User talk:Primefac/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Deletion of Workers building the Minnesota State Capitol page

I would like some specifics on what parts of the copy actually violated copyright and was copyright infringement of https://www.whobuiltourcapitol.org/persons/frederick-purdy ? Reviewing the copyright bot's comments it even said a violation was "unlikely" I can only assume that you read the page's Talk page and saw that I both contested the deletion recommendation and also made changes. Especially disturbing is I had originally had the content of "Workers building the Minnesota State Capitol" on the Minnesota State Capitol page only to find it deleted for reasons that were suspiciously both ideological and racist (not copyright). However, because the size of the content had grown, I did move it to its own page away from the Minnesota State Capitol page and thought that would be the end of it. Unfortunately the calling out of this as violating copyright comes across as vandalism motivated by ideology than professionalism. None of the pages I created at the same time were deleted (however, they also did not deal with labor issues or mention African-Americans). Please clarify and provide details for deleting the page or undelete it.
Myotus (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Do I get this right? User:Magnolia677 is editing "suspiciously both ideological and racist", and my indication that your new page was a copyright violation was "vandalism motivated by ideology"? Please check WP:AGF and WP:NPA, assuming such motives in other editors based on such flismy evidence is not really accepted here. Fram (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Funny thing about copyright is occasionally one article will be copied from multiple sources. If that happens, you might not see more than 50-60% "match" for any given website, but when taken in total (which happened here) the article was about 95% copied from various sources. Each individual paragraph had maybe a sentence or two that wasn't copied, but as an aggregate it means that there's not enough material to keep; we refer to such situations as "blow it up and start over". I'm not going to comment on the racism thing because I did nothing other than check to make sure the page was (or wasn't) in violation of copyright, which it most definitely was. The motivations of the nominator are, frankly, irrelevant (and in this case, rather obvious, since it was nominated for copyvio). Primefac (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Did read the talk page before you deleted? It explained everything.

Myotus (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I did, and to be honest I still felt it was a TNT situation. However, I have moved the page to draft, removed all of the non-CC content, and you are welcome to continue editing from there. I do believe (and I think Fram will back me up on this one) that copying directly from a single source isn't enough to merit a full-on article. If you need/want the removed references please let me know. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: My basis for the suspicion also go to a previous edit by User:Magnolia677 on the page as well the interactions by the user in edit wars. But you are right, I should behave more professionally and deal with the issue at hand and assume positive intent going forward on this when discussing. Myotus (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Since this is in a draft page (I appreciate you returning it and moving it to draft form, it is a much better solution) I request that the article in its entirety be returned so it can be worked on. Does Wikipedia delete drafts that they feel violate copyright or do they allow it to be worked on? I do dispute your claim of copyright infringement but will work on it more.

Labor history like the history of women, African-Americans and many minority cultures around the world is often underrepresented academically in articles and in historic news sources leading to only one or two articles on the subject. The labor history on the capitol is newly researched and all the other sources cite the two sources I used. Additionally the labor historian Randy Croce, authored both articles so there is duplicate text used on both sites. While citing multiple sources is preferred that is not a hard and fast rule in Wikipedia. If so, then at minimum it would expose Wikipedia as a source of institutional racism. Myotus (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyrighted content is removed, full stop. If there is non-infringing content, like here, then it can obviously be worked on. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Myotus: You commented that this edit aroused your suspicions because it was "ideological and racist". In that edit, I added the following: "In January 2021, law enforcement, conservation officers, and Minnesota National Guard were deployed to the capitol prior to the Inauguration of Joe Biden." My edit was sourced by Minnesota Public Radio. I also added this photo of National Guardsmen at the capitol, which I found on the Commons. If you see a racist motivation in this edit you need to give your head a shake. If your beef is that I deleted most of what you added about workers killed during the construction of the Minnesota State Capitol, that was because your edits were poorly written and a coatrack to shoehorn in a memorial of names of workers killed during the construction of the capitol. Please note that I have also restored the cited content you removed from the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry

Primefac, I'm sorry that my WikiProject needs so much oversighting. I see that there was another instance of that just yesterday. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth another note somewhere. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of The Charles Close Society for Ordnance Survey Maps page

I now realise that using existing content/text from the Society's website was not suitable for Wikipedia. Please would you return the page to the Draft page status so that I can resume editing? Cantiana (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't allow copyrighted text on Wikipedia, so restoring the draft isn't really an option, unless you want the infobox. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please would you restore the infobox? Cantiana (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac - much appreciated. We live and learn! Cantiana (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cantiana: Can I recommend that instead of writing a new article about the Charles Close Society, you expand our existing article on Ordnance Survey instead? It's a common error for newcomers to think they need to put a subject in a new article, when often there's an existing one that can accommodate them. For example, the Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts (which has quite a few common goals) doesn't have its own article, but is mentioned in road enthusiast#SABRE instead. The CCS is mentioned as a reference in the Ordnance Survey article, as is Charles Close himself (as you might expect), but not the society. I have a couple of news and book sources that can be used as third-party reference material. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Ritchie333. I think there is room for both; i.e. for the OS page to be expanded and scope for a CCS page to stand on its own merit. The CCS is the only learned society in the world dedicated to the output of a single mapping organisation, which is notable in itself. Cantiana (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

Hello! I put a G3 CSD on this as it is misinformation. There is no such company outside of the imagination of the kids who are making these pages; they are not releasing a film every two months in 2021. Nothing in the article is verifiable by a source,because the claims are all false. Does that not meet the G3 criterion "applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation"? (BTW, check out one of their films on Youtube.) Thanks. Possibly (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as a draft there is a small amount of leeway we can give for such things; if there are partial truths, then a review of the draft will find and encourage removal of the falsehoods. Being mostly false isn't a reason to speedy something. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I really disagree with your take on this. This is the product of a kid's imagination. It serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to waste our time. Possibly (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. To be honest, if this were in the article space I would likely delete this, but there have been several discussions recently at WT:CSD that indicate that the current rough consensus is that there's no harm in drafts sitting around until they're deleted due to being stale. As it is, the page is listed at MFD and very likely will be deleted in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There is actually harm: that draft got reviewed! And MFD is a wasteful time sink as well for, well, junk made by some kids. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Possibly (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. I would like to understand why you didn't give me permission to use the Auto Wiki Browser. I am "sick" of WP: EDITCOUNTITS. I would like to increase the number of contributions. I didn't exactly understand why you didn't give me the authorization. Best Regards Dr Salvus (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk page watcher here: I saw your AWB application, and I would have rejected it as well. Two reasons: you gave no indication at all why you would need AWB, which is mainly for simple, repetitive tasks across many articles (a kind of editing you haven't done yet, as far as I know); and your editing in general still has way too many problems, so giing you a tool to make fast editing easier seems a dangerous move. An error made by manual editing is not too bad: an error made with AWB across dozens or hundreds of articles is a lot worse. Fram (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: Ok thanks now I understand. But I would like to know if he refused me also because I have very basic English. Dr Salvus (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

if he refused me also because I have very basic English - no. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Big Data Analytics

You deleted the page big data analytics. How do I access the content of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've restored it to Draft:Big data analytics. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I saved the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Wingfield

Not sure what was with this revert on this. There's an entire section without a single inline cite and very serious WP:OR concerns in that same section. And when did it become a thing to just revert someone's decline instead of talking to the reviewer first? I know I've been off for a few months, has something changed? Sulfurboy (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

First, a single unsourced section shouldn't tank a draft. Second, ilc should rarely (like, very rarely) be used, generally only in situations where it's a big draft, the subject is very likely notable, but there are almost no inline references, which would cause it to run afoul of BLP guidelines in the article space. Third, I've been reverting incorrect declines on drafts for a few years now, but it's generally on new or not-actually-AFCH editors (you're not the first experienced editor I've reverted, but it's been a while).

Another way to think of it - if you removed that one section, what would you think about the draft? Would it be acceptable (or close enough)? If so, remove it and accept. If it would still have issues after removing that section, then decline per that rationale. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Saying "a single unsourced section" diminishes the issues completely. That single section accounts for nearly half the prose of the article and it's basically just some random dudes commentary. Also half of his education lacks cites. 4/5ths of the awards as well. All and all, probably close to 7/8ths of the article. Slash and burning 85%+ of an article just to push it through is a patently absurd suggestion. I'd maybe let it slide if the refs were properly formatted making verification easier, but they're trash as well. We have a broad difference in opinion on what are subjective matters.

More importantly, I think you really need to consider how reverting is just plain bad here. It's just as easy to drop me a note on my page. It's also just as easy for you to be bold and do what you suggested above, remove the problematic areas and publish it yourself. Even easier to just resubmit it for another review. With the revert, I can't think of a single benefit, but can think of three really bad effects:

1) You've removed the commentary and decline reason so now the drafter doesn't even know what is still problematic on the page.

2) It's going to piss off tenured reviewers; we don't need to be babysat.

3) You're going to create a chilling effect. What reviewer (particularly a newer one) is going to want to stick around if you are just going to come behind and play ultimate arbiter? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair points, all of them, and I will keep them in mind for the future. For what it's worth, I didn't leave you a note upon reverting because I felt the edit summary was sufficient; in hindsight that was not a good idea. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:1995 UN Children's Conference on the Environment

Dear Primefac,

You have deleted my above draft page because I copied the content of the draft to one of my own websites because I needed it up somewhere as part of the 25th anniversary celebrations last November, and my draft Wikipedia entry was stuck in the queue for approval.

I will delete my own page as soon as the Wikipedia page goes live, and substitute a link to Wikipedia, but for the moment I need the text live somewhere as we argue for space at COP26.

Please could you therefore restore my draft, and if you can do anything to give it some impetus in the approval queue that would be much appreciated.

Yours,

Ralph Lucas — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordLucasCD (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

​ The page has been written, so there's not much to do there. As far as the website goes, you don't necessarily have to delete it, but if you follow the instructions as WP:DONATETEXT and release your text under the appropriate license then the page can possibly be restored. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for that advice. I have inserted the recommended text. What should I do next? LordLucasCD (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Ralph Lucas

Template:Archive top purple deletion

Should not have been deleted. There wasn't a consensus for deletion. You also didn't give a reason for deletion in your closing remarks. pbp 18:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a consensus for deletion. When the "head count" is 6-2 in favour of deletion, the "keep" !votes need to have a compelling argument against those in support, which they did not have. As always, you are welcome to take this to WP:DRV, but I would be very surprised if you got enough support to overturn the close. When the close is that obvious, no rationale is needed from the closer. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Mistake

Hi, I made perhaps a Mistake with approving the Draft of Tinabeth_Piña, exactly 10 seconds after clicking approving I noticed that the Username is the same like the subject of the article - I do not see any peacocking or lack of NPOV, the Awards are sourced and I immediately tagged the Article for COI but she had not disclosed any COI yet - anything else I could/should do? Sorry.CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing with a COI isn't forbidden, just strongly discouraged, so if the draft is reasonably neutral and reasonably sourced then I'd say you're okay. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

revdel request

This edit names an individual intrusively and would be best removed from the records. Thanks. PamD 11:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Similar

Hi, Primefac,

You deleted this template @ 03:58, 5 January 2020, per here,

• It's been recreated on 12 February 2021, here.
  
• See it here: Template:Similar, a bit garish! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FYI, 220 of ^ßorg 03:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh... looks more like a user testing things out, so I've moved it to their userspace. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi Primefac, please take of this. S0091 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

AfC reviewer removal

Hi there - I'm not quite sure where to request a removal of my AfC reviewer status.. here should do for now. Since I don't really review or intend to review AfC's at all anymore, the title's just sitting there collecting dust. Can I get my AfC reviewer name removed? dibbydib 01:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus_required_on_COVID?. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Can this IP be blocked?

Hello admin, can this IP 23.233.138.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

They have been blocked. Sorry to bother you. Ashleyyoursmile! 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Help me

Sources for the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate on History of Kyrgyzstan

1* http://factsanddetails.com/central-asia/Kyrgyzstan/sub8_5a/entry-4744.html (mentions it on Origins of the Kyrgyz)

2* https://prezi.com/n4x6wpyxdtln/the-leadership-of-yenisei-kyrgyz-in-eurasia/

3* https://dbpedia.org/page/Yenisei_Kyrgyz

4* http://www.ehobbex.com/node/35896 (Bars Bek) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not sure why you're contacting me about this, as I don't think I've ever edited either page. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You’ve asked be to provide sources on the talk page so I did, the article needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, right. You should put those references on the talk pages so that other interested editors will see them and be able to comment on them. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers thanks for the advise I’m Kyrgyz btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WJ Arbcom block

Hi! Walrus Ji has received an indefinite ArbCom block. I understand that this must have been based on information that isn't, and can't be, available on-wiki, but it would be helpful if at least some general indication is given of the sort of infraction that got the user blocked. This could help inform the evaluation of their contributions, when they're encountered in an article's history or in discussions: a block for personal attacks, for example, will not be as relevant as a block for POV-related sockpuppetry. Is there nothing that could be publicly divulged? – Uanfala (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The best way I can say it is that there were both CU and OS issues, so we had to go with an ArbCom block. I will say there was nothing pernicious in their edits specifically, though. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! That's a relief then. I take it that he's not connected, or can't publicly be connected, to any of the established sockmasters? – Uanfala (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Proposed findings"

I have made a statement regarding the "Proposed findings":[1]

I would appreciate a detailed response. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seen, not had time to fully reply yet. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Take your time. After a detailed response to my statement, I would also ask for an explanation about Paradise Chronicle here:[2], why the evidence showing Paradise Chronicle repeatedly removing text sourced to The Washington Post while simultaneously adding citation needed tag and rojname.com and bianet.org as sources and how this combined with the ISIS accusations does not warrant a topic ban for him.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Creating Draft:SH Hotels & Resorts

Hey, this was my first submission that you deleted. Am I able to retry the entry with much less information? as I want to make sure that I am putting information in correctly. I know that there was copyright issues that I am happy to fix. Lesliepelrine (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely! The reason it was deleted is because the information was copied directly from another source, which is not allowed, so if you want to re-write it in your own words, go for it! Primefac (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the fast fixups BLP fixups last night

For the talk-page-stalkers, Primefac was johnny-on-the-spot with a BLP REVDEL request I posted in the IRC channel yesterday. I wanted to brag on him for his extraordinary speed - he revdel'd it and some related edits before I could finish researching the editor to see if there was anything I had missed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It's what they pay me to do. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A thank you message for you to give the strawberries

Thanks for reverting some of my edits, they don't even matter- (I changed them to something else) But eh, thanks again! ∑√≀ 15:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Full picture

Primefac, I saw your comment at the case and that you was considering to ban me from the english wikipedia. I just want you to get the full picture.

Yes, I was involved in an arb case 12 years ago. But what is important to take into consideration here was that it was me vs one disruptive sockpuppeteer and his sockpuppet, it was proven after the case that the first one controlled the other, and they were both indeffed for abusing multiple accounts: [3][4], I explained this here:[5]

I realize this isn't a good excuse for my own behavior at that point of time, but what is also important here is that this was 12 years ago and I had just gotten a Wikipedia account. I did not know the rules here and did not know how things worked. I did not know what "edit warring" was or how you was supposed to behave when contributing.

I went more then 9 years without a single block until Valereee recently blocked me 2 times in 1 month over Syrian Kurdistan. One of them was for discussing a source at a talkpage and the other one for saying that a user was cherry picking sources.

I hope that to you take this into consideration.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Maynard James Keenan's sexual assault allegations

Hi, wondering why this section was deleted today. The allegations are an actual factual event. I'm open to editing it as I'm not well versed in that, but outright deleting it is ignoring a factual and substantial event in the subject's life. Habisy (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Habisy, I think the best response is to quote part of your own edit: These allegations have never been known to be investigated publicly. Anyone can say anything on the internet, but if there's never more than a cursory "hey I found all of these random tweets and Reddit threads, let's write an article" then there are WP:BLP and WP:V issues due to a lack of investigative journalism and editorial oversight. Primefac (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that line is out of context/I didn't do a great job writing it. What I mean is there is no civil/criminal investigation. But plenty of allegations of all sorts especially sexual assault are never formally investigated. If you mean they have never been reported on, then that is false. Major news outlets have reported on these allegations. The Guardian Rolling Stone among others. I worry that ignoring the allegations not only ignores the event, but sets a bad precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habisy (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Habisy, here is my suggestion - discuss the matter on the talk page. Be sure to back your thoughts up with reliable sources as to why you feel this content should be included. I will note that huge blocks of text such as the ones you added are probably not going to be approved anyway, so come at it from the perspective of "should we add this? Here are references that indicate yes..." Primefac (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Automatic appearances at the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships

Hi. Could you add this to me in this Template:Infobox country at games --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to pages such as this one, and if there are going to be more pages like it (currently there are only 3 total) then it can be added to the pre-populated list. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kasper2006, just as an update, I've added the comp to the module, but since the naming scheme is different from the others it'll take me a bit of time to tweak it. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I thank you in advance. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That was actually an easier hack than I thought. Done. Since you seem to be creating these at a rapid clip, at some point let me know when these countries first started competing (i.e. it seems that Austria first appeared in 1933) I can start pre-populating those values so there's not a sea of unnecessary redlinks. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee is nominated for WP:AFD

Hi Primefac, Arbitration Committee is an important essay in regarding to en-wiki, but I found it has been nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbitration Committee. Also, courtesy ping @Barkeep49, CaptainEek, and L235:. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 14:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Well here's something I never expected to type: I have a conflict of interest with that article and so I will not be participating in that discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I can't help but feel that this post comes dangerously close to canvassing. Blablubbs|talk 14:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I think it was an inappropriate post. I only intended to inform them only. Don't take it as an invitation to participate in the discussion. Again sorry for the post. — Amkgp 💬 14:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't going to participate anyway, but given I didn't know the article existed I think it's a reasonable note. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed. I thought the actual ArbCom was being nominated for deletion. Natureium (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Same here, to be honest. It's the backdoor ArbCom dissolution act that no one knew about! Primefac (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Okey-doke

I appreciate your polite response [I guess I was following the directions too literally! :) ] , and also your oversight earlier. What a thing this is.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough. Strange times, these are. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Outstanding SPI cases

Hi Primefac. I sent you an email about these the other day. I haven't requested CheckUser, so I think the behavioural evidence would only take a few minutes to review in total. These are all still active editors.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenock125, who is still editing the same articles as the IPs you blocked several weeks ago from the account RSS578.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbone49, who is still editing using IP addresses in the range 199.7.xxx.xxx. There are now three IPs listed there that they've used recently.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlaccCrab, a blocked editor from Maryland who frequents hip hop and rock music topics. I reverted them last night, to which they responded on my talk page with what appears to be a poorly translated French dick joke. I reported this to ANV but the admin there said it seemed "innocuous"(?)

I reported them to Cabayi, but have not heard back since their block of Greenock125's socks a couple days ago. Thanks if you can take the time to go through these. Ss112 23:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying to your email, I did receive it but didn't want to give a non-reply as a reply. ArbCom business has been taking up a large amount of my time recently and I haven't really had a chance to really deal with SPI or CU issues. Please continue to be patient. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Block request - threats in edit summaries

Hi Primefac, please block Arrow581981. They are making threats of violence in their edit summaries. S0091 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, dealt with. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! S0091 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox former subdivision/Archive 8, your error in reverting

Hi- please undo your revert, because if you look at the histories, Archive #8 actually has none anymore, so why save the page? The history was moved to Archive #2. See: Archive 8 history (none from before), and Archive 8 history has been moved to Archive 2. Thank you, Funandtrvl (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC) fix html link Funandtrvl (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, but in the history of the primary talk page, if the "archived to" link was a redlink there would be issues. Clearly it's not a well-used template and we likely won't be reaching Archive 8 any time soon, so leaving it as a redirect for ease of use when looking at the page history is not an issue. Primefac (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now I see that, thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts about this

Hey! hope this text finds you well. Been a long time! So I was pinged by a user who created this draft and requested updating it to the main article. She can't do it by herself as she works for the company and disclosed her COIN. The content in the draft is sourced. But when I compare each reference with WP:NCORP, I can't be 100% sure if it passes everything. Had this draft been in AfC, I would have accepted it as I still think it has fair chances of survival in AfD. I am just not sure what to do, so decided to seek your opinion. Dial911 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the best advice I can think of is to follow the instructions at WP:COIRESPONSE and subsequent sections - if you find the content to be reasonably-worded and sourced, then you can copy the content to the article leaving appropriate attribution in the edit summary. Might be worth adding the appropriate COI template to the talk page as well. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Dial911 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your removal

I received a message here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan_closed

that said: "Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed"

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that could potentially be confusing. Those notices are left (at least initially) by a bot, which cross-posts to all parties, interested editors, and certain noticeboards. It probably shouldn't be linking to the discussion, or implying that you should be joining in said discussion. This is another reason why I consider it to be a non-actionable set of edits; all I can do is apologise for the confusion and promise that I will bring it up to the Committee for review of process. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Supreme Deliciousness, I hope you're well and sorry for the delay. Primefac pinged me about this the other day and the thing is there are many things that a person could say even if under a topic ban. For example, "I strongly disagree with the decision but respect the committee for making it" or "the disproportionate remedies enacted in this case show why the Arbitration Committee should be abolished". It's not our job to "censor" people by physically removing the discussion link; rather, like with how a topic ban is otherwise enforced, the responsibility for ensuring that you stay within the limits is principally yours. Now, I understand the limits of topic bans can be murky, but topic banned editors who find themselves discussing the merits of a dispute in the area of conflict are generally exceeding the limits of the ban. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

SPI input

Leaving a message here because SPI is backlogged. Given your familiarity with the the suspected master, I request you to take a look into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walrus Ji. Azuredivay (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Appeal request

Hello Primefac. I am coming to you today to ask if I can appeal for my DYK restrictions to be removed under WP:SO. I have waited the 6 months required and upon reflection, I do see how my attitude and style that led to the ban could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing. I have in that time been more involved in collaboration, the main one being for FC Santa Claus. I have also been less reckless as I have in the past by ensuring I asked you for consent any time I was thinking of doing something that might be close to violating my restrictions. I do regret the situation on Irish politics that caused me to be put under a ban and I feel that with the restrictions lifted, I would be able to be a more productive community member.

I am aware that people may be upset with me for the past actions, but I would like a chance to put it right and show I can make DYKs in the affected areas without causing disruption. If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say you have a good reason to appeal your ban for the reasons you mention. I have no particular opinion on whether you should ask for everything to be dropped or just a few of the pieces, but at the very least if you do ask for everything to be dropped allow for the option of just specific pieces (so that it is not viewed as an "all or nothing" request). Primefac (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

thank you so much for your response, if laof2017 is not administrator for the english wiki,why can he delete my editions? The german administrators tell me to write to the english ones.. What can I do..?

--Angelos-Philip M. (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Angelos-Philip M., anyone can make changes to Wikipedia (that's kind of the whole point). You made an edit which laof2017 did not agree with and reverted you. The best thing to do going forward is to discuss the issue at Talk:Anxhela Peristeri and see if you can come to some sort of consensus about how to change and update the article - this is called the BRD cycle of editing and is how issues and controversies get resolved. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

starting at 3 cuz...

it was a mistake. :( Thanks for catching it. – robertsky (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, not the first time I've seen it (heck, I've done it myself before). And apologies if I came across as rude in the edit summary, I should have been thinking "mistake" and not "intentional". Primefac (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

there is this to semi automate the insertion, but not available for visual editor I think? can't seem to get it to load. Was looking at VE documentation earlier to see how to extend it to VE, but I ran out of time. – robertsky (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Always meant to look into that script, but I set up archiving on pages so infrequently I find it easier to just copy from my own user talk... Primefac (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Your U2 deletions

Just to inform you, the users did exist, but they were globally locked and hidden from logs. Steve M (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, but if that's the case then I'm not sure we're really missing out. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

AWB custom module

Sorry for asking again. One month ago, i requested for AWB script. I actually don't need for full or working script/custom module. I just need to know which Template:Infobox television channel parameter replaced what. Do you still have that script/custom module available? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, sorry.

Full code

public static bool skipRemove = false; public static bool skipRename = false; public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip) { Skip = false; skipRemove = false; skipRename = false; Summary = ""; string templateName = ""; templateName = "..."; // Avoid template redirects ArticleText = commonName(ArticleText, templateName); // Remove parameters if necessary ArticleText = Tools.NestedTemplateRegex(templateName).Replace(ArticleText, m => paramKiller(m.Value)); // Replace parameters if necessary ArticleText = Tools.NestedTemplateRegex(templateName).Replace(ArticleText, m => paramReplace(m.Value)); return ArticleText; } // Avoid template redirects public static string commonName(string ArticleText, string templateName) { // Switch the template name to the default List<string> otherNames = new List<string>(); string[] array1 = new string[]{"__other template names___"}; otherNames.AddRange(array1); foreach(string callName in otherNames) { ArticleText = WikiFunctions.Tools.RenameTemplate(ArticleText, callName, templateName); } return ArticleText; } // Remove any relevant parameters public static string paramKiller(string templateCall) { string tempTC = templateCall; // Set up parameters to remove List<string> paramsToKill = new List<string>(); string[] array2 = new string[]{"__parameters to kill___"}; paramsToKill.AddRange(array2); foreach(string param in paramsToKill) { templateCall = WikiFunctions.Tools.RemoveTemplateParameter(templateCall, param, false); } // If no parameters were removed, set this skip parameter to "true" (avoid genfixes etc) if(tempTC == templateCall) { skipRemove = true; } return templateCall; } // Rename any relevant parameters public static string paramReplace(string templateCall) { string tempTC = templateCall; List<string> paramsToReplace = new List<string>(); List<string> paramReplacements = new List<string>(); string[] array3 = new string[]{"__params to replace___"}; paramsToReplace.AddRange(array3); string[] array4 = new string[]{"__replacement params__"}; paramReplacements.AddRange(array4); for(int x=0; x<paramsToReplace.Count ; x++) { templateCall = WikiFunctions.Tools.RenameTemplateParameter(templateCall, paramsToReplace[x], paramReplacements[x]); } if(tempTC == templateCall) { skipRename = true; } return templateCall; }

Left some of the generic stuff in there, but anything with __text__ gets replaced with whatever you need to.

So for ib tv channel, the "remove" of array2 is

array2

string[] array2 = new string[]{"share", "share as of", "share source", "cable serv 11", "cable serv 12", "cable serv 13", "cable serv 14", "cable serv 15", "cable serv 16", "cable serv 17", "cable serv 18", "cable serv 19", "cable serv 20", "iptv serv 10", "iptv serv 11", "iptv serv 12", "iptv serv 13", "iptv serv 14", "iptv serv 15", "iptv serv 16", "iptv serv 17", "iptv serv 18", "iptv serv 19", "iptv serv 20", "iptv serv 9", "online serv 10", "online serv 11", "online serv 12", "online serv 13", "online serv 14", "online serv 15", "online serv 16", "online serv 17", "online serv 18", "online serv 19", "online serv 20", "online serv 6", "online serv 7", "online serv 8", "online serv 9", "sat radio serv 10", "sat radio serv 11", "sat radio serv 12", "sat radio serv 13", "sat radio serv 14", "sat radio serv 15", "sat radio serv 16", "sat radio serv 17", "sat radio serv 18", "sat radio serv 19", "sat radio serv 20", "sat radio serv 3", "sat radio serv 4", "sat radio serv 5", "sat radio serv 6", "sat radio serv 7", "sat radio serv 8", "sat radio serv 9", "sat serv 11", "sat serv 12", "sat serv 13", "sat serv 14", "sat serv 15", "sat serv 16", "sat serv 17", "sat serv 18", "sat serv 19", "sat serv 20", "sat serv 21", "sat serv 22", "sat serv 23", "sat serv 24", "sat serv 25", "sat serv 26", "sat serv 27", "sat serv 28", "sat serv 29", "sat serv 30", "terr serv 11", "terr serv 12", "terr serv 13", "terr serv 14", "terr serv 15", "terr serv 16", "terr serv 17", "terr serv 18", "terr serv 19", "terr serv 20", "cable chan 11", "cable chan 12", "cable chan 13", "cable chan 14", "cable chan 15", "cable chan 16", "cable chan 17", "cable chan 18", "cable chan 19", "cable chan 20", "iptv chan 10", "iptv chan 11", "iptv chan 12", "iptv chan 13", "iptv chan 14", "iptv chan 15", "iptv chan 16", "iptv chan 17", "iptv chan 18", "iptv chan 19", "iptv chan 20", "iptv chan 9", "online chan 10", "online chan 11", "online chan 12", "online chan 13", "online chan 14", "online chan 15", "online chan 16", "online chan 17", "online chan 18", "online chan 19", "online chan 20", "online chan 6", "online chan 7", "online chan 8", "online chan 9", "sat radio chan 10", "sat radio chan 11", "sat radio chan 12", "sat radio chan 13", "sat radio chan 14", "sat radio chan 15", "sat radio chan 16", "sat radio chan 17", "sat radio chan 18", "sat radio chan 19", "sat radio chan 20", "sat radio chan 3", "sat radio chan 4", "sat radio chan 5", "sat radio chan 6", "sat radio chan 7", "sat radio chan 8", "sat radio chan 9", "sat chan 11", "sat chan 12", "sat chan 13", "sat chan 14", "sat chan 15", "sat chan 16", "sat chan 17", "sat chan 18", "sat chan 19", "sat chan 20", "sat chan 21", "sat chan 22", "sat chan 23", "sat chan 24", "sat chan 25", "sat chan 26", "sat chan 27", "sat chan 28", "sat chan 29", "sat chan 30", "terr chan 11", "terr chan 12", "terr chan 13", "terr chan 14", "terr chan 15", "terr chan 16", "terr chan 17", "terr chan 18", "terr chan 19", "terr chan 20"};

Array 3 and 4 (find/replace, respectively) were:

array3 and array4

string[] array3 = new string[]{"logofile", "logosize", "logoalt", "logocaption", "logo2", "broadcast area", "picture format", "timeshift names", "key people", "sister names", "launch", "launched", "replaced names", "closed date", "replaced by names", "former names", "availability note", "cable serv 1", "cable serv 2", "cable serv 3", "cable serv 4", "cable serv 5", "cable serv 6", "cable serv 7", "cable serv 8", "cable serv 9", "cable serv 10", "iptv serv 1", "iptv serv 2", "iptv serv 3", "iptv serv 4", "iptv serv 5", "iptv serv 6", "iptv serv 7", "iptv serv 8", "online serv 1", "online serv 2", "online serv 3", "online serv 4", "online serv 5", "sat radio serv 1", "sat radio serv 2", "sat serv 1", "sat serv 2", "sat serv 3", "sat serv 4", "sat serv 5", "sat serv 6", "sat serv 7", "sat serv 8", "sat serv 9", "sat serv 10", "terr serv 1", "terr serv 2", "terr serv 3", "terr serv 4", "terr serv 5", "terr serv 6", "terr serv 7", "terr serv 8", "terr serv 9", "terr serv 10", "cable chan 1", "cable chan 2", "cable chan 3", "cable chan 4", "cable chan 5", "cable chan 6", "cable chan 7", "cable chan 8", "cable chan 9", "cable chan 10", "iptv chan 1", "iptv chan 2", "iptv chan 3", "iptv chan 4", "iptv chan 5", "iptv chan 6", "iptv chan 7", "iptv chan 8", "online chan 1", "online chan 2", "online chan 3", "online chan 4", "online chan 5", "sat radio chan 1", "sat radio chan 2", "sat chan 1", "sat chan 2", "sat chan 3", "sat chan 4", "sat chan 5", "sat chan 6", "sat chan 7", "sat chan 8", "sat chan 9", "sat chan 10", "terr chan 1", "terr chan 2", "terr chan 3", "terr chan 4", "terr chan 5", "terr chan 6", "terr chan 7", "terr chan 8", "terr chan 9", "terr chan 10"}; paramsToReplace.AddRange(array3); string[] array4 = new string[]{"logo", "logo_size", "logo_alt", "logo_caption", "image", "area", "picture_format", "timeshift_service", "key_people", "sister_channels", "launch_date", "launch_date", "replaced", "closed_date", "replaced_by", "former_names", "availability_note", "cable_serv_1", "cable_serv_2", "cable_serv_3", "cable_serv_4", "cable_serv_5", "cable_serv_6", "cable_serv_7", "cable_serv_8", "cable_serv_9", "cable_serv_10", "iptv_serv_1", "iptv_serv_2", "iptv_serv_3", "iptv_serv_4", "iptv_serv_5", "iptv_serv_6", "iptv_serv_7", "iptv_serv_8", "online_serv_1", "online_serv_2", "online_serv_3", "online_serv_4", "online_serv_5", "satradio_serv_1", "satradio_serv_2", "sat_serv_1", "sat_serv_2", "sat_serv_3", "sat_serv_4", "sat_serv_5", "sat_serv_6", "sat_serv_7", "sat_serv_8", "sat_serv_9", "sat_serv_10", "terr_serv_1", "terr_serv_2", "terr_serv_3", "terr_serv_4", "terr_serv_5", "terr_serv_6", "terr_serv_7", "terr_serv_8", "terr_serv_9", "terr_serv_10", "cable_chan_1", "cable_chan_2", "cable_chan_3", "cable_chan_4", "cable_chan_5", "cable_chan_6", "cable_chan_7", "cable_chan_8", "cable_chan_9", "cable_chan_10", "iptv_chan_1", "iptv_chan_2", "iptv_chan_3", "iptv_chan_4", "iptv_chan_5", "iptv_chan_6", "iptv_chan_7", "iptv_chan_8", "online_chan_1", "online_chan_2", "online_chan_3", "online_chan_4", "online_chan_5", "sat_radio_chan_1", "sat_radio_chan_2", "sat_chan_1", "sat_chan_2", "sat_chan_3", "sat_chan_4", "sat_chan_5", "sat_chan_6", "sat_chan_7", "sat_chan_8", "sat_chan_9", "sat_chan_10", "terr_chan_1", "terr_chan_2", "terr_chan_3", "terr_chan_4", "terr_chan_5", "terr_chan_6", "terr_chan_7", "terr_chan_8", "terr_chan_9", "terr_chan_10"};

Hope this helps. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all the help, support and guidance you provided here — Amkgp 💬 04:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, always willing to give advice and assistance. Primefac (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my PDCS page!

Hi Primefac,

Thanks for reviewing my PDCS page. It's my first Wikipedia page so I really appreciate your feedback on how to make it better. I've now either reference all of the content or taken out content where public information on those details are not available.

I hope that it's now appropriate to go live.

Thanks again, Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktaylor987 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The lack of sources was my primary concern when I declined it back in January, but if you've added more then hopefully that should be enough to get it accepted. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

AfC Reviews

Hi, please have a closer look on the AfC Reviews from Jennyire2, for example this one [6] claiming that she needs at least one source although several were present. I came in the last 2 weeks about several ones like this from her, she also was reminded several times not to take Articles to AfD without WP:BEFORE (happened a couple of times, see her talk page [7]). AFC Perm on trial ?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm doing some AFCP reviews tomorrow, so I'll add them to my list of folks to check. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you may also want notice this one Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariah200. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Similar username

Thanks for letting me know. They have concatenated the elements and each has a slightly different spelling. I'm okay with it, I think it's unlikely to lead to confusion. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

what–?

You removed something on my userpage and revdel'd every previous version with the note "trim"? What happened? What did you remove? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh! My apologies. I was in the process of alerting you with this note but apparently never saved it to your page. I removed a bit of information that really isn't a good idea to add, even though it may seem "fun". Primefac (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it! thanks so much :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TWICE?!?!

I can't believe I screwed that up. I misread the header. My mistake. Thank you. Buffs (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Heh, no worries, it's a bit different setup than usual so I can understand the confusion. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

That was very nicely handled. Great example of going the extra mile. Risker (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes a second set of eyes makes the next step a lot smaller. Cheers! Primefac (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Question - Redirects

Why Are Song Pages Getting Redirected To The Album The Song Is From? Hello 50 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Songs that are not notable generally get redirected to the related album, as it is something that people might search for. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah

Please explain why what is at present what we have about "one of the pillars of Wikipedia" is hidden in the history. If the link is a problem, can we have the thread without link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If you really feel strongly about continuing that discussion, you are welcome to revert my removal. However, without that link, there is no evidence or other indication that Yoninah is dead, and to me it feels inappropriate to discuss the death of an editor that might not actually be deceased (though I will admit I find that a very small possibility in this instance). Primefac (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to wheel war on you, but I disagree with your action. The last day of Yoninah's editing coincides with this one's death date. (Redacted) Also, there might be cause here for someone like yourself to protect Yoninah's account so no one else can edit under their name. If we jumped the gun on her death, Yoninah can surely prove who they are to the bureaucracy. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66: we C-ban people for fishing editors' RL identities: we certainly do not defend doing so just because the editor is not currently editing, and we rely on either reliable sources, as in obits, or information from close relatives, often via OTRS. We certainly do not begin making identification of the dead OK, if they did not do so in life, assuming anything like that has happened. ——Serial 14:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Serial, please see just below. She wasn't in a position that will generate an obit. Love and sadness flow now, and suppressing them makes them stronger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Your behavior, Gerda Arendt is disgraceful, as is that of Maile66. Not only do you perhaps betray the memory of one of our editors, you support an administrator who should understand OUTING but publicizes RL identities. ——Serial 14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't betray the memory of Yoninah, and have no words for you saying so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't feel strongly about continuing. I feel strongly about informing the community. I received support privately that she is the one. (It's in Hebrew, which I can't read, and if I gave you the link, you might suppress that as well.) She wasn't in a position that will generate some official obituary. We better mourn now. - In the - sadly unlikely - case that some day she appears, we can "suppress". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I could be off-base here. Let me get a 2O from another OSer and I'll get back to you both. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know "off-base". - Edit conflict, what I wanted to add is: Just in case you don't know: she was missed, look for her name, Crisis on DYK because of her absence. I think saying that she was one the most beloved editors of Wikipedia isn't saying too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just as an update, for any interested, I have conferred with some of the OS team and we are generally in agreement that there is enough private information from various editors to verify her passing, but that the link to the specific announcement of her real-world identity should remain suppressed for continuing privacy reasons. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the update, I still am unsure as to how I should have approached the situation after finding out about Yoninah's passing since so many editors were concerned about her well-being, but I will be absolutely certain to refrain from disseminating private information in the future. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 18:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Everything except the link was fine, the main issue was that there was no on-wiki disclosure connecting her to the individual in the provided link so there were still privacy concerns. It's definitely not an easy issue to deal with, but if you've ever got questions about this sort of thing in the future (hopefully not though!) feel free to drop me a note here or over email (and that goes for anyone reading this). Primefac (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clearing that up for me and for taking the time to verify her passing. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
      • How about some instruction regarding this on top of Talk:Deceased Wikipedians which I think is the proper place to post. I was twice in the sad situation to know privately about a subject's death before Wikipedias (German and English) and obituaries. Once, I mentioned my source (without any link), in the other case I waited. Who will now post what on Deceased Wikipedians? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Asking more precisely: will you post something, Primefac, now that you looked into it and probably are best informed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's a good idea. I'll see about tweaking the headers. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Drafting an RfC about TfM

Hey, I'd like to notify you that I'm considering opening an RfC about preventing "merge" closures at TfM without a merged version available. As you're pretty active at TfM, and at ACN's suggestion, I feel like you might be interested in the proposal. It's currently at User:Elli/tfmrfc - feel free to edit or comment your thoughts, I'm not particularly attached to the current state but I'm interested in solving these general issues at TfM. Thanks! Elli (talk | contribs) 04:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, I would be interested in watching how such a proposal played out. Based on my experience at TFD, that is definitely one of the major points of pointless contention in merge discussions, but precedent has all but thrown that argument out the window (and a backlog at the Holding Cell is nothing new, though I do admit I haven't had time to dedicate to clearing it lately).

Your proposal is interesting, though I wonder if in its current state it really does anything - the way I'm reading it, a merge-without-sandbox gets closed as "merge" but since it doesn't have a sandbox version it's actually... not merged? It sounds like too much hoop-jumping to me. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tough thing to get right. I considered proposing requiring a merge implementation to nominate in the first place - but the issue there is that it would be a large waste of time to write the merged code of complex templates only for the nomination to fail. So, this kinda felt like a middle ground - if you'd like to merge some complex templates, nominate it, get a consensus, ideally merge it within the timeframe, or if not, write the merged code and then re-nominate (should be easy since you got consensus originally). Perhaps allow skipping this step say, within a year of closure? Just don't allow "this should be merged" to linger forever. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth there are only a half-dozen templates listed at TFDH that are >6 months old, which is actually not too bad (considering that when I started in 2015 there were years-old discussions pending), but I know I'm mostly just making excuses.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, though; most of the folks that nominate templates cannot code up a working example, and doing all that work just to have something shut down seems rather pointless. On the other hand, I do agree that there should be more of a push for "you wanted it merged, so do the heavy lifting", as I feel like sometimes the TFDH crew are spending more time trying to figure out why a template was nominated for merging than actually merging them.

I guess it really just comes down to what you want this proposal to do. If it's forcing editors to come up with a working prototype of the merged templates before the TFD ends, you might get support but I suspect the number of merge requests will drop to zero. If it's trying to add in a semi-backdoor-pseudo-DRV that can throw out the consensus of a merge discussion simply because there's no working example, it will likely have majority opposition (purely from the "we must respect consensus" crowd). If you try to be too wishy-washy about "must" vs "should" vs "there's consensus but no sandbox so..." then there will probably be majority opposition. I think before you go live with the RFC, maybe contact a few more of the TFD "regulars" and/or start an informal thread at one of the Village Pumps about spitballing ideas, at least so you have a better idea of where the problems lie. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't like this. For two main reasons. The first: I believe this is putting the cart before the horse. I don't like to waste time writing sandbox versions of a merged template if the community doesn't want to merge in the first place. One example was Infobox GB station which failed merge multiple times before for ideological reasons, rather than technical. Second, some people have good merge ideas but can't/don't want to write the template code themselves. So it sits around in holding, which is not a bad thing. Nobody is hurt by a template sitting around in holding. It's pretty much a WP:PHAB for templates - consensus exists, but no implementation yet. Same thing applies for other areas on Wikipedia. Software change? Get RfC consensus then file a WP:PHAB. Edit filter for sources? Get consensus at WP:RSN then file a request at WP:EFR. etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh and third, sometimes merges have small details which editors disagree on. TfD is not a good venue to sort these out. Usually I close such discussions as merge and say figure out the nitpicks in holding or template talk. This proposal would, presumably, require a finished product before the discussion can be closed as merge, which doesn't work for a lot of templates. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the current proposal either. The work to merge two templates can be massive and committing many hours of work without any guarantee that it will be used would not be something I would do. I have to admit though that it isn't that rare to have mergers were I wished I would have opposed it because of things that come up during the implementation process which would be a problem of the past. It also wouldn't solve many of our oldest items in the backlog, {{Aircraft specs}}, {{fb cl}} and {{Old move}} immediately coming to mind as places where the actual template merging isn't the problem but replacing all the uses. Others still like {{Football squad player}} would probably never come to fruition either if we couldn't make the decision this proposal has consensus, but there is no consensus on the exact implementation. All in all I think the status quo is manageable but perhaps some procedure to relist discussion based on issues discovered while implementing a merger would be beneficial. Sorry for the rambling. --Trialpears (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

On that last point, I have relisted/re-opened discussions months after the fact when it turns out implementation is impossible or not what the participants meant. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

case in point probably -- 2 years sitting in holding. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, looking at that one right now promted by this discussion. I've implemented the template version without a module like most other user link templates, but I have no idea what to do with the protection banner. All seem to be through {{Pp-usertalk}} which I don't really understand the usage of since partial blocks and blocking people from their own talkpage exist. --Trialpears (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox artist

Hi there! Could you please consider firing up PrimeBOT to remove the unsupported parameters |residence= and |home_town= from {{Infobox artist}}? I hope it would greatly reduce the number of articles in Category:Pages using infobox artist with unknown parameters. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Um... those parameters seem to make up a tiny fraction of that category. It looks like most of the issue lies with |bgcolor=, |imagesize=, and |influenced=. I mean, I'm happy to do a run, but I'd rather remove the major issues as well. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful - I agree with removing the major issues too! Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

My problems with Starzoner

I apologize if my behavior seems to be disruptive in your eyes but that was not my intention, it only seemed unfair what the user Starzoner did and that is why I denounced it three times. Now that it has come to light that this is a previously blocked user, you may consider that my claims made sense after all. I promise to stop going to multiple administrators from now on. Greetings. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said somewhere else, I totally get it - there was a case a few years ago where an editor was doing something pretty similar to Starzoner, only with music-related articles (and some slightly-more problematic behaviours). The editor on the "receiving" end of the page moves and "takeovers" was similarly frustrated. I didn't mean to belittle your concerns by any means, but even with a valid claim such as this one when you cry to too many people they start to ignore you. It's one of those unfortunate things of being anonymous on the internet, as it's not always obvious who has good intentions and who is just trying to raise a fuss (clearly, you fall into the first camp). Primefac (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

User rights question

I asked for AFC rights and on March 1, you kindly said yes.[8] Can you please also add AfC to my User Rights, assuming that's appropriate? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that there is no AFC userright, and you were added to the AFCH list, there's nothing more for me to do. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I guess I will take the "This article has been an Articles for Creation reviewer for 0 days" userbox off my user page. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Does that mean you no longer wish to be a member of the project? Primefac (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

AfC member

Hello Primefac, I'm unable to use AFC helper script because I have been renamed. Will you please update the list. Thank you! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 12:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 13:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A prime thank you! #189733

	Primeception
	Thank you for your generous assistance and resources with Template transclusions! Shushugah (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Always happy to help :-) Primefac (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Help!!! Hazhar Saleh

Thanks for deleting the speedy delete tag and verifying the article.

Also, could you please remove the other tag that is related to several topics? The article has very authoritative sources that all refer to the same topic.

Article: Hazhar Saleh Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article other than to merge the histories, and I don't really have the time to dig into it and verify whether the tags are appropriate. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Please sir🙏 A lot of effort has been put into writing the article Please check and then remove the tag. This motivates me a lot, thanks Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot make any guarantees about when or if I will be able to look at this article. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

help for Hazhar Saleh article

Thanks for deleting the speedy delete tag and verifying the article.

Also, could you please remove the other tag that is related to several topics? The article has very authoritative sources that all refer to the same topic.

Best, Thank You. Brave.soul92 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Brave.soul92, what is your relationship to User:Aliasghar ghorbandokht? Primefac (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We are friends, and we've written this article together. Black Cats band and their singer Hazhar Saleh are very famous in Los Angeles. We thought it's a good idea to make a wiki page for both of them. Brave.soul92 (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks🙏🌹 Take a look whenever you can In his spare time🌹😃 These are the experienced users who give us young writers hope and motivation

Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

COI templates TfD close

I know I'm not the most neutral regarding these, but I was flabbergasted to see this discussion closed, while still attracting new comments, as a straight "keep" without reference to or analysis any of the arguments made for or against deletion. I could see the case for delete or no consensus based on the strength of the arguments but other than by vote count a keep outcome seems very much counter to what I'm reading (a large number of keep votes are essentially "I like these" or "they're useful" with no engagement with any of reasons why others disagree with them or how existing alternatives do the same (or better) jobs without the identified disadvantages.) Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I was chatting about this with someone on IRC and mentioned a few talking points that I didn't bring up at the close itself. I will expand my close in a bit. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm

Seems I missed the bit where you and the good Captain are members of ArbCom now. Just letting you know that I wasn't talking about you in front of you as some kindof rhetorical device. GMG^talk 02:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't taking anything negative from it. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For making the decision that you felt was just rather than what others wanted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Re: [9]. See block appeals at [10] and [11]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems reasonable, so I've un-hatted. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Justice R Subbiah Page deleted. A Request, Please

It is absolutely correct to remove the Copy Right Violations. I Agree. It is the Policy of Wikipedia. My request is not to defend the Copy Right Violation. I request your suggestion to remove the portion which is a Copy Right Violation, instead of deleting the entire page. Please, consider my request and suggest me! Thank You. --A.R.V. Ravi (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

90% of the page was a copyright violation, and in such cases the pages are deleted. What little would have remained can just as easily be written from scratch. If necessary I can provide the references and the code that was present in the infobox for you to simplify the recreation. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I respect the immediate response from you. Yes. Please provide the references and the code that was present in the infobox for me to simplify the recreation. --A.R.V. Ravi (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide the references a nd code. Thank You ! --A.R.V. Ravi (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I will get to this tomorrow; it was a busier day today than I expected. Thank you for your patience. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I have moved the page to Draft:Ratnavel Subbiah for further work. Please note that you should not be adding entire case files to an article about a single individual. The article should be about Subbiah himself; cases he worked might be important, but you should not include everything about them. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

👍

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For diligent work behind the scenes to keep Wikipedia clean Fiddle Faddle 22:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm standing back from this one

Please have a look at this archived topic. I have a strong WP:NOTHERE feeling. Time for other eyes than mine, I think Fiddle Faddle 23:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Meh... when someone beats their head against a rock long enough, they either learn not to do it further or it breaks them. Who knows, maybe they'll learn something from all of this. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have my doubts on their learning, but they may surprise us. I do know I have done all I can within the bounds of tiredness. I suspect I may be the one beating my head on this rock! Oh the irony! Fiddle Faddle 23:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Russell Craig: Australian Artist Deleted Page

Hi, I would like to recreate the deleted Russell Craig page with new and updated content that does not breach the rules. How do I start a page for that content? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdcmvp (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to create a new page, that is totally fine. The page was originally deleted because it was copied directly from an existing website in violation of their copyright. If you decide to recreate the page, feel free to do so, but make sure that everything you write is written in your own words and not copied from elsewhere. There is more information about copyright on your user talk. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ratnavel Subbiah Additional Contents added

Added contents in Draft:Ratnavel Subbiah. Please visit and and move the Draft to Main Page. --A.R.V. Ravi (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Copy Right Violations removed. Again the Headings with new Contents added. I Request to Move the Draft:Ratnavel Subbiah to main Page as Justice R Subbiah. --A.R.V. Ravi (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You might have removed the copyright, but the entirety of the "important court orders" is unreferenced; this content will likely be removed if it is moved back to the article space. That being said, I highly encourage you to add more references and submit the page for review via the Articles for Creation process (you can do this by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft). Primefac (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Oversighter's Barnstar
	citation removed GeneralNotability (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact there really is an oversighter barnstar is hilarious to me. I'll admit by being confounded by the use case. Almost as much as I am by the bureaucrat barnstar. Vaticidalprophet 04:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, there isn't - this is homemade. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

SubjectiveNotability I am kind of sad you didn't go with "you cannot view this barnstar as it has been suppressed" Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Indeed there is. Vaticidalprophet 19:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I kinda like this one better :-p Primefac (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't blame you. Maybe we could make it the alt version? Vaticidalprophet 20:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hah! That's great. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Help Hazhar Saleh

Hi please help me!! Please remove tag in Hazhar Saleh article

Fake tag I believe ok article Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's a deletion notice, so if you really do feel that the article is worth keeping, you should comment at the deletion discussion as to why you feel the article should be kept. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, Hazhar Saleh is a Persian singer, and unfortunately, there is no copyright law in Iran. That’s why the most reliable source on the Persian music market is Radio Javan. Please do research, and you’ll see it’s true.

Hazhar Saleh article Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I now need your help! Because fake tag for delete article and admin Trying to delete the article incorrectly.

Because the article has credible sources Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with copyright. You've said your piece on the deletion discussion, now please be patient and let the conversation continue. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Summer Olympic flags

Hello! Is it possible to add the correct flags for the 1948 Summer Olympics for Bulgaria and South Korea. Bulgaria used the flag from 1948 which they changed to three days prior to the games. South Korea used the 1945 flag in both the Olympic Games of that year until they changed the flag in October of that year. Spain used the Olympic Committee flag during the 1980 Summer Olympics. South Korea used the 1949 flag in the 1984 Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics. Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'll look into this tomorrow. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Or... today? Busy week... Primefac (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Questions asked on the template talk. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Devil May Care (TV series)

I understand the character guide in this TV show's page was cut and pasted from an article on Screenrant.com. Please put the page back and I will delete the copyrighted material and replace it. Is there a reason why the whole page was deleted and not just the problematic material? Please let me know so I may address. Douggold (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The only thing in the article that wasn't a copyright violation was the opening paragraph, and in those instances we delete the article. I do note there are a fair number of references and formatted material (e.g. the infobox) so if you would prefer not to start entirely from scratch I can restore a redacted version to the draft space for continued work. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would indeed appreciate a restored redacted version. If you could restore the episode guide chart as well that would be helpful, as the info in that chart is public. Please let me know how I can access the draft version to work on, I'm still figuring this all out. Appreciate the help. Douggold (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Restored to Draft:Devil May Care (TV series). I will note that while the information in the episode table might be freely available, the episode summaries are not (and should be written in your own words). Primefac (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the episode descriptions were the network's official info. Are those allowed to be used? Douggold (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If they wrote them, then I would bet good money it's under their copyright. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I finished the re-write of the Devil May Care (TV Series) page -- please let me know if it's satisfactory. I did use the episode descriptions the network released with the episode titles, I do believe they are intended for public use as they are copies to many other websites, and other TV shows' fan and news sites all use similar information in a free way. Douggold (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot that this was here. I was mainly concerned with the copyvios, though I see that your draft has been accepted so good job on the rewrite. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is my merge request invalid?

Hello. I'm curious why my merge request for Draft:The Problem with Jon Stewart is invalid? I'd just like attribution for the article creation, since my page was created first. Rmaloney3 (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because you want attribution for "first" does not mean that you will necessarily get it. History merges are for when a page is copy/pasted instead of being moved (as it should) in order to preserve edit and attribution histories. If two editors create articles at two separate locations about the same topic but writing different content, there is no longer a situation where a history merge is appropriate or necessary.

There are other ways to "take credit" for the content of a page, such as being a significant contributor (many of these statistics are logged in the "Page statistics" at xtools). Primefac (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would have created the article in the main article space, but my understanding was the film and television articles don't belong there until filming is confirmed to have begun. Is my understanding wrong? Rmaloney3 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, and there is a reasonable chance that if the article were nominated for deletion it would go through, making you the creator of the draft that will eventually become the article. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, though. It is more about policy for me than attribution. Maybe I approached the request incorrectly. There are many articles that I didn't create, but am happily a significant contributor of. Still learning the ropes here, and I appreciate the guidance. Rmaloney3 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio at talk page

Would you be willing to suppress text at the Talk:Johnson_&_Johnson#Cilag? I deleted the text at diff=1016706782, so that version and the previous 2 versions need to be suppressed. I will be notifying the user. Thanks for the work you do. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Suppress, no, but I'll revdel. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have to do my homework to be able to differentiate the remedies available for copyvio. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's just the difference between whether admins can see the content or not. Oversight is when they cannot, but copyright violations are under WP:RD1 which is revdel. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

copyvio q

I feel like there's an essay/policy/guideline around somewhere about use of quotes/text from sources being used in draft space to prepare a draft for sources you'd like to use. Example, say I want to write an article on John Smith (adventurer) so I create user:Praxidicae/JSA and it's a collection of sources with copied paragraphs from ABC, NYT, etc....allowed or not? Or am I crazy in remembering some sort of essay/section in the copyvio policy? TAXIDICAE💰 15:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Longquotes are discouraged, but if they are clearly quotes and clearly sourced then there isn't as much of an issue if it's a draft. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not so much long quotes as sections taken from sources to add in the future (I'm guessing paraphrased.) See here. someone else asked on IRC and I consider you an expert in this matter TAXIDICAE💰 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this does slip over the line of "brief quotations from copyrighted text" (WP:C-P#TALK), if only due to the sheer scale and number of infractions. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the overquotes and excerpts on the page under our policy on use of non-free content. When determining overquoting I try and go on my edit removing overquotes on Cadillactica. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, meant to swing back around and have a third look but life got in the way briefly. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

There are many mentors of mine & definitely you are one of them, but tbh your reply here got me confused. Are you implying that a 79% copyvio match isn’t G12 eligible? May you be so kind as to clarify things for me? Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 (talk page stalker) it really depends how much remains. It's perfectly reasonable to ask instead for a revdel of the copyvio and leave the rest alone. My view is that each situation is different and requires a judgement call. There's a revdel requestor you can install that shows up in the "more" tab that makes life easier Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The percentage gives you a general idea of the copyvio status, but it is not an absolute metric; the content still needs to be looked at and evaluated. Heck, I've had 90% matches that didn't get deleted because there was a section or two that was not copied, and I've had 60% matches get deleted because the non-offending text were bibliographies or the like. In this particular case, there were a lot of partial matches in addition to the three sections I removed; those partial matches were phrases or names of places that simply could not be written in any other way, and were the reason for the high match value.

As far as using {{revdel}}, that's up to personal preference; there used to be an admin notorious for deleting G12 nominations without even checking, but they have been desysoped and as far as I am aware most admins check to make sure there's enough to delete. However, if you do find a match that still leaves a few paragraphs of text, by all means remove it and request a revdel.

Always happy to chat more about such things! Primefac (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, having you both as friends is definitely a privilege. Thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

One of our probationary reviewers may need some guidance

I hate it when potentially useful probationary reviewers don't quite get off to the best start. In my experience, and I am pretty sure in yours, it comes down to the questions they are asked or leave unanswered. The reviews themselves may not be faultless, but the end result is usually good enough. I'm not pinging -noah- on the basis that I do not want to upset them without reason. I've left them a talk page message suggesting that they may be putting themselves under too much pressure, so there's an opening for a discussion.

I'm pretty sure you keep an eye on the probationers, but my reason for alerting you is that noah looks to have good potential if they can get past the hurdle of the entire 'job'. The problem is that the more that experienced folk question them the more pressure folk feel and the whole thing may become counter productive.

Ok, we all get asked questions, but I think the measure of us is our handling of them Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I added them to my watchlist about a week or so ago after hearing some grumblings from others (and seeing a few questionable practices myself). I was going to tag a note along with yours, as I never know the best way to start these conversations. I do agree it's likely a lack of experience and potentially rushing that's the issue, and I kind of understand where he's coming from (upsides and downsides of being an OSer), and yeah, we all have to start somewhere. Thanks again for keeping an eye out on those who need a nudge in the right direction :-) Primefac (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There's never a good way to start. I had an employee, once, who caused staff to complain that he was a stranger to soap and water. Me? I could smell nothing amiss, but I still had to have the conversation.

Ideally I think the gentler start the better. Offer a lifeline rather than a criticism. noah will come good given the chance to stand back a little. They appear defensive at present, which is a shame, but understandable. We all expect every editor to hit the ground running in every role they aspire to. That just cannot happen. No error any of us makes is irretrievable. Fiddle Faddle 15:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I just took the difficult decision to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Z. Cohen though I am not seeking to get your opinion, formal nor informal, upon the discussion. Obviously you may opine at your sole discretion. I'm drawing it to your attention as part of this thread Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is strange. The acceptance was a clear cut "I have really not checked any of the references, but I think she passes" thing, however hard I AGF. I've worked with the submitting editor to educate them about referencing, including a full reference analysis on the drafts tae page. I've drawn N's attention to this. Now, I don't want praise, but I'd like them to at least acknowledge that they've taken a look and perhaps understood what they've seen.

How do we encourage our friend to walk towards excellence of reviewing? It's become obvious to me that I am not the one to do it, unless I get very direct. I'm willing to do that, but don't really want to. Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I just left this note. I'm still a little concerned by the recent contributions record. Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You will see from the courtesy ping that I have chosen today to become assertive. I had thought they had stepped away from reviews, but they have declared that they have not. My feeling, one you may or may not agree with, is that is at the point of their needing to acknowledge and move forward either with improvement or retire from this area of work Fiddle Faddle 09:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It is often helpful if I'm not the only one noticing issues of probationary reviewers, as it gives me some semblance of support should I need to remove someone. I've placed the ball squarely in their court, let's see what they do with it. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I fear the reply leaves me no wiser that they have understood. It was a little broader that just "ok, got it", but I don't want them to use the table, I want them to start to understand what I did, even to challenge my opinions on some of the analysis. I'm not arrogant enough to believe I got it all correct, after all. I judge that they have not engaged with this dialogue.

I am still assuming the best, but I fear that will not happen. I am also concerned about their multiple tiny typo corrections, and their multiple "Let me get in before the G13 date" CSDs. This type of behaviour is similar to those who game the system to become auto confirmed, but I have no real idea what the end goal might be. Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)