the IMMAF links.

Could you have another review to see if the article is now acceptable for Wiki. Thankyou for your time.

Rassmallai (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Been a little preoccupied but I'll take a look if I can. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Primefac, waiting with bated breath Rassmallai (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It's looking a lot better. By my own personal rule I generally don't re-review drafts, so I'll let someone else "formally" review it. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT

Hi. PrimeBOT seems to be changing |editor= to |editing= in refs that are within infobox film. See [2] and [3]. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The parameter replacement feature of AWB is built-in to the software, but I'll make sure to add a check next time I have similar runs to ensure citation templates aren't affected. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert at Wikipedia:Oversight

I am unsure what you mean by "no need for section - add an anchor?", can you expand on this? Naleksuh (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You said "add section for easy linking". I reverted because we don't need an entirely separate section for that table since it directly pertains to the section it's currently in. If you want to link to the table, put an {{anchor}} right before it. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't even need that; just give the table an id= attribute:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="text-align:center; margin: 1em auto 1em auto" id="Compasion table"

This spelling is as per the edit that added the undesirable section heading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb

Hi Primefac. Now that the dust has settled on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Change to all our welcome templates I wonder if you would mind explaining why you think Sdkb should not be a template editor. I'm wondering if pulling that right might have been an overreaction, but keen to hear your view. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said on that thread, I had written a rather lengthy decline of their request based on my own interactions with them in the past. I thought (and still do, to a certain extent) that they are overzealous in their interest with fixing the wording on seemingly every template that's ever had more than two sentences on it. As a positive trait, they look for consensus before making/requesting a change, but I saw that the number of proposals where they got shot down far outnumbered the proposals that were "approved", and my concern was that they'd just go ahead and start making changes like that without discussion. An additional (but minor) reason is that they don't necessarily show the technical skills that I would like to see in a TPE, though I know there are plenty of templates that don't strictly need Lua-levels of knowledge.

I extended the right temporarily because I felt I was being overly critical (and potentially INVOLVED); I think I saw the ANI thread as justification to my above concerns without really digging too much into the details.

That being said, I'm still not overly comfortable with giving them the right indefinitely, but I'm not super-proud of my reaction to the ANI; that's not to say I would grant it as some sort of apology, just that they've now been "burned" in a way and might be a little more cautious if given a second chance. I assume you're thinking of granting it to them? Primefac (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) After having followed some of that editor's edits, edit requests, and suggestions (just on my watchlist; I was not stalking them or looking at their contributions), I was surprised to see the TPE right granted and unsurprised when it went poorly. I think that the editor should have to demonstrate a pattern of good decisions related to template editing (or template edit requests) before begin granted the right again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States

WP:NAVBOX says: "Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to articles highly relevant to a particular article. Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia which accounts for around half of readers." The links don't get more relevant than here. If you find a better solution then go ahead. There is a nomobile class but I don't know a nodesktop option, and I think it would be controversial when most editors are desktop. We shouldn't serve an alleged list [4] with no relevant content to the majority of readers. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2020 has 57% mobile viewers (change "Platform" at [5]), but leads nowhere for them. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2020 only has 4% mobile readers since they rarely find it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I do not like this family of templates, but I've sort of forgotten they existed. This might give me the impetus to recreate them in a way that is more suitable to the task it is attempting to accomplish. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Until somebody implements a good solution, I think it's better to display the links in two ways to the desktop minority than to hide them completely from the mobile majority. A bulleted list with a link per line is the normal format for pages with links to lists, e.g. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. Maybe the main text of yearly pages like List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2020 should only display such a list. Then the desktop users could additionally get the navbox at the bottom, as usual for navboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I just said I'd find a better solution. At least give me a few hours to actually figure out how to do it... Primefac (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I often feel something "might give me the impetus" to do something I never get around to so I merely gave an alternative. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I've finished my work, and I'd genuinely like to hear your feedback on it (suggestions, comments, etc). I've moved the navbox to actually be a navbox at the bottom of the page, basically ignored the empty "year" pages, and linked to each month in a table on the primary "lists of..." page. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks great. Repeating full month names 10 times in a navbox seems a bit much. I suggest using {{MONTHABBREV}} for the display in {{List of killings by law enforcement officers in the US, month}}. Linking 2009 and 2011 on a blue background without a link in "List not separated by month" may be overlooked by some readers, and it looks odd when only a few years are linked. I suggest not linking the year and replacing the text with something like January–December. That doesn't work for List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States prior to 2009, but "List not separated by month" is also a bit iffy when it isn't even separated by year, decade or century. Maybe say 19th century – 2008. I like Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States#Lists of killings. It's OK if it uses other wording than the navbox for pre-2009, 2009, 2011. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The points you mention are some of the points I was sticking on last night; will have a think about improvements. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you please advise?

Hello! I noticed that you added rejection information to this page again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fengqi_You). Is the current version still does not meet Wiki's requirements? Many thanks for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago20092016 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I misread the close when I copied it, didn't see it was a reject. You'll still need to submit it for review, however. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, Thank you for helping out during the whole process. I can see User:Chicago20092016 along with original creator User:Coder196 has been blocked due to WP:SOCK and WP:MEATPUPPET. I was wondering what to do with Draft:Fengqi You, if we find again receive a submission/review request from a new user without any improvements and Wikipedia violations. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 14:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If no one takes it on, it will be deleted in six months. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ismaila Isa Funtua

Hi, I created the Ismaila Isa Funtua article, and just noticed you deleted the article over copyright infringement. Kindly assist in editing and re-upload. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerzuran (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I will not restore the content because it is a copyright violation. You are welcome to recreate the article but you must write it in your own words. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Devaagyh Dixit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaagyh_Dixit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojasharma20 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have deleted this page, without leaving any comment on my talk page? What was wrong in it, that kid is guinness world record holder. He holds several world records in his name, what part did you not understand. Or you guys here for bullying only?

This is sick mentality you just showed, Are you getting bored in this lockdown and just for fun started deleting wiki created by other users?

Jimfbleak I would really appreciate if you can please look into it. How can he delete a wiki without any warning or notification?

Poojasharma20 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Poojasharma20, the draft was incredibly promotional; from reading the page it sounds like he's just the best at everything. In deference to your interest in writing the article I have restored it to the draft space, but I would strongly encourage you to submit it for review through the WP:AFC process by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring to draft space, can it not be moved to AFD instead. I am ok to contest. Poojasharma20 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to move it back to the article space if you feel it meets the inclusion criteria. I do note that the page has been cleaned up somewhat since deletion. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1292simon

Hello. I would like to address some concerns regarding recent AfC reviews, particularly with user 1292simon. I invited the user to join the WikiProject a few days ago after noticing some reviews he made on other drafts, as I did not see him listed as a participant. He has since not acknowledged my message and has continued to review submissions against advisory: Editors whose usernames are not on the list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions. Is there a way this can be addressed to the user? Thanks in advance! Jalen Folf (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was asked the same question recently, and I have to say I haven't had an opportunity to really look into their reviews. As I said then, there's nothing prohibiting them from reviewing drafts, but of course if they are not doing good reviews then we can potentially look into taking administrative action against them. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

hijacker

heya the hijacker is back, this is the one you deleted yesterday under a slightly different name. Drokin needs a block. For context, see this one. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious move by User:Intrdlyup0

Hi, Primefac I am unable to understand what is this as per this diff. See the page history here. Please have a look. Than you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone put a {{submit}} tag on the template page, which was then moved to the draft space because "that's where drafts go". I do see that it's been reverted; I probably won't protect the page (given that it's a sandbox) but I'll likely move-protect it just to keep this from happening in the future. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Redwarn

The user does exist - it is registered as User:RedWarn. There are links pointing to this page and its talk, so it should not be deleted. CrazyBoy826 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:RedWarn and User:Redwarn are two different accounts; the former exists and the latter does not. I don't know where you're getting this "it's linked to" thing, because they are unequivocally not linked from anything. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Redwarn is linked to. CrazyBoy826 22:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, from a discussion where you gave the link. As near as I can tell, the only links to these two user/user talk pages are where you've linked them as part of a message about "these are linked". Primefac (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Afc Deny

Hi, so you are giving regularly users with less than 20-30 edits per day and perhaps 2-3k edits in total the Afc Rights only because they had been logged in 90 days ago!? I am sorry and I know it is pretty unpopular to challenge the rules but this makes no sense at all. I have 130 edits in average per day with a 2% revert quote so I honestly think that I have by far more experience than lots of others whom has given the right. Honestly disappointing and de-motivating. CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll make a counter-example that in a lot of places a 14-year-old is considered unsuitable to drive, even if they have been "driving" (i.e. on a farm or illegally) since they were 12; most countries still require that individual to reach 16 or 18 before being legally allowed to drive. Experience is just one of the metrics we use, "time on the project" is another. The decline is not saying that you can never help out at AFC, just that you have to wait a little longer. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, well, chapeau, don't want to extend this unnecessarily but at all the 90 days rules without being able to make exemptions makes no sense, I am editing on all frontlines here (Vandalism, AfCs, COI, CopyVios, Welcoming, CE etc etc) so objectively I am doing a lot of stuff, more than 90% of the AfC approved guys. But of course I will not going to ask any 30 days "oh please, please sysops, let me help you doing your work/reducing your backlog ;)" - I (and any other surely) will stop or at least reduce it. Anyway, thanks for taking the time answering my concerns. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just one person, if you feel the rules should be bent, feel free to post at WT:AFC. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Date errors in 'Lists of killings ... States, <month> <year>'

I think (from edit [6] ) you were involved in a conversion of these pages from yearly to monthly. I find the structure confusing, but the end result is that the current state is that all pages have a lede sentence saying it is a list of killings in 2020, regardless of what year and month the list page is actually giving data for. This affects the popup preview of the page when hovering over the links in Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, as well as the text of the page itself.

I hope you can figure out where macro or template stuff is going wrong, or otherwise fix this problem. Thanks. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it was an error elsewhere, but I've fixed it. Thank you for letting me know.

If you have further suggestions on how to make it a little more user-friendly I'm happy to hear them. I moved away from the "yearly" lists because those pages weren't actually showing the monthly totals, and to combine them all into one page would make the list/page too big. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

One thing I've noted is the annoyance that each of the tables is presented in reverse chronological order, the opposite of common convention. This is probably a holdover from the time it was part of one big list, where it might arguably be a positive attribute. In present form, I think it has none. Unfortunately, it seems revision of the order would, because of wikitable restriction, require reordering of all entries. That makes it an unreasonable burden to achieve conventional ordering, and clicking the date sort icon is not a huge burden for each reader, so we can live with the current table default ordering.

I'm not sure whether having the table in the root article give the number of entries in the lists is really a positive or not. It's probably a bit useful to editors looking for months with low coverage to work on, but many readers may be likely to mistake the numbers for the numbers of killings rather than the number of entries (despite the verbiage above the table). I suppose the numbers could be available in a default-hidden table, while the main table just has a link to the list page (say using the month abbreviation). That might be a way to serve both the naive reader and the more sophisticated reader. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the date order predates my time working on the pages. As far as "entries vs killings", could you give an example? I was under the impression that the table was only supposed to list killings; if there are "shootings" not resulting in death, then they should probably be removed. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't get that across right. I don't know of any nonfatal table entries. The issue I was bringing up is that the numbers in the main table of Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States are not counts of the number of people killed by officers in a given month or year, but rather counts of how many have been documented on the related WP List page. The latter number is a small, often very small, subset of the former number. A naive reader might look at it and think that only 200 were killed in 2016, but other sources put the total for 2016 much higher (e.g., the Guardian shows 1093). That reader was misled by the presence of the number because he assumed it meant the thing obvious to him: that the number was an approximately right count or estimate of the total number of killings. (Instead, of course, it's just a number resulting from the hit-or-miss activity of WP editors.) I was suggesting avoiding this sort of misleading presentation by not showing those numbers by default. Rather than dropping them entirely, I thought it would be better to keep the numbers available in a "hidden" place (maybe just like the current table), that a reader has to press a "Show" button to expose (a common construct on WP). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. I can revise. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Gines Serran-Pagan

Hello Primefac, Im Oilenroc who created the article Gines Serran-Pagan which was tagged for speedy deletion, I'm new in Wikipedia so I'm in the process of working around how to use it. may I know if I can still contest the article that I did because compiling and fixing the footnotes took me a lot of months just by fixing it and I have no any copy of it to rewrite my article, I stated there that I know personally the person Gines , Im helping him create his wiki site because he's already a 70+ who also doesn't know how to use wiki, I only rely my support through wiki community, but since Im also a full time employee i have less days to check it. Im also looking for professionals who knows wiki writing but its expensive, Its a bit e I been asking the community for help but support is limited aside from providing me links so its taking time for me to polish the article, hope there's a way that I can get what I created it to fix it. it took me 6 months just by creating that short article hopefully I can retrieve it back. Oilenroc (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oilenroc, I will not restore the content of the draft, because it was word-for-word taken from other sources. However, I do understand the work that goes into formatting and collating 38 references, so I have restored your page to Draft:Ginés Serrán-Pagán with only the references. When you create a new version of the page, please make sure everything is written in your own words. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletion

An IP today added a paragraph to Pollination, an article on my watchlist. Suspecting it might be a copyvio, I checked and found that it was identical to text from here, which may date to 1989, or perhaps 1959. Assuming it is a copyvio, is it bad practice for me to revdel it myself, or should I request revdel as I used to do when I discovered copyvios before I was in a position to do revdels myself? In my view it is useful to have two people look at a case like this, because it is often far from clear cut. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's clear-cut, just do it yourself; I generally only go for a 2O when it's on the borderline or I cannot determine providence by myself. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Article name at main-space and copy-paste issue

Hi, Primefac Is Rgr09/Sandbox/Subpage a valid article name in main-space? The page also has copy-paste and copyright issues too. See here Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 12:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly a typo in page creation, and I see it's been moved to the proper location. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Harassment for reporting at WP:SPI by User:Jamesnemesis

Hi Primefac I am being harassed for reporting WP:SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smatamusicgroup by User:Jamesnemesis at my talk page. The person has also filed something at French Wikipedia, see (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Requ%C3%AAte_aux_administrateurs#Appropriation_et_comportement_%C3%A0_l%27encontre_des_r%C3%A8gles_de_Wikipedia). Please help and have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, that's hardly harassment; you brought the user to SPI, and now they're questioning why you did that. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok got everything now. Thank you for the clarifications and help. ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No. It's not okay dear Amkgp .You can't make accusations against me and just walk away. You slandered me. You made an unmerited accusation against me. You need to apologize. Thank you a lot Primefac. ~ Jamesnemesis ✉ 15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Plus, Amkgp, I suspect you're against the Wikipedia rules. I have the right to write about myself. See : "I'm writing about myself, or a close person/subject" See this in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/CommonMistakes) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Jamesnemesis, they can do exactly that; just like in the real world, there are no repercussions for making good-faith but completely incorrect accusations/assumptions about people. This is not a situation where WP:BOOMERANG would come into play - they made an honest mistake (i.e. not realising that you were soft-blocked) which can be justified by their (relatively) short tenure on Wikipedia (i.e. I still classify them as a "new editor"). They haven't "broken" any rules, they're just not seeing the full picture.

In other words, a mistake was made, but no long-term harm has come of it. If either of you have further questions or concerns in I'm happy to discuss them. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC) And on a minor point, "slander" is spoken attacks, while "libel" is written. In other words, there never was any slander

Primefac, thank you ! I don't think it was done in good-faith, but that's no big deal. As long as you're here to make it right. Having said that, I was wondering if there was any chance of taking back a deleted draft. I really want to rework the article, removing the useless "promotional" part and leaving only the facts. Is that possible ? ~ Jamesnemesis ✉ 17:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Jamesnemesis, I have restored your draft at Draft:James Nemesis, but if what was in the (now removed) version is the entire truth, then chances are you do not meet the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. There needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources that talk about you; if those don't exist, then the draft is a non-starter. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Well, thank you again ! Mostly I needed the code for the page. And yes, I understand perfectly. I need to flesh out my article with a larger biography and facts. And I definitely need reliable sources. It's still WIKIPEDIA, not a family magazine. If I may make a joke... Thank you for everything and have a nice day ! You're doing a great job. Really Great. ~ Jamesnemesis ✉ 18:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, P.S : Can I add the languages spoken in the infobox person ? - I'm sorry if I'm taking up too much of your time. ~ Jamesnemesis ✉ 18:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Languages spoken" is not a field at the infobox displays. If it has to be included in the draft, it should probably be in the body of the text. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, All Right. Thank you. ~ Jamesnemesis ✉

Thank you for replying

dear Primefac, thank you for your reply, i suppose i did what you recommend me now and waiting the result. as i'm a beginner on this and need time to start understanding the process. meanwhile stay safe :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princesse Marissa (talk • contribs) 10:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Antje Weithaas

User:Sphilbrick's copyright violation notice at Draft:Antje Weithaas was unwarranted. The supposedly infringed source site says clearly: "aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie" [from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]. I suggest to restore that draft. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, I restored it but now we can remove it because this is the English Wikipedia and not a place for an article in German, right? S Philbrick(Talk) 11:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the restore. There are more than 2 dozen articles on EN WP with her name, plus in 3 WikiProject Women in Red lists. I assume that the draft's creator, User:LouisAlain, will get around to translating and otherwise making it fit for EN WP soon. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that; it's incredibly rare for drafts to be reverse copyvio so I honestly didn't think to check the source; I'll be a bit more cautious in the future, but it would also be helpful if the copy was mentioned on the draft page itself as well! Primefac (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hysteresis loop (Lapshin model)

Hello! Here are some clarifications related to the suspected copyright violation ("unambiguous copyright infringement"). arXiv.org "does not ask that copyright be transferred" from an author to arXiv.org (see https://arxiv.org/help/license). arXiv.org just asks permission from the author to post his preprint paper online for free dessimination. Thus, there are no a copyright violation in the case under consideration.Rostislav V. Lapshin (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me ping Sphilbrick and Diannaa, who are my usual go-to folks for second opinions on copyright violations. The main issue is the juxtaposition of the arxiv release, which is not a transfer of copyright, and the published release, which is protected post-publication. In other words, you let arxiv post your paper, but you still hold the copyright.

On a semi-related note, a subject that you researched and has not really been written about by others falls under "original research" (quite literally) and WP:PRIMARY; even if I were to restore the page, I'm not sure it would survive a deletion discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Diannaa beat me to it but I concur. it may just be my imagination but I think I've seen more instances of something like this happening recently. Some journals are subscription only and I don't know whether they are moving to open access or I am just seeing more open access journals, but there's a difference between open access and acceptably licensed. I think some editors are noticing that the journals are accessible and incorrectly inferring that it can be used. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thought as well. Thank you both for the assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Making something publicly available is not the same thing as releasing it into the public domain or releasing it under a Creative Commons license. The paper still enjoys copyright protection unless stated otherwise. It's not okay to add copyright material to Wikipedia, even if you are the author. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material under a compatible license, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.— Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this a valid Template?

Hi, Primefac I came across Template:List of disc golf courses in the United States. My query is whether this is a valid template. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Valid? Sure. Necessary? Probably not. It really depends on what it's being used for; if it's only so the text isn't on List of disc golf courses in the United States, then no (since single-use templates are frowned upon). If the intention is to have it eventually be used/populated across all fifty state articles, then it could be useful. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp and Primefac, I created this template because I want to be able to reuse the table on other articles (Disc golf in the United States, Disc golf in California, etc.) and transcluding only the part of the article that contains this table kept breaking the parser for some reason. Unfortunately, creating this template did not solve the issue. Do you know why the following does not work as expected? {{List of disc golf courses in the United States}} The following errors display in most cells: Expression error: Unexpected / operator% Expression error: Unexpected < operator -Iketsi (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I can take a look. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I've figured it out - I can't find any documentation on the issue, but it would appear that you can't LST the same page twice in one template call. In other words, there's no issue with Disc golf in the United States transcluding List of disc golf courses in the United States which transcludes Disc golf (i.e. {{#lst:Disc golf|USA}}, but the "list of" can't call itself twice (as seen in with the {{lst|AL}} calls). I think the only way around it would be to either put all of the "used multiple times" numbers inside of a template and call that, OR type the values in manually (which would require 4 changes each time the values changed), OR (as a more-involved third option) put the data values into a module and build the entire table that way. Not 100% sure, but I think the way it's currently set up is a no-go as far as transclusion goes. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the first solution is more elegant. A single, centralized template with raw data that gets transcluded by all other pages and templates will be easier to scale and maintain. How about something like Template:NUMBEROF? -Iketsi (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's already used, and if it's going to be disc golf-centred, it should probably have a related name. If anything, just have it be a subtemplate of {{List of disc golf courses in the United States}}. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I meant conceptually. I know that Template:NUMBEROF used a simpler Wikipedia-based template with switches a few years ago, before switching to the current Lua template hosted on Wikimedia Commons. I like the universality and the centralization of the latter because it will make the data easily accessible to Wikipedia editions in other languages, but I am not familiar with the workflow and I worry that most users will not know how to update the numbers. Is it possible to store data on there in a user-friendly table instead of a json-ish layout? Iketsi (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting the majority of the numbers, but yes, once it ends up in a switch it can be formatted to make it a bit more obvious where and how to update numbers. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Check out List of disc golf courses by country; course numbers are entered manually based on data from the PDGA's Course Directory. A weekly bot keeping the numbers up to date wouldn't hurt, but it is not the highest priority right now. Country population data is fetched by Template:Country population, which transcludes it from the List of countries and dependencies by population article. Country dry area data is static for now, but it should be reasonably accurate since it rarely changes as long as country borders remain intact. Iketsi (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've started going down a rabbit hole. Will probably take me a day or three to get everything coded. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Huge thanks for the template cleanup! I will base future templates on your solution. The only minor detail to iron out would be the Georgia (country) vs Georgia (U.S. state) issue, for which I submitted a request. Also, in Template:List of disc golf courses in the United States, it would be better if the "total number of courses in the USA" were the sum of values in the /data subtemplate instead of a separate source. That way, we can avoid discrepancies in percentages. Iketsi (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Alexandria Smith

Hello, can you please reverse the deletion of the page I created yesterday titled Alexandria Smith. I do not believe that the whole page was a copyright infringement. I will gladly reword the sentences that were similar to her CV on her website https://www.alexandriasmith.com/pagecv. Thank you, Robinsonj7 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Robinsonj7 6/16/2020

It was pretty much entirely a copyvio. I'm willing to restore it to the Draft space, but it would be stripped down to only the non-infringing text and the references. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)