User talk:Primefac/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Cite Q template question

Hello Primefac,

Since you added the concluding remarks to the (archived) discussion about the Cite Q template, I would appreciate your contribution to the debate here and here (starting about half-way through at "Hi Geoff"). I think plant names should always be in italics (including in references) but MargaretRDonald thinks the usefulness of the template outweighs its weakness. A friendly debate, I think. Thanks in anticipation. (Watching here or wherever.) Gderrin (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Primefac: I think may be useful to keep the discussion in one place, my talk page, as that is where I have put forward arguments for the use of cite Q. I understand the problem with italics but I think it is far too early to shut down the usage of cite Q until many more people have had experience of the template and used it. Given that many many plant articles fail to link to author sources at all, it is surely preferable to have a link minus the correct italics than no link at all. Compare for example, Pogonolepis August 2, 2020 with Pogonolepis December 21, 2020 where the italics have been lost but we are linked to the source article and to an important researcher in the area, Philip Sydney Short. Two important links given by the simple use of {{Cite Q}}. (repeated from the talk page for @Plantdrew:). MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If there are any questions or concerns about the implementation of {{cite Q}} I'm happy to weigh in, but I generally tend to avoid discussions specifically about citations and citation styles (mostly because I don't really care); at the moment it looks like it's a discussion more about whether it should be used rather than any sort of technical concerns. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity question

Hi Primefac, hope all is well during the holidays, I have a question regarding Nelly Furtado’s ethnicity. So many sources have referred to her as Portuguese-Canadian and she has also referred to herself as not being one or the other, she equally believes she’s both. So my question is should the lead on her page just state “Canadian” or is it allowed to state “Portuguese-Canadian” since sources and herself have stated it? Pillowdelight (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I should also add her parents hail from Portugal but migrated to Canada. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We generally go with what the sources say, so if they say Portuguese-Canadian, then we should also say the same. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you please hop in the discussion on her page and respond to agreeing it can state Portuguese-Canadian? Another user is disagreeing with it.

Pillowdelight (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

hear, hear!

For better or worse, congratulations on your election, and happy end-of-2020! - JDL. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Urgent

Hello, Primefac. Please see this edit. I have already reported it to Emergency. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Seen, dealt. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

CSD for templates

Hi Primefac. Are there any CSD criteria specifically for template? I came across Template:Timothy Freke via WP:THQ#question. Although I believe it was created in good faith, there's doesn't seem to be a real need for a template like this. Would it fall under WP:G6 or WP:G8, or does it need to go to WP:TFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would have said WP:G2. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. For something that would likely fail WP:A1 (no context) in the article space, G2/test would be sufficient. If I came across something that had a chance of being turned into an article I might draftify (but usually it's G2 deletion). Now that the TFD is going, though, I'd say just let it run its course. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't even consider G2. Anyway, as you say, things will be sorted out at TFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

• Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:

  Oversight: Joe Roe

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
• DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 Arbitration Committee

• *Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace me. (and that goes for the other new people also). We may overlap on one case. and if there's one thing I like, it's giving advice. . Especially now that I'm safely out of the war zone. I managed to balance arb com and AfC, but it wasn't easy. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! I'm curious to see how best I can slot this in to my current activities (with hopefully not too much lost in overall productivity). Primefac (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• 👏👏👏 Congratulations!! You're In like Flynn!! Good luck to you, Primefac! Atsme 💬 📧 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Congratulations!!!!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Venue for asking/discussing template coding

Hi Primefac. Congratulations on your election to the ArbCom. I have a question on template coding and I just realized I don't know of a good venue for asking such questions. Can you suggest a venue? Happy holidays. --Muhandes (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Depends on what you're looking for, I suppose. If it's something module-related, then WT:Lua would be a good place. If it's just a general template question, then WT:WPT would be a good spot. Otherwise, feel free to ask someone who knows templates! Primefac (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try WT:WPT. --Muhandes (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Athens Democracy Forum page deleted

Hello. I started the page, Athens Democracy Forum, which you deleted and cited copyright infringement. I was hoping that you could let me know what I did wrong so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Thank you. --Nikol234 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa left a fairly good summary at your talk page, but basically you copied something from another website directly, that's not allowed except under very specific circumstances (which are explained at the links she listed in her note). Primefac (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

AfC backlog drive

Hi. Hope you don't mind me reaching out here. Just from the numbers, I feel like something needs to be done. Would you happen to have any ideas on whether a backlog drive is a suitable solution, and if so, if there's any way a proposal for one would succeed on WT:WPAFC? Thank you. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

​ I feel like I'm going against everything I always harped on when I was in university clubs, because I say backlog drives are a bad thing when the last one we had was before I even joined the project! I just heard stories about how useless/bad/unproductive they were and figured that was Truth. I think the main reason why backlog drives have failed in the past is because they've been gamified in some way, and thus we emphasize the number of reviews rather than the quality, which doesn't really do much other than flood NPP and annoy them (and potentially result in shoddy reviews as a whole). Because of that, I'm still opposed (in general) to the typical "backlog drive" as regularly pushed at WT:AFC.

I'm coming up with this off the top of my head, but I feel like if we really wanted to have a big push towards mass-reviewing we should have a division of labour that makes it so that one can do as much (or as little) as they wish, but still allows them to contribute overall. I mean, really, what are the main criteria we're looking for? Copyvios, good references, non-promotional prose, and "do they meet an SNG or GNG?" are the main points. The first three are pretty easy checks, with the second taking probably the most time for any of my reviews. If I could come into a draft knowing that there aren't copyvios and there are plenty of RS then all I would need to do is determine if the prose is reasonable and if there's enough to demonstrate notability.

So here's my thought, in a vague hand-wavey "we can work out the finer points later" idea: have a table of the oldest hundred or two drafts, with four columns: CV check, reference check (RS), reference check (significant coverage), and "promo prose" check, something along the lines of:

Draft	CV clean?	RS?	WP:SIGCOV?	Overly promotional?
Draft:Example	17:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)	4/5	1/5

So if I went to this table, I would see that there are RS but it's not significant coverage, so if the prose wasn't terrible I could decline as bio (and if it was I'd add in adv). Alternately, if something was green across the board I could easily go and accept it. Basically, it means you could have one person that checks the cv on a dozen pages, 2-3 people checking references on those dozen pages, and someone going through and seeing if the results mean it can be accepted or declined.

Not sure if this is making any sense, I'll probably have to read back through it in an hour or so, but I feel like this would encourage coordination between users who might be good at figuring out if a reference was reliable or not, but maybe not great at determining GNG, with someone who knew the SNGs and GNG better. Regular reviews could of course happen as normal, and a bot could keep the page updated to remove any non-pending drafts and add more to the end of the list. If needed we could get a script going to help out with the keeping-track-of-things, kind of like AFCBuddy. As a very rough idea, what do you think? Primefac (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I wouldn't view this as any sort of "backlog drive", but mainly "another way to help us review drafts". Primefac (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I like that a lot. You know... silly idea, but we should just do that with every draft, not just the oldest. We can hash out the number of steps (I favor just two, sources/notability and CV/promo prose), but the template should be modified to have one Y/N parameter for each, and then have the script give you "next draft needing a source check" etc. Surely this isn't an original idea, but a cursory archive check found nothing. I agree that a "backlog drive" of olden times would be tough to pass. Maybe scale it way back, and just give people a barnstar if they do >30 or 50 in a two-week period? Enterprisey (talk!) 00:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, two columns make sense. I was thinking only the oldest mainly because the newest have high turnover so it would likely be pointless to work those into it, but I suppose anything after 2 days old is statistically likely to not be seen again 'til it hits the oldest cats (so maybe leave out the 0- and 1-day submissions?). Depending on how well it works out we could certainly incorporate some sort of badge or barnstar system into it. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting in-use references

Please make sure your bot doesn't cause errors in articles by deleting in-use reference definitions, like it did in this edit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s probably a bunch of extra work to code support for this, but we have another bot which fixes this. See user:AnomieBOT/docs/OrphanReferenceFixer ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No can do, sorry; AWB doesn't have that functionality. Anomie's bot can handle it. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And in this edit, too. AnomieBOT isn't guaranteed to fix deleted reference definitions, dosn't offer a timeline for such fixes, and isn't guaranteed to fix them correctly. Please don't rely on it. I think it's also bad form to use the Wikipedia corpus for a bot war playground. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's never failed to fix a bot run of mine before, runs every hour, and has a nearly 100% success rate (and I'm including those times when it cannot make the correct move and asks for human intervention, because I consider that a "success"). Additionally, this isn't a bot war, because that would imply Anomie's bot is reverting mine. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What happened here?

I saw that you oversighted a revision of the disambiguation page for oversight, but, how?

JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I clicked a button, then clicked some more buttons, one of which was the option for "suppress this revision". I guess I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I'll be honest, I don't even know what I'm asking. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you figure it out, I'm always happy to give (slightly less silly) answers! Primefac (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, If you will give less silly answers if I figure it out, I hope that I will never figure it out.

Also, how long do you think it will take for someone to nominate the file for deletion? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea, not much of a gambler. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexa param cleanup for Infobox company/website

Hey Prime. A user has gotten themselves blocked trying to work on this, see Special:Contributions/Wikiwriter700. Another user I found was mass reverting the first, and I've chewed them out already for improper rollback use and clearly not reviewing what they were doing with 10+ EPM. Could you look into running your bot for Infobox website and Infobox company to remove the Alexa param? I'm not up to date on when or why it was apparently removed from either. I was never a fan of it besides. But it's going to basically be everywhere and should be cleaned up. -- ferret (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There was an RFC to remove it from ib website. Since there are a thousand or so instances of the ranking I can run the bot on it. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This was just infobox website I guess. I assumed company as some of the pages I noticed were for companies.... that happen to use infobox website since that's their main deal. -- ferret (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Izno#Infobox Alexa rankings I identified 3, Infobox software, Infobox website, Infobox online service. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I ended up being busier today than I expected, but fringe benefits of being an educator is that I have essentially a mandated two weeks off! (i.e. I'll get to it in the next few days) Primefac (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note, I only did ib website, as the others either didn't use |alexa= or only had a small number of uses. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

HawkEye 360

Hey! I see you accepted this AfC from a COI editor and I'm really struggling with it. I think it might be notable, but the content remains very promotional. I'm gonna refrain from sending it to AfD but it might be helpful to throw something on the talkpage about this one if you think it should stay. I'm not quite sure how to fix its promotional tone. FalconK (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm feeling snarky today so forgive me if my first thought is "fix it by removing the promotional language". Couldn't say how I missed that much nonsense on the page, but I'll take a look at it and see what I can hack off. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Question (DYK)

Can I ask another question in relation to my DYK restrictions. I am currently drafting this but I wanted to confirm it doesn't fall foul of the British politics issue. I don't think it does because it is a piece of legislation so it is law rather than politics. Also because it is in relation to the British Overseas Territories and not the UK itself. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Your restriction was only for DYK, so creating an article doesn't fall afoul of that. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said I was hoping to take it to DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say that an order issued by the Privy Council would be considered "related to politics." Sorry. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I see, the reason why I had doubt was because I felt it wasn't related to British politics, but to the Colonies politics. But then I presume that all legislation passed by the UK Parliament falls under it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the constant questions, but I do want to guarantee I get everything right by the book. So legislation that originates in the UK (Privy Council, Parliament etc.) is a no, but any legislation that originates in the colonies is a yes? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I think that would be a reasonable interpretation. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Me again, sorry for the bothering, but just checking that the flags and heraldry of the British Overseas Territories would be OK for DYK too? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Ambalavanar Vaidialingam

Dear Primefac

Thank you for reviewing the above draft on 28 Dec. 2020.

I have amended the submission to take into account your comments and have re-submitted it today. The amendments are: • Added two independent sources to indicate Ambalavanar Vaidialingam is a founder of United Socialist Party , the predecessor of Communist Party of Sri Lanka (Ref 1 & 4) • Replaced the election results ‘pdf file links’ to the Sri Lankan Election Commission ‘Parliamentary Election Results’ web page with the Wikipedia internal link to the relevant electoral district that gives also the election results.

I trust the amendments meet your requirement

Regards

VGSangar (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC) VGSangar

Excellent, improved references are always a plus. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user !vote at RFA

Hi, the 199th support !vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hammersoft is a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. I realize the RFA closed a couple weeks ago but wanted to bring it to your attention as the closer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not inclined to strike the vote as it makes no practical difference (it is still a unanimous support). Primefac (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Excessive gap on rugby squad template

Hi there, the rugby squad template on San Diego Legion seems to have an excessive gap between the two columns. I've tried to troubleshoot it but can't find what's causing this compared to on other pages. Any chance you could have a look and fix it if you've got the time. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't rightly say what's causing it to act one way on one page and a different way on seemingly every other page. Will do some A/B testing and see if anything shakes out. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have something to do with long player names in the second column. See this test case in my sandbox, which you are welcome to copy to the template's testcases page for further testing. I suspect that since the second column is forced to 50% of the overall width, it leaves a gap after the first column's table so that it also takes up half of the total table. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right, because the "gap" column is using the same info as the right table. I wonder if there's a better way to split it so that it doesn't do that... Primefac (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys, there is the possibility of changing the templates to the ones used in Super Rugby squads or similar which would remove this problem, however it's not too much of a problem, just slightly annoying. Not sure how it affects readability of smaller/mobile devices though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

New name

I'm now going with MarioJump83, and my previous username SMB99thx exists on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. MarioJump83! 05:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

December

December songs

3 of them

That one resolved, what do you think of Castor et Pollux? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You know, I've been to (and listened to) a fair number of operas, but I don't think that one is on the list. Should I add it? Primefac (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I have seen it, decades ago, admittedly, but that's not the question, - the little infobox squabble is, - or: what do you think about the layout in the upper right corner, and the handling of the dispute? I voted for you, and will probably not change my mind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think having that sidebar is necessary; there's no actual information there, and the navbox at the bottom has all of the same links. Now, if it had information about when it was written, how long it was, where it first appeared (you know, "infobox stuff") then I'd say it's worth keeping there. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for having closed the Rameau template discussion. Could you imagine restoring my design for Hippolyte et Aricie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven in 1803

The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Have a good new year 2021! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT infobox mangling

It's not clear what happened here, but somehow a simple parameter removal went awry. I reverted the PrimeBOT change, so you can try PrimeBOT against it at your leisure - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I took a second look at the diff above, and it's a GIGO issue:

| next_title  = [[Pop Goes My Love/Scratch Goes My Dub|Pop Goes My Love
| next_title  = Scratch Goes My Dub]]

because of the error/duplicate |next_title= the [[ are never matched by ]] and thus are properly split/removed by the bot's edit. In other words, not anything I would ever have control over (I did wonder how it's never had that issue before). Primefac (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

heh, so it only ever worked at all by accident? Fair enough :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why it didn't either pull a "duplicate parameter" issue or an "unknown param" issue. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Closing discussions at AN

Hello Primefac, how should closing discussions be done on WP:AN? Thanks for your time. ◅ Sebastian 16:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

For something like that, with a close that actually reflects the consensus of the discussion. You shouldn't just be closing discussions "because someone asked" or because it's been sitting idle for 48 hours, and especially if a potential unblock/restriction removal is being requested (and in the latter case, the close should actually address the request). Primefac (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks! Regarding “the close should actually address the request”: I had avoided that since I had previosly been criticised for having voted when I closed an issue. Actually, for this closure, I did do much more than I wrote down. Particularly, since DGG voted for granting the appeal, which btw. also harmonized with my own first impression, I read not only all arguments thoroughly, but also many of the linked pages, including all of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive324#Александр_Мотин, as well as many of the links from there. From that, I emerged with a different impression, and, to be honest, concluded that DGG hadn't studied the case as thoroughly. So, do I understand you correctly that it would have been better if I had somehow diplomatically mentioned that? ◅ Sebastian 17:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As a closer, you're expected to read through the arguments, and (if necessary) any tangential or related discussions that might affect the outcome of the discussion. If you had closed the request in the same manner (or similar) to how I closed it, then we wouldn't be having this conversation (re: your quote about addressing the request). There's a difference between closing a discussion and making a supervote (which from your description is not what you did or would have done anyway).

That being said, there is no obligation to mention every side of a discussion when there is a relatively clear-cut consensus, so really you'd only have needed to mention the "losing side" is if they make reasonable arguments but either didn't have the numbers or the strength of argument needed to overcome that disparity in numbers. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I see - now that I see your close, it all makes sense. I usually provide a resolution summary in the closing box, too. My mistake was caused because I shied away from declaring consensus against DGG's vote, but I now understand that that would have been appropriate. Thank you! ◅ Sebastian 17:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, after sleeping over it, I do have a question about the text you emphasized: Is that a community decision (where?), or is it just your (and my) opinion? ◅ Sebastian 13:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose both of the words I italicized would best refer to WP:Closing discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see anything at WP:Closing discussions about going to such depth as I did. There is the rule that the closer needs to discern “irrelevant” arguments, which would not have helped in our case, since there were none on the “grant” side. Should we start a discussion there to establish consensus for what's expected from a closer at AN? (I'm hesitant, since I feel it's working well enough as it is now – at least from the editor who closed most discussions last month, Levivich, I have the impression that he is as thorough as I am. But you seem to feel pretty strongly about this, judging from the stern wording of your revert and the emphasis here, and I prefer if we could point to community consensus in the future. So I would like to support you, if you feel it is worthwhile.) ◅ Sebastian 14:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm genuinely not sure how to reply here. Admins have been closing discussions at AN and other locations for years now, without issue. What new consensus is needed? Primefac (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, your second sentence is a clear reply, echoing my reasons for hesitation. So the only thing that remains to be done for me here is to wish you a happy new year. – Oh, and maybe close this discussion? :-P ◅ Sebastian 20:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hah! And to yourself as well :-) Primefac (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spammer

I saw your block of 24 December 2020 in this user history. Is this IP the same nuisance or a different one? The edit to CWP was particularly egregious. HNY, Narky Blert (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Different issue, looks more like a COI/paid issue. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Two posts, 4 days ago. Not worth bothering with unless it reappears. Narky Blert (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Unnecessary" relisting

Why was my recent re-listing of a template discussion considered as such, because the last listing was more than two weeks ago? –Piranha249 01:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, because it's part of the guidelines not to relist more than twice; second, because there is a consensus building and I plan on closing this in the next day or two (waiting for the couple of pings to clear). I do appreciate the sentiment, but old contentious discussions should be closed, not relisted indefinitely. Primefac (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I apologise if I came across as harsh or rude in my edit summary, I do not mean to do so but we've had a string of well-meaning but ultimately unhelpful NACs recently and so my patience for such things is a little low right now. I'm happy to discuss closes and the like in more detail with you, especially if you feel like you'd like to start helping out at TFD. Primefac (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Understandable, thank you for the input. –Piranha249 15:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove Infobox television parameters

Hi Primefac! Yesterday I was doing some work to fix some articles in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown empty parameters, and found a few unsupported parameters that could be removed. When you have time, could you please have PrimeBOT go through the articles and remove the following parameters:

• |Theme=
• |aka=
• |creat_director=
• |exec_producer=
• |sup_producer=
• |asst_producer=
• |cons_producer=
• |co-producer=
• |story_editor=
• |camera_setup=
• |co_exec=
• |supervising_producer=
• |status=
• |rating=
• |narrator=

Thank you for your consideration. GoingBatty (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm always a bit hesitant to remove unknown empty parameters, because the unknown parameter check can ignore them. I do understand, from a fundamental perspective, that having invalid params (even when empty) encourages their propagation, either by copy/pasting or by folks trying to fill them in, but if |ignoreblank=y then that cat is empty. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You just blocked me

You just blocked me for disruptive editing... i call it canceling, as in cancel culture, you just delete what you don't wish to hear, people call me little bitch, thats no problem for you, those people dont get blocked, because they are probably your long time friends but when i respond in the same way with the exact same words i am removed and blocked, you are a hypocrite! and probably you will block me now, remove this comment, but put some nasty reason comment on my page why you blocked me, and in a way that i can not react to it... you people do this with all ne wikipedia editors, that is why this project is dead, yo do it with everyone, wikipedia has made millions of enemies like this, that is why your website runned by marxists and psycho's is doomed, enjoy it while it lasts, because it wont last long anymore... #section230 KingBaudoin (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

KingBaudoin, you were being disruptive at WP:AN. The discussion was closed, with a big notice saying that it should not be modified.

Regarding Indy beetle, I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with them.

I will say I have no interest in furthering or expanding your block, as it was done purely to stop the disruption to AN. As far as I'm aware, I have let you no "nasty message" and have tried to be civil in our interactions. I'm happy to discuss this further, but toning down the rhetoric and assumptions of bad faith would be rather helpful. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok i understand, sorry then, i just hope you understand my frustration.. and not only mine, many peoples frustration KingBaudoin (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear ya, it's not always easy to edit calmly on Wikipedia (I get heated some times too and have to take a step back). I have given them a warning to lay off the insults; hopefully they'll reconsider their language in the future. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac. KingBaudoin (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision Deletion request

Hey can you RevDel content made on today's featured article by Ip 90.224.198.46 if it hasn't already? The user was changing the first file with an image of a penis, presumably to make the picture appear on the Main Page. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

AFC reviewer

Hi. I used to be User:4thfile4thrank, but I was renamed. Can I be re-added to the AFC list under my new name? Steve M (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

LTA case.

Hey. The person I recently reported to WP:AIV just got blocked. However, the page move they performed clearly indicates that they are an LTA. Look at the page history for Ronald Mcdonald. I do not know who to tell. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the offensive content from the history of the pages. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you too. However, that's not what I had in mind. What I had in mind was tagging him as a sock of BittersweetFools. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There is behavioural, but not technical, evidence that the two are related, so I'm going to stick with the existing "not here" block. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I really do not quite understand sockpuppet investigations all that much. Maybe he'll get tagged when he strikes again. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Protection on Nicholas Alahverdian

When you deleted and restored the page revisions, it lost its protection, and thus the page is now unprotected. It should probably be protected again. I'll also ping Ymblanter who protected the page most recently. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

CU

I just found out you opted for CU with arb. I always used to get you confused between CU and suppressor. I hope you get active in SPIs as well. I wish you have a good new year. See you around. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure how active I'll get into CU (at least, initially) as I've got to figure out my new(est) priorities. Primefac (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew script

Regarding the replacements made by the bot, I hope it only does the transclusions, not the links? The few links in Wikipedia guidelines or template documentation that needed updating, I already took care of. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Just replacing the template calls. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Recreate a previously deleted page

Hi there

I would like to recreate the below pages which seems to have been deleted as the creator was banned, and not because the page content is not notable.

"2017 Indonesian Movie Actor Awards" "2018 Indonesian Movie Actor Awards"

May I procede? Thanks MusicMadeSimple (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind the title was wrong anyway, will be recreating the content with the appropriate title MusicMadeSimple (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

outwith

Are you a Scot? Your comment at Tfd Nov 17 :

That is a discussion that falls outwith this TFD,...

(diff; perma) made me wonder. I like learning about new words. The other one I learned today was micropolitan. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I once heard a (borderline racial) joke about a Scotsman, and a donkey. If somebody knows about the background, would you please explain? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Not sure about Primefac, but no true Scotsman would tell that joke... But, they might have a bit o' fun at the expense of the Welsh:

A Scotsman walks into a bar in Wales...

A bloke from Aberdeen walks into a bar in Cardiff and orders a white wine. Everybody in the bar turns round and snarls at the strange man. The bar man says, "You ain't from around here, are you boy?" The Scotsman says, "Diz th' kilt gie it awa'?" "What do you do in Scotland?" "Aam a taxidermist." "Taxidermist? What's that?" "Ah moont sheep an' other animals." Barman shouts to the locals, "He's okay lads; he's one of us!"

Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Feckin' sheep shaggers ;-) Primefac (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please remove me from the AfC reviewer list

Hello. You recently added me to the AfC reviewer list but I would like to be removed after what has happened in the last few days which has made me doubt whether I even want to be here anymore. I completely disagree with some people's interpretation of the notability guidelines. Specifically on Branch Insurance. I approved it for creation which I completely stand by. And now there's a notice on it saying the company may not be notable and a message from another reviewer that they would have not accepted it. What's the bloody issue? There are currently 17 references that are independent and reliable and the company is not notable? What is expected for notability? A whole book about the company as the example at WP:NOTABILITY says? There's clearly enough for an article. I think it's quite a good article actually and there's no need for that template or to oppose me curating it shortly after receiving new page reviewer rights. The article is fully backed up with references and suitable. As a mater of fact, I did mark that page as reviewed just before requesting removal of my npr rights and it's had 76 people view it as of yet. So what's the problem?

Anyway, I can't continue contributing to AfC like this where people undermine logical decisions and have such an interpretation of policy that they disallow people to view perfectly accurate information that they may be looking for so please remove me from the reviewer list. Eyebeller (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller, I will if you're sure but I just want to say that there will always be people to question an action. I've been questioned on accepts, declines, and everything in between, and don't even get me started on administrative matters. This is especially true for NCORP-related pages given the proliferation of COI, paid, and otherwise problematic SPAs. I would encourage you to stick with it, but if you're sure you don't want to keep working at AFC I will respect those wishes and remove your name from the list. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell me if you would have accepted the draft? Eyebeller (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a borderline case, but I probably would have erred on the side of accepting (if only to "test" it at AFD). Primefac (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I just feel like I'm not confident in myself and doing something wrong... Eyebeller (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That's fair enough. If you do decide to stick around, and you're ever unsure about something, my talk page is always open :-) Primefac (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stick around for now. :-) Eyebeller (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please remove my name from the list, thanks. Eyebeller (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ooookie doke. If you change your mind in the future (or just want advice in general) just let me know. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I do enjoy it, I'm obviously not qualified do to it if an article which I approve gets deleted via CSD (which I strongly disagree with). Eyebeller (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully we'll see you back at the project soonish! Primefac (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I will, that was the last straw. Eyebeller (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about the inappropriate fuss that I made. After having completed the notability section and nearly finished the sources seciton of the NPP school with Rosguill I feel comfortable to start reviewing AfC's again at a slow pace so if you add me to the reviewer list again that would be appreciated Eyebeller 09:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I published and approved MR.DIY. I thought it met WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There was quite in-depth coverage in a few sources. The vulcanpost and the sundaily particularly caught my eye. Do you think I was right to publish it? Eyebeller 12:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to like picking the borderline cases. Refs seem okay though. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance as another admin complained about me moving it to the mainspace. Eyebeller 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ACDS question

Hi Primefac. Since you’re on ARBCOM, I thought you be a good person to ask about WP:ACDS. Is it like WP:PP where you can request it be applied to an article via a page like WP:RPP? I think the page Jake Angeli probably should be placed under DS and 1RR given the highly contentious nature of the subject matter. The article is currently being discussed at AFD and lots of editors are participating in that discussion so that discussion is unlikely going to be closed any time soon. The PP on the article also just ran out. I know PP is usually added to prevent possible disruption, but my feeling is that this article is likely going to attract much more interest from all sides as the aftermath of the event that primarily led to its creation continues to be resolved. There are lots of editors working on the article, and they for the most part have been working to keep control of things on it and the talk page, but PP did help them do that. Maybe DS could also help keep sort of a lid on things as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just want to update that the article has been placed under PP again (apparently that happened while I was posting above). I still think DS might be a good idea though. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you'd be right. I've added the appropriate templates to the appropriate locations; feel free to start dishing out {{ds/alert}}. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Update

I updated a page and you didn't like it. Why¿?? Bisbee8080 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not that I "didn't like it", it's that your edit had no editorial merit, had zero reliable sources, and was a violation of our WP:BLP policy. Thanks to your most recent edits I have prohibited you from editing that page. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Where to list a history-merge that I have performed?

• When I have performed a history-merge, where should I list the information saying that I have performed that history-merge? I have routinely listed it in Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Completed requests ''month year'' for years without anyone objecting. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  The records are at Special:Log/merge. I know that the page has been used one way for many years, but now there is an objection and currently no opposition to keeping it the way it reads currently. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• But sometimes I still get history-merge jobs that can't be done with the new Special:Log/merge, but must be done using the old method (delete X, move Y to X, undelete X) which does not leave an automatic log record anywhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for history merge#Purpose of this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

EotW Hall of Fame

You were right. There was no award distributed last week. This week Editor Coffeeandcrumbs was the recipient but I can't get his banner to display. Made a couple of attempts with no luck. Sorry to bother you. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, fixed it. Going forward you'll pretty much just be removing the <!-- and --> pairs across the subsequent lines. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

U2 deletions

Admins, if you are coming here to comment on my U2 deletions from yesterday (11 Dec), yes, I realize that it probably wasn't the best of ideas because of, well, all the reasons listed in the subsections below. Feel free to undelete the pages as necessary; I don't need a note saying you have done so. If I deleted something important and you are not an admin, feel free to post below and I'll restore the page(s) in question. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Staszek Lem

Primefac talk contribs deleted page User talk:Staszek Lem

It was me before renaming. I am wondering what was there. Since in talk pages it is still wikilinked, it is possible someone clicked at red link to talk to me. If there is nothing useful there, please protect it to preclude such mishaps. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a redirect to your talk, I can restore it if you like. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you think is better: a redirect or protect? Lembit Staan (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Since it was your old username, probably makes more sense to restore the redirect. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:List of taxa described from Idaho

Can you restore this? I'll move it to my user space as a draft. Abyssal (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted user pages

Hi, Primefac,

I'm cleaning up a lot of broken redirects to user and user talk pages you deleted earlier this evening. I'm just kind of curious, how do nonexistent user pages pop up and get your attention? Is there a bot that creates a list of these? These seem to mainly be editors who changed usernames and these are older user pages for previous usernames I just think that it would kind of remarkable for you to stumble across these, buried in the millions of user pages. Like I said, I'm just curious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: The answer would be User:TheImaCow/U2, which is linked from your talk page! More below ... Graham87 07:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

BernardVatant and other user pages

Hello, I've undeleted User:BernardVatant and turned it back into a redirect, as it contained some old history from 2001. See further discussion at the redirect target's talk page, User talk:Universimmedia. They never actually used that username to edit the English Wikipedia, just the IP's in the user page history, but that wasn't an uncommon situation back in 2001. I've also undeleted several other pages linked from User:TheImaCow/U2 which should not have been deleted, either because they were clearly misplaced, they were valid soft redirects, or for other reasons. Automatic deletion of U2 candidates has caused problems in the past, though it seems you weren't on Wikipedia when that episode happened. At least, unlike last time, pages like this are safe now. Graham87 07:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect there will be quite a few pages of since-renamed users. Good intentions blah blah blah, I'm starting to realize that it was probably not the best of ideas. Thanks for undeleting some of these. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassianto

In my mind, Cassianto is a much more "existent user" than the vanished number. We had a discussion last year (just archived), DYK? No idea what to do with a page where I others would like to talk to him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to User talk:Cassianto, which wasn't a redirect or anything but I've restored it. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I exist

Please restore User:Squared.Circle.Boxing.Arti and User:Squared.Circle.Boxing.Contri. I'm assuming there should be a "/" instead of a "." after my username? – ².O.^Boxing 10:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, though the second one was at User:Squared.Circle.Contri. Let me know where you'd like them and I can move them to a "better" location (and yes, I suspect that these should probably be somewhere like User:Squared.Circle.Boxing/Arti). Primefac (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you move them to User:Squared.Circle.Boxing/Arti and User:Squared.Circle.Boxing/Contri please? Apologies for any confusion caused. – ².O.^Boxing 11:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Bot

Hey there. Thanks for replying to my bot request. Sorry for the bad wording the post had, I'm here to try and clarify what I've wanted to mean back then.

So what the bot's use would be is, go to the links it is given and insert whatever text you're giving it to insert, preferably to a specific place in that wiki page. The best way to explain it to you is that the bot would be like the "Find" function of Notepad++. Where it uses whatever keyword you give to replace something you've selected.

https://i.imgur.com/N86z7hW.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by JokerLow (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:AWB would be better for that. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Important references

Hi, A lot of important references of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjib_Kumar_Karmee was deleted. Do you think a scientist among world's top 2% does not deserve space in wikipedia? Kindly advise how to proceed. Kdis98 (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I almost always do a copyvio check first, removing the offending content (and leaving the references) before doing any major cleanup to the article (thereby preserving the references in the history). This time (if I remember correctly) the copyvio checker was not behaving as expected and I did not get results until after my cleanup. I have restored the removed references. However, please keep in mind my comments regarding the bombardment of references. Just because the references are there doesn't mean they must be used.

Regarding the "2% of scientists" claim: this is not the first time I've seen that statement be made, and quite honestly I do not think the sources you are using are doing justice to that claim; I have searched through every piece of information provided by the researchers themselves, and unless I'm missing a data dump there is no inclusion of nationality (or in this case, of Karmee himself) in the data set, and I feel like the mystery provider of the Google Sheet listed in one of the references has done some original research to get this magical "2%" figure.

And also, as a minor point, even if the claims are true, it's not "the top 2% in the world", it's "the top 2% in India in the field of bioenergy"; Karmee is very far down the "worldwide" list. So no, I do not think that a scientist in the top 2% of a subsection of a subsection of the world's researchers is "automatically" notable. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

His worldwide rank in biotechnology discipline is 726 and he is among top 1.442. It is not subsection of a subsection. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article33043379.ece/binary/IndiansWorldRanking.pdf

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vadodara/gujarat-scientists-bag-global-honour/articleshow/79048679.cms

In addition, Karmee has also worked for social upliftment of western Odisha.Combing all these points the subject is notable. You may consider it for further review. Thanks! Kdis98 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

My point is more that The Hindu is the only place I've seen these "modified" results, the original data does not contain any of the information seen on those tables, which is why I view it as highly suspect. I could very well be wrong, but looking at huge datasets and interpreting them is something I do often. Wanting to improve his home area is commendable, but that in and of itself does not make one notable. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, Kindly look at the excel sheet available on IISc Bangalore website: Ranking of top 2% scientist from India - CPDM IISc (cpdm.iisc.ac.in › cpdm › World_Ranking XLS) shorturl.at/wACJO Kdis98 (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kdis98: What's your connection with Sanjib Kumar Karmee. Are you being paid to write this article or do you work for them/with them ? It has been your sole item of editing on Wikipedia for more than half a year now.

I've looked through both the Google Sheet that you've shared, and the original file from which it's derived (without attribution - somewhat dubious in the land of academia) and whilst I recognise Karmee is ranked as one of the top 2% of scientists in his field globally, he's down somewhere at 145,000 on the list. I've therefore looked at citation count and h-index and neither measure is particularly high, which would lead me to reject the suggestion they're notable per WP:NPROF. I don't see any evidence of more generic notability per WP:GNG so I'm afraid, at this time, I must endorse the decision to decline the article. Nick (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not paid nor I work with them. I saw a news item in the news paper. And thought of writing the article. H index 18-20 is very good for young scientists with 33 papers. Also, number of citations per paper is good I guess. Kdis98 (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I am a beginner in wiki. I will edit and create more profiles. Kdis98 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, With your permission, I would like to make one more point. How many scientists develop pilot scale technologies? How many scientists are converting lab scale into pilot scale process? In the context, GHGs emission and global warming this process is important: Odia scientist-led team develops tech for producing biofuel Kdis98 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You may kindly check:https://www.dailypioneer.com/2020/state-editions/odia-scientist-led-team-develops-tech-for-producing-biofuel.html Kdis98 (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

So that's a good thing to demonstrate notability, but there is still the issue that almost none of the sources talk about Karmee in any detail; it's well and good to be involved in important projects, but if the only mention of a person is "he runs it" then he's not really that important overall! WP:GNG can be summed up as significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; so far you have only demonstrated the second half of that. If you can find a few really good (independent) sources that talk about him, especially if it's in relation to this biofuel project, you will have a much easier time convincing the reviewer that he is notable. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Can peer reviewed papers be independ sources? Should I add bibliography? Kdis98 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not if they are papers he has written. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Can it be considered independent source? It is from OrissaPost (an independent news paper published from Bhubaneswar):https://www.orissapost.com/team-led-by-odia-scientist-invents-organic-energy-from-waste-materials/amp/

Kdis98 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that's a borderline case, since the majority of the content are quotes and statements directly from him. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Here one more report from young India face:http://www.youngindiaface.in/2020/09/25/odisha-scientist-and-south-african-scientist-together-made-a-revolutionary-discovery/ My humble submission is that, the lead authors are the corresponding authors. Therefore,in academic circles the credit goes to the person who runs the group or group leader. For example a Nobel prize winner gets the prize because of the work done by his or her research group. Thanks!Kdis98 (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Respected Sir/Madam, This report describe the importance of Karmee's work without his quotes: https://orissadiary.com/team-led-by-odia-scientist-dr-sanjib-kumar-karmee-develops-pilot-scale-pyrolysis-technology-for-producing-biofuel-from-wastes/ You may kindly look into it. Thanks! Kdis98 (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a fine source. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I resubmit the draft in the present form? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjib_Kumar_Karmee Thanks! Kdis98 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Respected Sir/Madam, Could you please provide your feed back on this article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjib_Kumar_Karmee Kdis98 (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I resubmitted the drafthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjib_Kumar_Karmee Kdis98 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hello admin, sorry to bother you but can you please revdelete this edit? Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:35:18, 14 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Leautheque

• Leautheque (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aaron R. Reed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aaron Reed won the National Outdoor Book Award, which has an entry on Wikipedia. Would more credits of this kind help?

Leautheque (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

He needs more coverage, not his books. Winning awards is well and good, but without significant coverage about him he won't meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:CUeject

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:CUeject. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Naleksuh (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Page mover rights

Hey, thank you for granting my request for page mover rights! Since the right was given to me on a time limited basis, I was wondering if I can apply to be awarded the right indefinitely when the time period is coming to an end? If so, should I apply for it again on WP:PERM/PM using the same standard procedure as I did the first time or in some other manner? AntonSamuel (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Re-applying at PERM is the best way; gets more eyes on the situation. Primefac (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the pointer! AntonSamuel (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Russell Craig: Australian Artist

Hi,

The Draft:Russell Craig (artist) has been deleted. I am hoping to get a copy of what was deleted. I've been working on this page for a while and I'm not sure why it was deleted. I do not have a copy of what was deleted.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdcmvp (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The short answer is "no", mainly because the text was copied almost directly from https://www.russellcraig.com.au/ and https://www.artnewsportal.com/art-news/five-to-one-exhibition-by-russell-craig (so in a way you do have the original text). I also deleted Draft:Russell Craig for the same reason; your talk page has more information about copyright issues and how to avoid them. Primefac (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Edward Banayoti

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at the recent edits of Edward Banayoti? I'm not sure what to think. thanks! DarthFlappy 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's on my list. Primefac (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Request ti become Page mover

I requered to become page mover becuase i moved a lot of Page. I think Is Better become a Page mover For this reason. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your decline was what we call a "procedural decline": you failed to meet the editing requirements, so your request was denied. I would encourage you to keep editing and doing as you do. The more you can show that you understand the page mover guidelines, participate in move discussions, and (potentially) request valid moves at WP:RM/TR, the more likely it will be that when you do meet the editing requirements, it will be an easy decision for the patrolling administrator to make. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice Dr Salvus (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reminder of Wikipedia notability criteria for doctors

Hello,

I'm here to talk about this Draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Sartawi_Muthana

I have made a few changes, added verifiable information, added new information.

I also would like to question about the criteria of notability for doctors.

Especially item 6 of this guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(doctors)

How do you think this guideline applies to that Draft?

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.179.235 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That guideline is marked as historical, as in it is no longer used as a reference or guide for determining the notability of doctors. It's certainly a good place to start, but you cannot link to it and say "see, he meets the criteria!" It looks like you've added a few more references, which is always good for demonstrating notability. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I get it. Thanks for explaining. I have also updated the article, not only with removal off promotional tone, pseudo information, organized, corrected writing and added new material. Could you check the coverage, reliability, independence, and multiplicity of it? I enhanced the article citing Google Patents, Thomson Reuters' subsidiary Zawya, WCIA, Al Arabiya, The News-Gazette, Alqabas and UAE state media. Can you review your position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.179.235 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have also updated content on Knee_replacement#Modified_intervastus_approach with the innovation and the update wen through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.179.235 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

AWB script

Hi. In September 2020, your bot updated params in Template:Infobox television channel using AWB. Do you have that script available? Can you send me? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a script, it's a custom module but it had quite a few bugs in it. I've been working on a new module but it's still in beta. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem, i can manage. I will use it for another wiki. If possible, please send it to Aftabuzzamanullah at gmail dot com. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been meaning to throw it in a subpage of the bot anyway, so when I get it to working order I'll drop you a note. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Review My Edit

Sir, I have moved Draft:International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists to International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists. Can you please review this. This was a mistake I should not have moved it myself Since I have done it now can you please review this. Peerzada Iflaq (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not an NPR, and thus I do not generally review new articles. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for your assistance. Peerzada Iflaq (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Post TfM cleanup

Regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 19#Template:Hover title and Template:Tooltip, do you have any input on what to do to help effectuate this merge? I'm not a bot author and don't spend much time in that space, and maybe its a better AWB thing, or I dunno. To jog memory: The templates are essentially duplicates, but one has backwards parameters, so all calls to {{Hover title}} will need to have their parameter calls reversed before that redirects to {{Tooltip}}. I don't have any experience with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. Is this something I just don't need to concern myself about because there's already a mechanism in place to deal with it?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If it's literally just flipping the parameter order in {{hover title}} I can get the bot to clean that up. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi protection removal from a template

Template:Mendocino County, California has only 154 154 transclusions, which is below the RFC number by about 50 (many articles transcluding the template have been deleted). There does not seem to be any vandalism is the edit history. Would you be okay with me removing the protection you placed back in 2018, as it no longer really qualifies as a high-risk template? Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see there being a need, but if you want to, go for it. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a huge need, but I'm a believer in there needing to be a really good reason for protection because of the "anyone can edit" thing, so I'll remove it for now. If it does attract vandalism, it can always be reprotected. Hog Farm _Talk 18:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Young editors

Every now and then I run across someone who seems young, either because of self-outing, which I report to WP:OVERSIGHT, or based on a combination of naivete and/or enthusiasm.

It's this second group that I'm asking about. Depending on their maturity, they should either be welcomed with a mentor or two, or gently encouraged to find another hobby.

I prefer to keep my interaction with obviously-young editors to a minimum. That said, sometimes "the minimum" consists of a welcoming message or advice, which may lead to a few rounds of back-and-forth before I can politely disengage. This is where you come in:

I recently saw you give a nice welcoming message to an obviously-young new editor. That got me thinking:

If either the WMF or ARBCOM would form a dedicated team of people who had some mechanism of screening and accountability, such as having their real-life identity "known" to the WMF, people like me could just "pass off" the names of such users to that group, knowing that the editor would be watched and, when needed, shepherded and guided without drawing public attention to the fact that he is a minor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of talk on Jordan Peterson

Hi there.

I noticed you removed by addition to the talk page on Jordan Peterson. Could you explain why? The identity of the editor is clearly relevant to why I edited the main page - the account appears to exist purely for the promotion of one individual. How else am I able to justify my (I believe) correct edit to the main page without including the reason in talk (especially given this edit has previous discussion on it)? I don't particularly want to "out" somebody but at the same time the account hasn't exactly been subtle! How better could I do approach this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of how "obvious" the evidence may be, it's part of the policy to not make those connections on Wikipedia itself. You can certainly ask if they have a COI, or bring the matter before COIN (saying "I think they've got a COI, here are the problematic edits"), but since COI editors aren't necessarily prohibited from editing pages they're connected to, making statements like "Person X is User Y" is rather problematic. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you from the cabal of the outcast ;) - did you ever see the battles of the infobox war? ... open air example pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome, always nice when a decision is (more or less) clear-cut. I wasn't around during those troubled times, though ;-) Primefac (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Not quite clear which decision that would be ;) - I came to tell you of Jerome Kohl on the Main page, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Bulk vs individual suppression requests

Hello there, is it preferable to send individual email tickets for oversightable instances, or better to just bundle them up in a single email and send it that way? I think I sent a flood of requests a few times and was wondering if it would be better for me to just send a single email with all the requests inside. Zupotachyon (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If you find five issues in five minutes, easier to just batch-request, but it's not the end of the world if they're sent individually. On a couple of occasions I just merged all of your tickets into one so I only had to send one request. Primefac (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks. Zupotachyon (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Cityboistreets

Hi, could you unblock this user? Their identity was confirmed in OTRS (see ticket:2021012710010941), but the original blocking admin is now retired. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

PrimeBOT request

I'm noting that there are some talk pages of articles that call {{WikiProject Television}} with |BANNER_NAME=Template:WikiProject Television Stations. The WikiProject was subsumed into WikiProject Television and the talk pages that call this parameter will not display their quality ratings, e.g. [1]. Would it be possible to have PrimeBOT run to just remove any such examples that might be lingering? I suspect there could be a good few. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like about 6k pages so that's doable. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bad subst then by AnomieBOT when the project was folded in last year. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Bot wasn't the issue, just a miscommunication between the editors who were working on it before it was subst. Happens sometimes, easy enough to fix. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you restore the redirect

At Draft:Inhyeon wanghu jeon (仁顯王后傳, Story of Queen Inhyeon) given the article has been undeleted a while ago? I know it's mostly useless cross-space redirect, but it's used on talk pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed

I'm a bit confused. I thought you needed to be extended confirmed to be elected for admin. Are you sure that you can be an admin without extended confirmed? Toad64 14:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The main WP:RFA page is ECP-protected because historically it was flooded with silly/nonsense RFAs. However, our guide on becoming an administrator states that there are no formal requirements for running (or being accepted as) an administrator; of course, if you're not ExCon at the time of running, you'll need someone else to transclude the nomination, but that's a minor hurdle if you have someone who is willing to nominate you in the first place. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for answering my question! Toad64 17:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian

HI! I would like to help improve the article and it's sourcing as I noticed it has been undergoing serious issues. Do you have any idea what is going on there? I read the talk page but couldn't really understand it. Is there a list of things that needs to be done to keep the article stable? Thanks, Steve M (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a fairly good idea of what's going on, though explaining it fully would likely involve just as much text as is currently on the talk page (and the article itself). Basically, dead guy might not be dead, and might have lied about everything that happened to him in his life.

If you're not sure about the details, it might be best to just leave it be, there are plenty of editors active on the page that can make sure it is edited appropriately. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Opera sidebars

Thank you for closing a number of opera sidebar TfDs on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 24; please could you attend to the rest? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was running on fumes at the time so I just hit the "easy" ones, will return to them later. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Bot glitch

Your bot was led astray by an incorrect infobox parameter, thus mislabelling a TV station as a living person: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southeast_Television&type=revision&diff=980662176&oldid=973062869 Fences&Windows 21:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. I'm sure that's a genfix issue, as that task had nothing to do with cats etc. I'm thinking that genfixes for such tasks is more hassle than it's worth, to be honest, so it likely won't happen again. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Bot paused

Hello, I noticed that you have paused Monkbot 18 and are suggesting a centralised discussion on the subject of hyphenating cite parameters. Should Citation bot also be disabled for the very same actions such as this edit? Keith D (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No, for two main reasons. One, edits like that from Citation bot are few and far between; the majority of it's edits are not cosmetic. Second, CB is running its task as a "normal editor", i.e. the edits are marked neither as bot nor minor, so they appear "as normal" in watchlists and doesn't hide anything (which is the primary complaint about the minor/bot run of Monkbot). Primefac (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film

I notice PrimeBot doing a task "Task 30 - replacing deprecated parameters in Template:Infobox film" from way back in May 2020.

I've been looking at the related error categories and doing a bit of manual cleanup, to kill time and occasionally stumble across odd or interesting films ... Category:Pages using infobox film with unknown parameters (i've been trying to keep this close to zero) Category:Pages using infobox film with unknown empty parameters (this remains in the region of 30,000) Category:Film articles using image size parameter (this is only a few thousand)

... but if there was something I could do to encourage you and Primebot to clear out a chunk of those errors in a more methodical automated way that would be great. I'm sure there will always be plenty of edge cases that need fixing.

Would it be helpful if I tried to identify simple patters that I thought a bot might potentially be able to fix? I'm not entirely sure why parameters couldn't be removed automatically, especially if they are already empty? (Perhaps the bot might need to perform, "hygiene checks" to avoid trying to fix any weird edge cases and only tackle cleaner cases?) Many of the errors are not really "unknown" at all, there seem to be a great many articles with parameters that were valid and some point and then deprecated but never automatically cleared out at any point, for example: "eproducer", "aproducer", "preceded_by", "followed_by", "website" and of course as whole category full of "image size". I supposed others such as "awards" must have been allowed at some point too. There are plenty of entirely logical mistakes like people writing "editor" instead of "editing". Since the Infobox parameters are lower case there seem to a fair amount of cases where editors have used capital letters in error, which definitely feels like something bots would be good at fixing.

TD:DR; If there's any chance you'd be able to get Primebot to again tackle some of the {{Infobox film}} errors, I'd appreciate it. (I'll keep an eye on this page for the next few days, so you can just reply here, or not.)

Thanks -- 109.78.192.47 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've said this a few times before here, but I will not go through the transclusions on any template purely to remove invalid (but empty) parameters. While I understand, from a maintenance perspective, that having these empty-but-invalid parameters will eventually make more work down the line once someone tries to use it (my personal bugbear is |nickname= for {{infobox rugby biography}}) they are just as likely to be removed by someone who attempts to use it and gets the warning message that the parameter is invalid. My other argument is that since the category tracking can exclude these empty params, we might as well use that functionality. Primefac (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough.

I look from a distance and don't understand why far more thinks on Wikipedia are not automated (both reducing the garbage in, as well as cleaning garbage out after the fact) but also I can see how difficult it is to get anyone to agree to anything so I can also understand why there must be all kinds of tasks that you and your bot would not want to take on for various reasons.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. -- 109.78.192.47 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian

Hey, Primefac,

Probably your least favorite article right now but I have a question and you have more experience than I do. Looking at this 2013 ANI discussion, it's clear that some of the issues editors are wrestling over now came up in an earlier version of this article.

What is the policy of restoring deleted article and talk page edits from a previous version of this article? The current article was created in 2019 and it might be helpful to see the shape of the article 8 years ago when some of the events discussed in the article were occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I could see potentially pulling the references from the old/deleted version of the page, but I don't think it's necessary to fully restore the article (even if temporarily); the references (if they still exist) would give us everything useful. Primefac (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It was actually the deleted talk page discussions that covered some of the same issues that I thought might be of some value, 8 years later. There's actually a 2013 version of the article in the edit history of User:Nicholas Alahverdian who was blocked as a sockpuppet. Ironic, isn't it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

On Northern Escapee

Hello Primefac, hope you are doing okay? I noticed the aforementioned editor was given the AFC right, I’m not sure who did, was it you? I just thought to let you know that the editor in question possesses a dubious history(Knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia) despite being a “newbie” at that point in time & recently, a suspicious affinity for rushing to collect advanced user rights as though they were trying to make up for lost time, even though they have been here for only 7 months. Oh well, I guess what is done is done. I’d be keeping a close eye on them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I did add them to the list, because I didn't see any of the normal red flags. Are they performing inappropriate draft reviews? Primefac (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As of now, no, they haven’t, but in my experience in dealing with spam/detecting banned/blocked editors, at least 90% of the time they begin with actually doing good work & when they gain the full trust of the community, they begin to perpetuate UPE. The most recent being the case of the now blocked Lapablo. I just saw this request from Northern Escapee to obtain NPR rights & in my experience, this is the M.O of a dishonest editor(which is predominantly binge collecting advanced user rights) Sorry for taking up your time but I thought it wise to let you know this. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you're fine, no worries. It's hard to judge just from a quick look if they're a problematic editor when they apply at AFC/P, so followups are always appreciated. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright then. I’d keep you posted. Stay safe Primefac. Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. You too! Primefac (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Revdel question on Richard Bach

Hi, I'm confused by the revdel on Richard Bach, which was an edit sourced to a public document. Could you explain why it's a problem, so I'll know in the future? (I didn't make the edit, but I've been trying to advise the IP editor on my talk page.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a public document with a ton of info such as address etc; even if it's a "public document", we shouldn't be exposing PII like that. Primefac (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for explaining! Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Monkbot RfC

I thought about this more over dinner and I actually see three options:

• A: Non-hyphenated parameters should be deprecated and removed; bot is free to continue its work.
• B: Non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated; task should not be continued and approval is rescinded.
• C: Non-hyphenated parameters are deprecated, but should not be immediately removed. The task can be bundled into genfixes or performed along with other cosmetic changes, but by itself falls under COSMETICBOT and (absent some sort of Cosmetic Bot Day) should not be done on its own.

Ping ProcrastinatingReader. — The Earwig ^talk 06:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I would probably flip B and C so that it goes "yes yes no" as far as deprecation goes, but that third option was what I was grasping at last night as I stared at the blank "New section" edit box and couldn't type anything out... Primefac (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Trappist the monk thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Elsewhere I wrote: I cannot, I will not, be the one to write an RFC because I am biased. Having written that, it seems to me that I should not participate in this discussion lest anything that I write here be perceived as an attempt to craft the form of the rfc.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There is at least 2 or 3 options which go the other way, namely "deprecate the other direction", perhaps in a separate question in the RFC. --Izno (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's focus on one issue at a time. If "don't deprecate" ends up being the result, we can look at reversing a few million edits. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This 2014 RFC mandates that "a lowercase, hyphenated version will exist for each parameter" that contains multiple words, specifically: "with hyphens between English words, between (not within) acronyms, or between English words and acronyms. The documentation is to show this lowercase, hyphenated version as the one for 'normal use'." Multi-word parameters introduced since this RFC have all been hyphenated, and mostly or entirely without wordsjammedtogether aliases.

The consensus at Help Talk:CS1 has been the gradual removal of unhyphenated multi-word parameter aliases since then. As of the next module update, there will be only a small handful of them left. Veering from this long-established course would be a significant change in direction. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion which looks like it reached only the regulars of the CS1 talk page. There is clearly wider resistance to the issue abroad. Also, WP:CCC, and 2014 was a third of Wikipedia's lifespan in the past.

(I have a particular preference myself: jammed together -- the fact that it prevents word wrapping in the parameter name is superior to any other reason for me having gnomed as much as I have, including the supposed benefit of readability of dashes standing in for spaces -- but have suppressed it under the impression the prior RFC was actual consensus preference. 2014 was also a different time with many parameters which met neither the squish nor dash standard. And anyway, that discussion was only "ensure there is a dash version", as Nikki among others has pressed, not "remove everything but". Not to argue the point on PF's talk page. :) --Izno (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the options here and now is because I anticipate someone at the RFC in question will add them as options if you don't either articulate them immediately or if you don't at least say something in the RFC question which preempts doing so. The worst case scenario of this RFC is that we retain mixed parameter style sets for a subset of parameters IMO. I am not interested in that inconsistency and would prefer that be settled itself. (Separately, another option to the above 6ish is: require the module to provide a squished variant for all parameters in addition to a dashed version for all parameters, with/out a preference to one.) Editors like to vote for the option which provides consistency and usually can go halvsies on which consistency that is. I am not per se trying to make the RFC wider than you'd prefer, but these are issues that will come up even if you would prefer otherwise, in this matter. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bach 2020 marriage

This is an online record from the San Juan County, Washington Auditors website, how much more reliable can it be?

You can search for it yourself here:

https://www.sanjuanco.com/171/Recorded-Document-Search

Search for Richard Bach or for Melinda Kellogg, the marriage license will come up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, Schazjmd explained the document has too much personal information.

No problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I added the edit summary as the minor issue, with the major (and problematic) reason being the personal info. We don't really like primary sources for things like marriage and divorce, but most often that's the only place we can get the info. We just don't want there to be too much info! Primefac (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Me again, I just want to make sure I get this right so I don't slip up on my last few weeks before I can appeal. I was planning on bringing Flag of Montserrat to DYK for St Patrick's Day and the hook I was going to do was something along the lines of ..."that the flag of Montserrat flies over the British Foreign office every 17 March/St Patrick's Day to commemorate the territory's significant day?". I was thinking about changing "Significant day" to "Irish heritage" but I just want to check before I do anything that this would be OK and would not infringe my restrictions? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to check, they fly the flag on St. Patrick's Day because it's St. Patrick's day? In other words, what's the significant day refer to? Primefac (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

They fly it because Montserrat were founded by Irish settlers in the 1600s, that's why St Patrick's Day is their "significant day". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That should be fine then. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)