User talk:Primefac/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Macau at the Asian Winter Games

I am not sure how to update the automated lists, and for Macau (Asian Winter Games) it shows 1996 as a year the country competed in. However, the country did not compete in 1996. Can you fix this? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I just changed the begin_year to 2007. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sonia Jacobs

Hi there You have replied to my article that there are existing pages but I think you might have overlooked the fact that the pages are about a film dramatisation rather than about the actual person...please can you review again Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkielspa (talk • contribs) 23:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sparkielspa, I didn't actually review the draft; my comment was simply to let other reviewers know the proper location to move the draft should it prove to be acceptable. I can see how there might have been confusion, though, so I've reworded my comments. Good luck. Primefac (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Wishing you good luck in your week of Trials and Tribble-ations -- Samtar talk · contribs 22:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

For picking up some of the AFC question posts at my talk page. I've had a rough busy few days and simply didn't have the mental energy to deal with newbies. I really wish they would go to the AFC Help desk or the Teahouse first before "harassing" reviewers. Perhaps the wording of the decline templates could be adjusted to de-emphasize the "ask the reviewer" advice in the how to get help paragraph, it is currently the first mentioned option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Always happy to help. I obviously can't speak for the users asking for help, but to me it would make sense to ask the person who declined why they did so. Granted, most of the time they're just bitching at us, but I can somewhat see where they're coming from. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request PrimeBOT 8

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 8 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

23:50:03, 15 December 2016 review of submission by Petersmillard

• Petersmillard (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Unicirc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: CITEKILL. I can remove all the citations on use of tissue adhesive in circumcision if you think it is not relevant. The reason that I put it in is that Unicirc is a technique, rather than just an instrument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris troutman (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hessabi

Kindly stop deleting paragraphs without adequate explanation. Read all the sources given. The NYT article can be retrieved from proquest. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexplaugh12 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexplaugh12, I read the NYT article. It literally gives one sentence pertaining to Hessabi, and I have used it to verify the one sentence in the revised article. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Iranian Space Endeavor: Ambitions and Reality, https://books.google.com/books?id=1VQlBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=hessabi+beirut+road+engineering&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib27DQ1L_RAhVILyYKHXmxBaYQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=hessabi%20beirut%20road%20engineering&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexplaugh12 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That AFD you withdrew

Hey Primefac, I just wanted to say something about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet appearances in china, which you withdrew after some discussion. In my experience, every time an AFD like this has come up on ANI, consensus is that it's inappropriate to close it as a withdrawl if there are editors !voting for delete, as such a discussion has become de facto controversial, and should be closed by an uninvolved editor. I have no actually complaints about your editing, though. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Let it be known that I am opposing Primefac's candidacy because of this. Because I'm not a deletionist I didn't choose to take this to DR but it was absolutely an inappropriate close. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep on, carry calm

That's how normal sayings would look when you're counting the hours and biting them nails :) Well, I'm absolutely confident you're going to pass. So relax and enjoy the day. Lourdes 17:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello Primefac, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 8 has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

1930 All-Ireland Empire Games flag

I believe the flag they used for the 1930 Games was the 1542 blue harp Standard, then used on the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, not the green harp flag. The citations on the Ireland at the British Empire Games article do not contradict this information; the photo gallery link shows the bust on the harp (third flag from right), page 14 of the publication says the harp was 'on a blue (or possibly green) background'. VEO^onefive 17:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting circumstance, VEO15. On the one hand "a golden harp on a blue (or possibly green) background" could mean either flag (since there is both a blue and green variant of the Flag of Leinster as well), and while I can sort-of see the bust on that image of the flag, I wouldn't stake my life on it. At the end of the day, unless someone has a picture of an Irish winner standing in front of the flag, I doubt we'll get a 100% solid answer. That being said, I don't have anything to explicitly counter your edit, so I'll leave it be. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

VEO15, check out reference 61 in the article you linked. "A gold Irish harp on a blue field is also associated historically with the flag and coat of arms of Leinster." It would seem odd if that wasn't a direct reference to the Flag of Leinster, right? There is a blue variant. I think this means that the way it was originally is the correct version. I'll wait for your reply before doing anything, though. Primefac (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

On that photograph, the flag for Scotland in the middle of that display is also their Royal Standard, which features on the British Royal Standard as well. Although I think changing Scotland's flag would open a massive can of worms (as would be Canada using the Union Jack at the 1912 Olympics), it should be allowed for this all-Ireland team considering they were a one-off. Also, the style of the British sovereign at the time refers to Ireland as one rather than two entities so I think the Royal Standard of Ireland would make the most sense. VEO^onefive 19:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Hi VEO15 and Primefac. It should be possible to reach a consensus on this one that satisfies most concerns. I think both of you have got aspects of it right. But the way to go here is to try to represent, as best we can, the design used at the time and focus less on labelling the infobox with an official flag name. Many teams — Australia, South Africa, Scotland, and Ireland — did not use "official" national flags for the Games (and it seems England used the union flag rather than the St George cross).

In regard to the Liston & Maguire article being referenced — While I'm sure it is a worthy study of the social and political history of Ireland's participation at these games, it does not provide definitive detail of the flag that was used. I cannot access the full document myself, but if the text states "a golden harp on a blue (or possibly green) background", then it's clear that the authors have not seen the flag itself (perhaps a black and white photograph at best, and even that's doubtful if not included with the article). Not surprising given it was published in 2016. Any mention the article makes comparing the 1930 Empire Games flag to Leinster's flag or arms must be considered in this context - i.e. it's general comment about the Irish harp symbol; they don't even know what colour the games flag was.

Secondly, this colour image, from a photo collection of Hamilton, Ontario memorabilia from 1930 British Empire Games, indicates that the flag used by the Ireland team had a green background, rather than blue. The flags shown, assuming numbered 1 to 11 from left to right, are:

• 1, 2, 4, 9, 11: Red ensigns (x5)
• 3: Green and white field (Per fess Argent and Vert)
• 5: Yellow field, red motif
• 6: Union flag
• 7: Green field, gold/yellow motif
• 8, 10: Blue ensigns (x2)

Attempting to match these to the 11 participating teams:

• Blue ensigns (x2):
  • British Guyana
  • New Zealand
• Red ensigns (x5):
  • Australia: The national blue ensign was by convention reserved for government use. Organisations/private citizens used the red ensign variant.
  • South Africa: The orange, white, blue flag adopted in 1928 is not depicted - it would seem the earlier red ensign was used at these games.
  • Canada: (Maybe they used the union flag like in 1912 as per VEO15 - but I think more likely their red ensign).
  • Bermuda
  • Newfoundland
• Britain and Ireland:
  • Wales - 3. Green and white field (red dragon not visible)
  • Scotland - 5. Yellow field, red motif (likely Royal Standard of Scotland)
  • England - 6. Union flag (the plain St George cross, commonly used in recent times, seems not to be depicted).
  • Ireland - 7. Green field, gold motif.

Comments from both editors above mention a bust in this photo - VEO15, "shows the bust on the harp"; and Primefac (albeit not conclusively) "can sort-of see the bust".

I think there is a head outlined in profile and, curving up from the back of the neck, what looks to be an angel's wing. To me it is most likely a winged-maiden variant of the harp. If the field is green rather than blue, though, using the 1542–1800 Royal Standard of Ireland doesn't fit. There are, however, other Green Flags of Ireland already in Wikipedia:

Variants of the Green Flag with winged-maiden harp.

As an aside, there is a precedenct to the Green Flag being used at athletics events: "In 1906 when Peter O'Connor won the long jump championship at the Olympic Games in Athens, he successfully objected to the raising of the union flag ... in honour of his victory and succeeded in having a green poplin harp flag, which had been provided by his thoughtful supporters, hoisted instead."Flags Of The World – Ireland: Green Flag

Using a flag along these lines would, in my view, provide the best "fit" to the information available. I propose that one of these green flags be used for the article, labelled as Ireland Green Flag,^a (or similar) with details in a footnote as below. -- Ham105 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ham105, you're an absolute legend. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes:

^a The exact design of the flag used by the Ireland team at the 1930 Empire Games is uncertain. However, the flag was not the Irish tricolour, considered by unionists as specific to the Free State; instead it showed "a golden harp on a blue (or possibly green) background".

A colour image, from a memorabilia collection in Hamilton shows the flags of all eleven teams at the 1930 games. Seven of the flags are defaced red or blue ensigns, representing Australia, British Guyana, Bermuda, Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa. The other four flags represent Wales (green and white field, red dragon not visible), Scotland (yellow field with red motif, likely the Royal Standard of Scotland), England (the Union flag) and Ireland (green field with gold motif).

From a black and white photograph at the opening ceremony, the team flag third from the right appears to show a maiden's head and wing above harp strings. Not all of the motif is clearly seen, but this might indicate that the Ireland team's flag featured a "winged-maiden" variant of the Irish harp.

References:

Sources:

• Liston, Katie; Maguire, Joseph (2016). "Sport, Empire, and Diplomacy: "Ireland" at the 1930 British Empire Games" (PDF). Diplomacy & Statecraft. 27 (2): 314–339. doi:10.1080/09592296.2016.1169797. ISSN 0959-2296. Retrieved 19 May 2016.

---

• Based on the evidence that's been provided, I would go for the green winged maiden harp flag. Maybe caption it 'representative flag of Ireland' in the infobox? VEO^onefive 17:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA was closed successfully

I am happy to inform you that your RfA was closed successfully and you are now an administrator. Here are some useful links to get you started:

• Administrators' guide
• Administrators' reading list
• Administrator tools
• Administrator's Noticeboard
• Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrator's Noticeboard for edit warring
• IRC admin channel(#wikipedia-en-admins ^connect)

We're happy to have you as a new admin, and we wish you good luck in your endeavors. If you have any questions, please let me know. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Congrats! --JustBerry (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hi Primefac, and welcome to the Mop Corps! Although I am fairly new myself, I'm still happy to welcome you! (We may be assigned to the same battalion, and if that's the case, kindly be my bunkmate; I promise I won't bite!) Anyways, before you start saluting your seniors, please enjoy this cup of coffee I made. I make myself a pipin' cup every morning before work or school and it kicks me right into gear! It's approximately 5PM as I type this, and I have an evening class in about an hour, so I bought myself dinner -- and a cup of coffee from a coffee shop. It's not as good as my coffee, but it'll keep me awake in class. And remember: sleeping on the parade square is strictly forbidden! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/This is a subpage ‎

Please restore User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/This is a subpage so I can continue the process of preparing for an ANI. It is not an "attack page" it is the step demanded prior to the filing of an ANI, that I collect evidence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), my mistake. Restored. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Uncorrected errors in astronomical article

Hi. The reason why I raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy is because the article Tropical year and its talk page are both protected. 79.73.134.197 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest linking to the discussion (don't just copy/paste it directly) and asking about the missing information. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Usuário(a):Lucas.Belo/Testes2

Just an explanation: the reason I tagged the aforementioned article for speedy deletion under G12 was not because it was copyright infringement (it isn't since the original article was licensed under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license), but because the attribution appeared (at the time to me) to be wrong: the article states that it was originally published on opensource.org, but at the time I tagged the article, the only hit I could find for the text was on a different website (I've since found the original opensource.org link). In any case, the article already duplicates our articles on Copyright and Creative Commons so I guess A10 (rather than G12) applies. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, fair points. It's in the user space (now) so as long as it stays there I don't see much need to worry about it duplicating existing content. I'll keep an eye on it. Primefac (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Successful RfA

• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations - well that was a roller-coaster ride. And a support from Kudpung right at the very end; a perfect way to close things out I think. This was by far the most difficult RfA I've had to encounter as a nominator so far! After going through your contributions with a fine toothcomb for about 4 hours last weekend, I was convinced you had enough to be able to show the community you were trustworthy enough to be an admin; the question was simply getting the message across to enough people. I do apologise for going very out of character and badgering some of the oppose voters (something you should not normally do as either a candidate or a nominator), it was only because they weren't considering all sides of the story. Still, I'm glad I put in the work now and got a good result, and I'm sure you are too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Just saw you delete an attack page I tagged - thank you. Congrats, and I look forward to seeing you around more, especially if you pop by SPI! Best, GAB^gab 21:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Mz7 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations, welcome on board! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations! I didn't see a thing wrong with your AfD contributions, hopefully you haven't been too scared off that area!. Best, -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me as well! —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Admincat after doing some deletions.

• Congratulations! Excellent job with the Snake Fight ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Well deserved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats!!! --joe decker^talk 02:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• There you go. Well done. Lourdes 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations and good luck. Donner60 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Best of everything to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Antizemach blogspot removal

Thank you! I had a back-and-forth on removing this as a ref on Rachel Freier when the insistent editor pulled a "oh yeah, you keep removing my blog from this article, but lookee it's over there at that article, too!" and I looked all over Yitzchok Sorotzkin three times before checking the history and seeing you had already removed the blogspot as a ref. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Most of the improvements I make to pages are due to OTHERSTUFF/Streisand effect. Glad I could help. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Kendall Vertes

You rejected deletion of Kendall Vertes claiming CSD#A3 was not appropriate. I don't disagree with this. However, the article is not at all about Kendall Vertes, it is instead very clearly about Nia Frazier, whose articles have been deleted several times (see Nia Frazier and Nia Sioux) before being salted, and the creator of Kendall Vertes is quite aware of this, having consistently tried to create articles on Nia Frazier (see her talk page and contribs). Clearly the article shouldn't exist as it can't be moved to the correct location as the pages are salted, and in any case it would be eligible for deletion per CSD G4 as the article was originally deleted at AfD. I've tagged it accordingly, but creation of a Nia Frazier/Sioux article at Kendall Vertes seems a sneaky attempt to get an article into Wikipedia, even if not at the correct location and Renee7698 should probably be sanctioned in some way. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, AussieLegend. I should have noticed that the content and the title didn't match. I've deleted the page as G4. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Tropical cyclone temp tracking

FYI, regarding this category.... I personally added the category to {{Infobox tropical cyclone season}} while I was doing some work on the template. I also personally removed it from the template... The 4 pages that remain in the category are just cache issues. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Zackmann08, technically G8 (as you used it) is for a category that is/was populated by a deleted template. I know I'm being rather pedantic about it (and I've been annoyed by similar CSDs being turned down) but {{db-g7}} is the proper G-number to use (as I'm assuming you want the cat deleted). Primefac (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it as pedantic, just a difference of opinion. I've had this disagreement before. Some admins agree with your analysis. Other admins feel that WP:G8 which is for "Categories populated by a deleted or retargeted template" is appropriated as the template has been retargeted to not populate the category. I agree with this second analysis. Either way, I did null edits on the 4 pages so the cat is now empty. So can we agree to nuke the bastard? :-p --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Aye. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol! Thanks mate! Happy Wednesday. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is so nice to see two productive editors disagree respectfully. Keep it up, both of you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is my Article

I have create an article Hanummanthappa Koppad. It was proposed for speedy deletion due some violation of policy (reference related). After that i have removed that content from the page. Now I can not find this article on wikipedia. IT IS DELETED ????? It was under discussion process. The Link redirecting to other article. If its deleted then why not notified to me. WHERE IS DISCUSSION PAGE FOR DELETION NOMINATION. WHAT IS THE exact REASON FOR DELETION. Why it should not be separate from the redirected article. Redirected article not have enough information even it is not properly written. Please clear me. सुमित सिंह (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The former article, now redirect, is at Hanumanthappa Koppad - only one "m". PamD 09:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And please don't talk about "My article": no-one owns any article in the encyclopedia. "The article I started" is OK. PamD 09:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@PamD The center point remain same. I only want to clear myself on above mentioned points.सुमित सिंह (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

सुमित सिंह, there are a few points to consider here, so I'll run through the sequence of events.

1. You wrote the article on Hanumanthappa Koppad, replacing the redirect with article text.
2. Some of that content was copied directly from other sources, so the page was nominated for deletion as a copyright violation.
3. I removed the copyrighted material, and found that the remaining content largely duplicated the material at 2016 Siachen Glacier avalanche#Rescue operation.
4. I turned the page back into a redirect.

The other reason why I turned the page back into a redirect is because of a policy we have called WP:BLP1E, or "biographies of living persons known for only one event." The only reason Koppad received media attention is because he happened to survive the avalanche (note that none of the other casualties have Wikipedia articles). Thus, he most likely does not meet the criteria for inclusion.

सुमित सिंह, if you can demonstrate that there is enough coverage to overcome BLP1E I am happy to restore the content you added and provide an opportunity for you to continue adding material. If you choose to go down that route, however, the page may be nominated for deletion again if a) the added content is copied directly from other sources, or b) no indication is given that he surpasses BLP1E. Happy to answer any further questions you may have about this situation. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@सुमित सिंह: Your attempt to "ping" me above didn't produce any alert to me. You should have typed {{ping|PamD}} (and there are alternatives) if you wanted to alert me to your comment. PamD 13:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

RfA follow-up

Thanks for the reply. Hope I didn't put you on the spot with that. I understand the idea of not responding to everyone. It just seemed like such an easy thing to address. :) BTW I meant to ask before, but can I ask what class it was that introduced you to Wikipedia? (I'm also User:Ryan (Wiki Ed) -- Wiki Ed wasn't around at that point, but I was involved enough with the education program that I'm curious). No worries if you'd rather not mention specifics like that, of course. Editor retention isn't typically one of the primary goals of working with student editors, but it's always great to see when someone does stick around :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, no worries; I definitely needed to say it at some point. Thanks also for the support.

I started editing Wikipedia because my fraternity's list of chapters was a bit out-of-date, and I wanted to make some improvements to it and the list of notable members. That was pretty much it until I did my senior research project at U Glasgow and realised that there was an entire community here (and plenty more to update!).

On the subject of editor retention (which really only applies to me since the other two on my Glasgow course didn't stick around Wikipedia) I think what really kept me interested were the WikiProjects. As part of the course, I joined WP:AST and WP:PHYS to get feedback/input from other editors about editorial changes. Being in AST/PHYS led to template editing, and then the IRC help room, and the rest is history. I think if teachers stressed joining a related WikiProject, a) the pages written by students would be much better, and b) there would be a larger retention rate. Of course, I think improving existing articles is far superior (it's metaphorically easier to dive in), but to each their own.

I'm happy to weigh in on any Ed stuff in the future; my views may be weird but an outsiders perspective can be helpful (sometimes). Primefac (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjects can be great resources indeed. In terms of documenting best practices, however, they're sort of tricky. The challenge is basically just inconsistent/uneven activity levels (i.e. for most subjects, other than e.g. medicine, military history, film, anime, tropical cyclones, those you mentioned, etc., it's more likely than not that the instructor/student would get no timely reply). For a newbie, it's hard to know what to do if you go through the designated communication channel(s) and don't get a reply. It comes up when classes turn to volunteer-run processes of review, too (asking for feedback at WikiProjects, from individual editors, at peer review, etc. is inconsistent, and volunteer response schedules aren't typically compatible with tight deadlines of a syllabus -- I learned this the hard way when I thought it would be a good idea to bring my first on-wiki class through GAN). So in other words, I agree that wikiprojects are a resource instructors/students should know about, and that they can lead to more robust community experiences, but I'd want to be careful to ensure classes don't go into the project planning to rely on them. Meh. Congrats, btw :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit to Visual Computing

Jiklo1569 has given you a "Hello, World!" program! "Hello, World" programs are awarded to users who make beneficial edits to computer-science-related articles.

Leaving a "Hello, World" program for another user is a call to the create_happiness() function, which increases the happiness of the user. If you want to leave a "Hello, World" program for another user, place {{subst:User:Gluons12/Banners/HelloWorld}} on the user's talk page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiklo1569 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious

astronomical spectroscopy cleanup

Thank you for quality contributions to astronomical spectroscopy based on scientific knowledge, for dealing with templates for discussion and articles for creation, for mop service, for living fraternity in a broad sense, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	I've been meaning to give you this for a while now. Thanks for your strong efforts in cleaning out WP:TFD/H. ~ Rob13Talk 06:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:52:06, 21 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Werhuwieyw8

• Werhuwieyw8 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Monax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I respectfully disagree with your assessment on this article. FNs 6, 13 and 26 go into deep detail about the company's business, and the publication CoinDesk in which this treatment is given is more or less the leading industry publication in the blockchain industry. A careful reading of the articles in footnotes 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 shows that while they aren't about the company per se, they deal with the company's work as the central example of the article's subject matter (chiefly permissioned blockchains).

Monax was the first company (or among the first) in the world to use "permissioned blockchain" technology (see FN11, 12 14, 15). So where articles are written about the concept Monax/Eris introduced with its technology, by reference to the company, and in some cases without reference to any other firm (FN14/15), for all practical purposes these should satisfy the "coverage in depth" requirement.

These include pieces in the FT, Marketwatch and the WSJ at the footnotes given above, which are highly reliable secondary sources which should be sufficient to establish the company's notability under the "substantial coverage" arm of the WP:Notability policy.

Even if that isn't enough, the articles from 2016/17 which you (rightly) point out list Monax among groups of companies rather than as the focus of the article, are nonethless additive to the proposition that Monax is notable. WP:Notability states that where depth of coverage is insubstantial, "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." In this case multiple, independent, entirely secondary and very reliable sources (NASDAQ, Reuters, WSJ, ZDNet, IBTimes, Financial News, Coindesk) are provided to back up factual assertions made in the article about the originality and importance of the work Monax does.

Werhuwieyw8 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Civicacy of Milford Schools (Ohio)

There was no time to contest before deletion of the new page. The pages have been restored.--Iolair, Gaelic For Eagle (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Iolair, Gaelic For Eagle, when you get a page being deleted as a substantial duplication of an existing page, you don't just rock up and do the same thing over. Start a discussion on the talk page if you want to start a new/related article. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The deletion occurred before there was discussion, and wiped out additional content.--Iolair, Gaelic For Eagle (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Iolair, Gaelic For Eagle, regardless of your intentions (or lack of being able to contest the deletion) it is not proper to simply hack large chunks of text out of existing articles in order to create a new one. If you think a topic is getting too long, or should be split into multiple articles, you need to start a talk page conversation to gather input from other users (especially if your first attempt was deleted). I'm still not entirely sure why you felt the need to split off the deleted page, since the article itself needs work and really isn't that long. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the talk of Robert McClenon.--Iolair, Gaelic For Eagle (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have any comments at this point now that the damage has been reverted. Please do not remove large parts of an existing article in order to create a fork about a neologism without first discussing on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The maltreatment has not been reverted. No – AP Course offerings, civic milestones, activities, school codes, and every other item you wiped away, vary between every high school. Bluntly, what has occurred over the last 24-48 hours is ridiculous.

You both have edited the page as if you live a half of a world away from Ohio, to your own liking without relevance.

Is this not a living encyclopedia? Did Jimmy Wales of Alabama not pledge an encyclopedia? Did Wales not give everyone the ability to make informed edits to entries they possess knowledge about? Tell me, what do you think you know about American schools? They vary in form, size, and yes, institutional stature! That positioning gives rise to norms across regions; and it is best to document, as other entries will follow suit in a living encyclopedia.

By watching your profile, your magnetism is to rapid change: Rapid deletion on an encyclopedia page—about a system of schools over 100 years old?

What did you do for Milford Schools? You misspelled your own edits, deleted users’ significant additions, de-organized information about American education, and dismissed sourced scholarship about American education as ‘neologism!’ You then proceeded to add, to your vast collection of edits, with edits to Milford High School not once, not thrice, but NINE (9) consecutive times!

Why should we trust you to accomplish informed edits any differently than you succeeded on edits to Milford Schools? There is no evidence. As far as I am concerned, the original “spoonful of edits” and “fork” are committed without violation of preestablished norms, while your edits are the real reason for discussion about sloppiness and inappropriateness.--Surenorint (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Surenorint (and User:Iolair, Gaelic For Eagle - What maltreatment? Ranting about maltreatment is not a useful way to get an objective in Wikipedia. Discuss at the article talk page rather than ranting. Iolair made a massive edit that moved nearly half of an article into a new article with a weird name. The edit was then reverted. This should have resulted in talk page discussion, or just in leaving the situation alone. Then User:Primefac made some edits to the original article, Milford High School (Ohio). Then two editors ranted. Discuss on the article talk page if there is an issue about your edits or about Primefac's edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Frank Lippincott/sandbox and related speedy deletions

There is longstanding consensus practice that unsourced articles identifying living persons as porn performers are subject to G10 speedy deletion. Among other things, they're quite often completely spurious, intended to ridicule or harass their nominal subject. User:Frank Lippincott/sandbox is a perfect example of this -- there's an IMDB page [1] that makes even clearer that this isn't a legitimate article. Keeping stuff like this around is of no value to Wikipedia and often perpetuates harassment, especially if Wikipedia content is scraped and reposted elsewhere until Google keeps it around forever. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for whatever reason I didn't actually check to see if Lippincott was who the page says he was. The other four pages I had checked panned out, so I think I just figured the fifth was as well. I'll be more thorough in the future. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Hai_Au_Aviation please delete!

You were so speedy that by the time I hit save on my talk page comment, the original article was gone! So I created a talk page for a page that no longer exists. Would be ever so grateful if you could remove my mess. Thanks! nerdgoonrant (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 9 has been approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Section break

Hi, I was asking about a draft under my user name Mijily that seems to have been deleted. Thank you for your reply, I am not sure where to write to follow the thread. I am quite certain it was under that name, I dont' remember having another one than that and my confirmation e-mails with Wikipedia are all referring to that username. It was a an article about an artist, with plenty of references. I would really like to find it. Thank you Mijily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijily (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Primefac, I found my page and my draft. It was in french ... sorry about this and thank you so much for your help. Mijily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijily (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Request 17:47, 18 January 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) moved page

Thank you very much for taking time to look in to the article I created Solomon Nwaka. Can you please tell me why the article is moved (which I couldn't locate now) and/ or deleted. How can I improve it to meet the Wiki Protocols? Please advise?HabtamuG2017 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

HabtamuG2017, I moved the article to Draft:Solomon Nwaka, as it was not yet ready for the Article space. Graeme Bartlett was the admin who deleted the draft page, so you should request an undeletion at User talk:Graeme Bartlett. Based on the deletion rationale, it looks like it was a promotional page, so if you get it undeleted you'll need to make it more neutral in tone. Let me know if I can help further. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Compulsion

Someone in the ANI thread re: notifying about deletion discussions etc mentioned that there has recently been a similar thread in which another person was compelled to use edit summaries. Any idea where that thread is? Could it be applied as a precedent? I'm not suggesting 100% compliance - we all mess it up from time to time - but a deliberate avoidance is a different kettle of fish, especially when Twinkle makes it so easy to comply. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, the thread in question is here. An edit summary restriction was proposed, (mostly) accepted, and Sk8erPrince opted to be more transparent. I think it could be used as a case of precedent to IAR/bend the rules for ST. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have a think overnight. This is a complicated situation because, like I said, we all mess it up from time to time. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I really need to get to bed but have just noticed this. Was that - "ass-needed" - a Freudian slip? <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, whoops. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

16:04:31, 30 January 2017 review of submission by CheronA

• CheronA (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Siva Kanewaran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Im trying to figure out what sources are not notable enough for Wikipedia so we can replace them (CheronA (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

CheronA, the issue with your references is that none of them talk about Kanewaran in any great detail. Most of them simply say things like "former band member Kanewaran" and "written by Kanewaran". We need significant coverage. PRIMARY sources such as interviews are strongly discouraged. While simple listings like Allmusic and Billboard are acceptable for verification purposes, they do not demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

08:43:31, 31 January 2017 review of submission by Chicago3391945

• Chicago3391945 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Graham Hill (theologian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your helpful review of my contribution. Please go ahead and delete the submission permanently. Hopeful my next contribution will be better. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago3391945 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Lists of taxa described from....

Can you restore the Lists of taxa described from... pages you recently deleted? I'm expanding them. Abyssal (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I suggest creating new pages either in your userspace or the Draft space to avoid such situations in the future. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Andy Cook (criminal)

I put the articale there in the first because it should know as crim stub, no? User: Ilovehorrorstories (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)ILoveHorrorStories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovehorrorstories (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovehorrorstories (talk • contribs) 20:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi! I hope you're well. On 22 January 2017, you enabled pending changes on List of terrorist incidents in January 2017 because of disruptive editing. Editors were in general agreement about the level of protection, given the lack of valid sources and careless editing. Now that it's a new month (or soon to be), would you be willing to give the same protection to List of terrorist incidents in February 2017? I suspect editing on the January article will soon cease, and all editors will now move to the next month. I know this is pre-emptive protection, but I think this would be an exemption from the norm. Best regards, st170e 20:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

St170e, I've added it to my watchlist, so if I start seeing things go crazy I'll PC it. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I need help, again

Could you come and help me download an image on Wikipedia?Ilovehorrorstories (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)User:Ilovehorrorstories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovehorrorstories (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Crucible (hypervisor)

Primefac, why did you delete the Crucible (hypervisor) page? It was not promotional or advertising, simply bare facts about the subject. If you are going to delete that page, then you should follow through and delete every other page on Wikipedia that discusses a product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlabcorp (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Starlabcorp, the page was completely unreferenced and did little more than act as a product catalogue for Crucible. If you want I can move the page to the Draft space so you can continue working on it. First and foremost you will need references, but talking about the company itself (rather than just listing its products) is also important. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, If you can leave it in draft, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Starlabcorp (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Starlabcorp, the page has been moved to Draft:Crucible (hypervisor). As a minor note, I just noticed your username is the same name as the company. This isn't allowed (since it implies shared use and is promotional). Please go to WP:CHUS to request a username change. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Er... Primefac, do you realize the per WP:COI, this user may not contribute to Wikipedia about its own company's product? —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, they are allowed to edit, but they must disclose their affiliation. I forgot to mention that to Starlabcorp so I will re-ping them. There are plenty of templates such as {{paid}} and {{connected contributor}} which allow COI editors to (at the very least) create pages about their own companies. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Also, it is my understanding that admins can issue a block to users with such user accounts which is lifted when they change it? I've seen it happen from time to time but I don't know the policy. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, that is correct. Different admins have different philosophies on username violations. Some will immediately block, but I prefer to warn the user and give them an opportunity to change their username (which in this case, they have done). Primefac (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nishanth

hi,

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

The above link is my article which has been deleted . I am an actor in tamil film industry . I have also send you the details of my previous films where you could find my Name under casting,please help me to create an article on "NISHANTH" so i could link all the wiki articles to my profile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renigunta_(film)

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(2016_film)

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

External links

http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movies-slide-shows/movie-4/performances-2009/johnny-nishanth.html

http://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/nishanth/filmography.html

http://www.behindwoods.com/new-videos/tamil-actors/nishanth/nishanth-interview.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJPAikiRKEQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu94Vnp7UQg

Thank you, Nishanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugimrlonely (talk • contribs) 14:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishanth (actor), and Draft:Nishanth. Is it time to salt all such titles? PamD 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

PamD, I've salted the (actor) page, but in the interest of good faith I'll leave the draft (for the moment). Primefac (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Cantler

I can see why you asked for a widnow of grace for this article... but I assure you that the csd was not mindless biting; I did google about a tad.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Aye, fair enough. I just hit upon a similar nom with the hasty tag and I got a bit self-conscious. Thanks for doing the legwork. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Samran Ghani

Samran Ghani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been recreated. I think the editor may need to be blocked to get them to stop. He appears to be here to promote himself. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

JJMC89, I've deleted the page again and given a warning. Let me know if they recreate it again. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It has been recreated. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted, user blocked. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Samranghani1 is likely the same user. They uploaded the image used in the article to Commons and this was his sandbox. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Indycar on BT

Hello, you rightly deleted this draft earlier today here. However, the page has been recreated here together with another userspace page here. The page has previously been deleted after discussion here. The page was also re-created on a previous occasion on or around 25 January (see User talk:Rowde#Speedy deletion nomination of Indycar on BT) and I think (not 100% certain) that you deleted at that time also. By way of background this is an IP-hopping editor well known to the Wiki F1 and other motorsport projects, who has been editing since August 2015 (possibly earlier) and makes a habit of this sort of thing, making various attempts to get around Wiki's systems and does not heed warnings or advice. He also edits as user 'Rowde'. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You said you would help me with a page I was trying to create and then I never heard from you.

Hi. You said you would help me with a page I was trying to create and then I never heard from you. Despite quotes and references from the New York Times, Reuters, the NBC National evening news that very night and a brand new FTC (Federal Trade Commission) report that came out January 5, 2017. Travelers United is the only group mentioned that advocated on behalf of consumers against resort fees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embby (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Strike out warning

Could you please strike-out the warning on my page as I did properly close the AfD. Thank you. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 18:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki-Coffee, no. Technically speaking, you did not close the discussion properly. At the time you closed, the user was not blocked for being a sock and the question of notability was still in play. It was a rather questionable AFD from the get-go, but if (on the incredible off chance) the nominator wasn't a sock, it would have been an improper closure. As I stated on the discussion at your talk page, there is no harm in having an AFD open while things get sorted out. If you approach this sort of situation in the future I hope you will consider !voting first, going to SPI second, maybe talking to an admin, and then performing a NAC when the above get checked. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Per my talk page I told you from the beginning of the conversation that the issue was related to a sock-puppet and that there was a combination of factors being the language of the nominator and the fact he had used notability when notability had been established. I was the one who reported the user as a Sockpuppet and I also closed the AfD on merit of those reasons. Having to contact admins and go through a long-winded process just delays edits to Wikipedia and I wouldn't agree with that method. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 19:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for your work on TfD. I see you're active right now and such work is often unrecognised but very necessary for our encyclopaedia. So, thank you for your hard work :) Tom (LT) 00:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Wholeness axiom move

You noted that I had made an improper move to draft space. Can you please explain exactly how I should make a move from article space to draft space if a draft is very incomplete and needs to be moved into draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, a lot of things happened in a short period of time. You moved the Article to Draft, the user moved the Draft to Article, I moved the Article back to Draft (with the note regarding "improper move"). It wasn't your move that was improper, it was theirs. There was also a histmerge involved but that's a separate matter. Sorry for the confusion. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Primefac - Okay. So if I see an article that is very incomplete, I should go ahead and move it to draft space in the way that I did. If I see it moved back to article space, I will either CSD it or AFD it (rather than move-warring). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure if the NPR folk are making this policy, but I've seen a lot of it happening recently. Definitely "nicer" to move to draft and allow them to continue working. And yes, if they keep moving it back to the Article space, you can CSD/AFD it. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Asthma

Hello,

I noticed you deleted the article Asthma (film) on January 22, 2017. That being said, I am in the process of creating a film article titled Asthma (film). It is the directorial debut of Jake Hoffman (son of Dustin Hoffman) and stars Benedict Samuel and Krysten Ritter and features the voice of Nick Nolte. Was the article you deleted about the film I am talking about? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hitcher vs. Candyman, yes. If you'd like, I can undelete it and move it to the draft space so that you can continue working on it. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please do undelete it. I really appreciate it. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hitcher vs. Candyman, you can find it at Draft:Asthma (film). Primefac (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Bad helpme's

Thanks for closing the improper helpme's, I was in the process of doing so. I changed the template to categorize them all, after I found one lingering in articlespace. Hopefully such mass cleaning won't be needed again. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to know. 'bout gave me a heart attack when I saw 60 users all of a sudden in the queue. As you've probably seen, I undid your edit in favour of having a "misplaced helpme" category instead. This will still allow for maintenance, of course, but will properly sort the page. Primefac (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That's even better. Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy

User:SoWhy disobeyed the arbitration committee on the page where you request page protections. You should discipline him for that. 2602:306:3357:BA0:CC96:1326:B338:F16F (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

IP has been blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

/Wikidata

Hi Primefac, I'm not going to challenge your close, I just wondered about one thing. You claim "the proponents of this template have made a convincing argument for its use over the on-wiki infoboxes." I presume you mean that maintenance is in theory only needed once with this template? The problem is that they have not presented a single example of where this argument, for this infobox, has actually been shown. On the contrary, I have already corrected multiple cases where the local article was corrected (subject deceased) but the Wikidata infobox still gave them as living.

I fail to see how an argument is considered to be "convincing" if it turns out in reality to be false (or certainly in more cases not true than true). I have not seen yet any article of the 300+ where this infobox is used, where the Wikidata version was indeed the better choice to use. Fram (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Fram, you make a valid point, but I made that statement thinking about the long-term usage of the template (as discussed by the "for" camp). I agree with you that at this particular moment it's not perfect, but I know from experience that sometimes the bugs in a template aren't found until it goes through both beta and live testing (and/or a prolonged TFD where everything is called into question). I tried to stress the importance of keeping an eye on implementation and accuracy of the template, and I suspect that you'll be partaking of such activities. I left it open for renomination if it becomes clear they're not actively attempting to fix issues (or if they can't fix them), though I did suggest waiting at least a few months in order to give them time to keep working on it. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Fram (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguating pages vs. set-index articles

Hi! First of all, congratulations on getting the mop! Good job.

I'm here because of these edits. I wanted to update you on the differences between dab pages and set-index articles. The Anthroponymy Project has been taking over the pages that list surnames, given names, or both. Those pages are being changed into set-index articles and, though they can often look very similar to disambiguation pages, they are not the same. The way to tell at a glance is to check the bottom of the page; there will usually be a template there that identifies which kind of page it is.

Redirects that have "(disambiguation)" in the title are supposed to target disambiguation pages only. These particular redirects are created to be used when a deliberate link to a dab is needed (such as in a hatnote or a "see also" section). Other links to dab pages are errors and need to be corrected. If the corresponding dab page gets deleted or changed into an article or list, then the redirect is no longer needed, unless there is a closely related dab it can be pointed at.

As more and more dab pages get transferred to set-index articles, there will be more and more of this type of redirect left over. They need to be deleted (as soon as any links to them are resolved, of course). I've been working on these for the Disambiguation Project, and gradually weeding them out. You'll most likely come across more of my CSD G6s for these. I hope you'll help with the housekeeping. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Gorthian, thanks for the heads up. I didn't think to check for the dab template; I'll keep an eye out in the future. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Any chance you can delete those two pages now? Or are they doomed to RFD once they're declined? (The pages are Franny (disambiguation) and Savva (disambiguation).) — Gorthian (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup backlog

Hi there,

Something you did recently has added a bunch of articles to the cleanup backlog for months going back years (see Theodor Creizenach, August Ferdinand Anacker for examples). I don't fully understand what the process you did was but it appears to be something to do with translations from the German wikipedia. Was it a mistake or mis-copy of some kind? And if so, what is the solution? Did you mean to tag these articles, and if so should I place a more accurate date tag? Or are you in the middle of something? Jdcooper (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jdcooper, I was wondering if this would cause any issues. {{Meyers}} was nominated for deletion as being unnecessary (it turns out it was a cleanup ambox without actually putting the pages into any sort of cleanup category). The original message was:

This article is based on a public domain licensed extract from Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, 4th edition from 1888–1890. You may delete this template if you think that this text is up to date, written in accordance with Wikipedia policies, correctly sourced and written from a neutral point of view.

In hindsight, I should have put that entire thing into the {{cleanup}} tag. The reason I used the historical dates is because those were the dates that the template was added to the page, and I wanted the cleanup category to be as accurate as possible. My apologies for being less than obvious with what I was doing. In all honesty, most of those pages looked fine to me, so the tags could be removed. If you'd like, I can rework the cleanup tags to have the full/original message. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, there's not many of them, so I'll get round to them at some point this weekend. If you or someone else thinks they are fine and cleans them or removes the tags before then, all the better! Cheers Jdcooper (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion, automated trivial edit summary

Hi, what do you think of this suggestion. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Automatic_1-line_edit_summary. This would be much better than manual policing, right? Edit summaries themselves aren't enough to confirm whats going on. I've vandalism with valid-looking summaries.

Fmadd (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

PrimeBOT issues.

I don't think PrimeBot is working as it should. e.g. Look at this diff. I don't think this is intended. Coderzombie (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Coderzombie, other than a few random underscores, it looks like it did exactly what it should have. Am I missing something? Primefac (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd think introducing "a few random underscores" itself would be a huge problem no? Because this happened across multiple pages (such as this, this, this), not just one. A bot should not be doing such a massive disruptive editing in my opinion. Coderzombie (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't, actually. These issues didn't appear during the testing phase of the BRFA, so I'm not overly sure why it was happened, but it's not the end of the world. I'll see what I can do to clean it up. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I just meant if the bot is still running, it should be stopped for now until the bug is fixed. It seems to me that this has happened across almost all episodes of The Americans (2013 TV series) episodes. Coderzombie (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot run ended last night. As I said, I'll do a run through and fix what I can. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:09:34, 25 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ksicchio

• Ksicchio (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Computer-generated choreography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are only two links to dance companies. The rest of the sources are project pages. This comment is unfair and did not look at the other references that include magazine articles, conference proceedings or Master's thesis links. I also do not feel the title change understands the association with algorithmic composition (that article is not called computer generated music). I am very unsatisfied with this review and think it should be reconsidered.

Ksicchio (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ksicchio, let's look at the references currently in the draft:

1. Conference proceedings generally aren't considered to be reliable sources, as they're not published and therefore not subject to review.
2. Blogspot is almost never a reliable source.
3. I like this source. It's solid.
4. This is promotional, intended really only to showcase/sell a product
5. A Masters Thesis is generally not considered to be a reliable source.
6. This is an okay source.
7. This is just a list of publications.
8. [2] - I'm not sure if this is a review, a performance announcement, or what. It's a decent source, but it doesn't really go into much depth.
9. Primary source, a page from the creator listing his updates.
10. Generic main page
11. Generic index
12. This page has about five words on it. Not very useful.
13. Generic main page

So, it looks like you have 1 solid source (#3), 2 okay sources (#6 and #8), and a bunch of filler. Granted, some of them are fine for verification purposes, but there just isn't enough in the way of significant coverage from independent sources. As a note regarding the page title - I changed it based on this discussion, which I agree with. If you can find multiple sources that call it "algorithmic choreography" then an argument can be made to change it back. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

04:48:01, 4 February 2017 review of submission by Embby

• Embby (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Travelers United (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I thought you were going to try to help me rewrite an article for Travelers United so that I could make a page for it? It has been over a month and I have not heard from you.

If you google the Federal Trade Commission report from January 5, 2017 you will see EXPLICITLY that in the report Travelers United is mentioned VARIOUS TIMES as being the only pro-consumer group fighting for travelers on the issue of resort fees. This is not from a news source, it is from the Federal Trade Commission of the United States of America. You will also see that the American Hotel and Lodging Association is the group mentioned advocating for resort fees. They have a Wikipedia page. Travelers United does not.

This is in addition to the clip from the NBC national nightly news that I think I already sent you where Travelers United was the only group interviewed to discuss a travelers issue that day.

Honestly - what else do I have to give you? A million sources and quotes from newspapers, reports from the Federal Trade Commission about the organization generally, and here is yet another news source about what we have done in working with the FTC and the surveys that we conduct to see what American travelers want. Here is one such article from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/01/06/hidden-hotel-resort-fees-come-under-fire-in-ftc-report.html

I do not know how to use Wikipedia well but I have been trying to get this page up since October. This is so disappointing that you have left up the page of the giants here that are doing all they can with their millions to crush competition in the travel industry and you deny deny deny the tiny org that is working against them a page. With all the sources I have given you, from the news to reports from the federal government, can you let me know what on earth at this point denies this non-profit a Wikipedia page?

Embby, I left a note on the draft page itself, and after a scan of Google News hits I stand by that statement. There is really just no coverage about Travelers United. Everything is either a one sentence mention (e.g. "according to Travelers United"), a quote from Leocha, or an article written by Elliot. As for the other pages that are on Wikipedia - sometimes size matters. The articles about them might not be stellar, but there does appear to be enough significant coverage to merit a page. I'm sorry that it's not working out, but it happens. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not helped me. I re-wrote the entire article. Every single other non-profit in the sphere is represented on Wikipedia except Travelers United. I cited every sentence. I double cited many. I cite amicus curaie briefs for the Supreme Court, FTC Reports, legislation from California, etc. If you read the report from the Federal Trade Commission, you might be interested to see that Travelers United is the only non-profit specifically named on the issue of resort fees & consumer advocacy. You have to actually open the report to read it.

What is the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embby (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

internal line / virtual particle

is that really a commonly understood term? can you judge that if you're an expert on the subject? These pages are full of detailed jargon, dont links help people cut through them? Look how big the Feynman diagram article is. you have to read through so much before you get to something telling you what an 'internal line' is. Can't any supposed "overlinking" hazard be dealt with by the platform (e.g. if you have multiple links to the same page, render them in a less prominent shade) Fmadd (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd, internal line was deleted because disambiguation pages require more than just two terms. Since it only had two terms, it was deleted as being unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

internal line sounds like such a generic phrase to me, I'd be surprised if it doesn't have different connotations in other contexts - which is why I didn't create a redirect *directly* from that. When I hear that , I first think of internal telephone lines. Asking google, I note that there are a few companies that use "Internal Line" as part of their name ('Internal Line Interior Design', Internal Line Marketing Contractors, Internal Line Marking'). what if any of those end up making wikipedia page later. Fmadd (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. We don't need to be creating pages just on the off chance that a page is created in the future. If we need a page in the future, we'll create it. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a 'crystal ball' of sorts. there's 7billion people on this planet, how do you know up front what everyone else will find to put here? An open structure lets you discover things later. Such a generic phrase, it's bound to be used multiple times. That was my intuition, and sure enough consulting google I do find different contexts. The only certainty is that knowledge will grow, surely? Fmadd (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't know what people will put on Wikipedia. That's exactly my point. There is no sense in creating a disambiguation page on the off chance that someone decides in two years that they want to create an article about a third subject. We can just as easily create it when it happens. See WP:CRYSTAL. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, i've flicked over WP:CRYSTAL, and it does NOT seem to relate to the matter we're discussing here, it's rejecting speculative content, not speculation about what content should be added... I'm talking about leaving organisational structure in place that helps people navigate. Don't you like to use wikipedia in an exploratory manner? Often i'm frustrated because an article doesn't define something easily - I put these anchors in etc, I dont want to go and re-organize the whole page, but maybe someone will talke the hint and do so in an elegant manner. Fmadd (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

'stellar explosion .. defined 3 lines later' then why does the text say 'stellar explosion'??? "stellar explosion" conveys something more general - and, indeed, exploring wikipedia you can discover what. Fmadd (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

IR remote

I am trying to fix something... remote control is a hugely ambiguous term, and unsurprisingly it is mislinked in many different ways. This web of redirects might look chaotic to use, but i'm using those to disambiguate. It's not always obvious what they want to point at, but the more terms you carry across from the original context where it is used, the more chance you have of getting it right eventually. I've seen [remote control|RC car], [remote control]ed aircraft, etc etc. 'remote control' is a noun, and a 'general process' (the process of remote control).

There's "remote control (disambiguation)" which is far too broad i.e. including all the media titles using then there's remote control which is far too narrow ('consumer electronics short range remote control) and teleoperation.

There's cases where it's not immediately obvious what is being talked about, but it's clearly not songs/TV episodes, just the control case. thats why I made remote control (general).

this is like a 'rolling refactor' of software, making wrappers to get the right target eventually

Fmadd (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to achieve a consensus to change the way remote control and remote control (disambiguation) are structured first and then change the way that all of these articles are linked? You are making a vast number of edits in anticipation of something that hasn't happened yet, and may not happen (or not happen quite the way you are expecting). What if remote control (consumer electronics) is not where the current remote control article ends up? Remote control (general) is unlikely to ever be an article because "(general)" isn't a disambiguator we use. I think you need to get consensus for new articles / article moves & splits before restructuring the "web of redirects". WJBscribe (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably stating the obvious, i've tried to make an ascii art diagram explaining user:fmadd#disambiguating, why redirects seem so useful . If there are lots of intermiediate redirects, it's easier to resolve the ambiguity. They're like an abstraction layer or wrappers in software. Reading further, and looking at the history, it's not hard to see why it's so ambiguous. The article has obviously been changed, starting out as 'general remote control', and gradually being refined specifically to TV/DVD remote handsets. (with the pictures matching what it says in the opening paragraph). Fmadd (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd, that's wonderful. You're still missing the point. If you want to make huge sweeping changes like this, you must discuss it first. I don't necessary disagree with your message, but how you're implementing it is incredibly disruptive. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks disruptive to you because you're evidently a 'judger' personality rather than a 'perceiver'. You expect everything to be finished and in it's final form all the time, obviously. Wikipedia being an open graph should support open ended,exploratory thinking. When you break things down into smaller pieces it's easier to connect them organically. You're butting into my thought process and complaining because one snapshot of one piece in isolation doesn't make sense to you (like organic dye..) Fmadd (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It is disruptive, because you're going against years of policy and consensus. You cannot make unilateral changes to a system like Wikipedia. I'm not just some dafty who doesn't like what you're doing, as evidenced by the ANI that has backed me up. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

other vocal people like you. You're deleting redirects because they dont make sense to you... but they're moving pieces , like scaffolding , that help get the structure right . I'm trying to fix things and you're going around pulling the scaffholding away, because you expect everything to conform to some rigid plan in your head. Fmadd (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, because a group of administrators, who have been selected as being the most likely to know and understand Wikipedia policy, "don't get it". We get it, all right, but that doesn't mean we can/should accept it. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec)No, they are not anything like scaffolding. That implies the pages need the redirects, but it is the other way around. You do not have to change the redirects first. As I have tried to explain above, you get consensus for the structure first and then adjust the redirects. WJBscribe (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

'group of administrators' ... priestly cult... Like the damn C++ comittee that block various features for so long , dragging their heels

I can see now , looking how that damn article does actually have talk of teslas boat and military applications later, one option here would be to just generalise the 'opening paragraph'. But we've still got loads of contexts where people say 'remote' and they mean the literal damn handset for changing TV stations. If at least we point at an abstraction layer (which you are busy deleting??!!!) we can fix it more easily. It's been broken for years, because people try to put too much into one article, or they use that pipe trick to put literal redirects in one at a time. Fmadd (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

>>"No, they are not anything like scaffolding. That implies the pages need the redirects, but it is the other way around. You do not have to change the redirects first." ... yeah this is exactly the problem, I know your type. You have no concept of an organic workflow. Which is why you rejected 'organic dye', because it didn't make sense to the rigid plan in your head. But the process of digging around , with the redirect as a 'staging point', helps figure out what is going on, and eventually the structure is improved around it. You can't fix a decent structure as an upfront plan. No one knows as much as wikipedia. The key is to maintain an organic workflow (with abstraction layers), then the right structure emerges. Fmadd (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

you still dont seem to understand what I'm trying to do?

PROBLEM

[1]the article remote control is too specific - it's about short range, wireless, remote control handsets for consumer electronics. remote control covers a much wider range of cases, including WIRED remotes, LONG RANGE, Operating vehicles/ submarines/ remote bombs in IED's etc.

[2] we have 100s of pages depending on the specific structure.

[3] we have many cases where articles point at remote cnotrol erroneously, when they actually mean teleoperation

[4] we have ambiguous examples, where if we split the articles we wouldn't quite know where to point them (are toys 'consumer electronics', or teleoperated?)

SOLUTION

[1] introduce an abstraction layer of redirects. like television remote control etc. All those redirects, like organic dye, that your rigid mind instantly can't accept , because their not part of your plan.

[2] Tthen it's much easier to change the articles that we point at. We can rework material between (remote control, teleoperation, radio control), whilst only having to update 10's of redirects rather than 100s of 'inline links'.

No one person knows everything here - we will arrive at a better structure (rather than this one which looks to have been broken for years) by working dynamically, rather than rigidly.

Fmadd (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you're trying to do. However, an undertaking this massive must get input from other editors. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Unilateral large-scale changes just aren't acceptable on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even chaining the structure now. I'm just introducing redirects, which mean it will be easier to change the structure later. that's all. You're acting as if redirects are life threatening. Fmadd (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd

...Why did you just revert all his contributions? I see a block but no sign the content edits were wrong?... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, see this ANI thread. The long and the short of it is they have created a ridiculous number of unnecessary redirects, edited hundreds of pages to point to those redirects (often breaking or avoiding perfectly valid links in the process), and we're deleting almost all of them and rolling back their contributions. Yes, there will be a small number of valid changes that are being undone, but it is better than letting garbage sit around waiting for someone to eventually notice and clean it up. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You have undone a great number of non-redirect related edits and this is not vaguely ok. I am going to go to ANI but I do not see a consensus for that yet there, there's no existing policy for such widespread rollbacks under the circumstances lacking a consensus, and this is not at all good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a WP:FAIT action. I thought a great deal of Fmadd's contributions were beneficial. Please slow down. Sizeofint (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That said, I agree with the decision at ANI. Sizeofint (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Rajlakshmi SJ

Dr Rajlakshmi SJ is a dentist in India's Bengaluru, known for her gritty spirit in fighting with a life-threatening disability that she suffered at tender age of 21 years.

Born in 1986, Dr Rajlakshmi had a normal life till 2007 when she met with an accident that cut her spinal cord, rendering her paraplegic for life. She however did not let her resolve die, and fought in Karnataka High court for reservation for disabled persons in higher education. She soon won the case that is benefitting hundreds of disabled students in Karnataka today.

     Later , Dr Rajlakshmi went on to secure the State-level Gold Medal in Masters in Dental Surgery (MDS) and is today an independently practising orthodontist in Bengaluru city.
      In 2014, she also won the Miss Wheelchair India crown, competing with around 250-odd participants. TUSHAR KARMARKAR (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Asian Winter Games 2017

Hi, Australia, Kuwait and New Zealand will compete under the OCA flag, so I am unsure how to get that into their respective nation pages and the main article. Also, North Korea's pages do not show 2011 linked to the template on the nation pages. Can you please help me fix these? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, I've fixed North Korea, must have been a holdover from when I converted all the IBs.

What's the OCA flag? I can't seem to find it on Wikipedia. For the moment just put them in as normal, and when I know which image to use I'll insert it into the system (which will then percolate appropriately). Primefac (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The flag is not on Wikipedia (I thought it was), but its literally this on a white bg. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I'll see what I can do about creating a proper flag image. In the meantime, just put the countries as you normally would. Primefac (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, it's done. I left Kuwait as-is, because the page says it's competing under the IOC flag. Primefac (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That one is a bit confusing. Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Hi again, some changes have happened in entries. Bahrain will not compete, while Uzbekistan and Jordan will compete now. If you could get those fixed on the templates, that would be great! Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, in the interest of not having to update the module more than absolutely necessary, I'll make these changes, but I'm also going to hold off until next week (in the off chance that more countries are added/removed). Primefac (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. These changes are final according to the OC. There might be changes in sports/athlete but not countries competing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi it appears Aus and NZL are competing under their own flags. I am so sorry. Sportsfan 1234 (talk)

 Fixed Primefac (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Reviewing and Publishing

Hello, As you have suggested I have come with two more sources - The Hindu Newspaper & Times of India Newspaper. I have snapshotted both the newspaper where Gokul Shrinivas's name is mentioned. You can find those in these links https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3Ifg9NqQswtWjBDVFFpcFBfQ2c - The Hindu dated December 15, 2016. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ifg9NqQswtX0hsVDNBajk1X0E/view?usp=sharing - Times of India dated February 17, 2016.

This is my first article "Gokul Shrinivas" which I'm drafting in Wikipedia, So please guide me and help me to finish it off successfully. And there are lot's of local and National newspapers published about Gokul Shrinivas, I'm sure I'll collect all those and add one by one news and updating this article. And I'f possible I'll directly reach to Gokul Shrinivas and collect all the media's about him. Thanks,

Jonathan629 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Mabelle Prior

Saw that you draftified this and wanted to get your and SwisterTwister's thoughts on it. Came across it during NPP and am fine proceeding to AfD, but I always like to get input if there has been an AfC review in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I declined it at AFC, and it doesn't appear to have been improved all that much since then. I generally watch those sorts of pages to prevent the creator moving it again, odd that this one slipped through the cracks. AFD away! Primefac (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the quick response. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Contest speedy deletion on Librarians Association of Malaysia page

Hi, I'm noticed the deletion on "Librarians Association of Malaysia" page. I'm one of the owner of the website http://www.ppm55.org and willing to donate copyrighted materials to Wikipedia. I have read about "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" and I will follow the instruction to release the copyright of that work. Thanks. Akmalpent (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Akmalpent, apologies for the long delay. If you wish to donate text to Wikipedia, please see WP:DONATETEXT and follow the instructions there. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Operation Storm

Hi. This is highly unprofessional. Why exactly have you protected Opration Storm article? I made an edit and I have started a discussion. How else am I supposed to edit Wikipedia? An editor who clearly opposes my edit and who doesn't want to participate in the discussion has thought of a great way to get his way. Block the page so I can't edit it and ignore the opened discussion? Why should I be discriminated because I edit as an IP? Here I've opened an account just for this purpose, to edit this one article. Please revert your deed. Bilseric (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bilseric, it's not a permanent protection (in time or in access). I see you've started some discussions on the talk page, and that's good. If that doesn't work out, there are other dispute options available (such as dispute resolution, Third Opinion, etc). As a note regarding your edits - we do unfortunately view IPs less favourably as we do registered users. However, this does not mean that IPs cannot make valid points/edits/etc (just the same as registered users can bugger things up). You made the first move, and even if you are right, there has been pushback from another editor, so I strongly encourage you to reach some sort of consensus on the talk page before you edit the main page (which you'll be able to once you reach autoconfirmed status in a few days).

The long and the short is that I'm not going to unprotect the page (it's only for a fortnight anyway), but in the meantime you should discuss the issues on the talk page with other users. And always, remember to be CIVIL. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I started a RfC so this will be resolved. I still don't think it's ok to help someone who reverts and isn't willing to discuss have his way by getting rid of an ip. 89.164.132.96 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Contest speedy deletion of draft page "Axel Fassio"

Hello, the draft page "Axel Fassio" has been deleted because of copyright infringement. The text that has been copied from www.fassiophoto.com/about is mine and I am the sole owner and creator of the website www.fassiophoto.com. Can I rewrite another draft page with the same content once I follow the needed procedure for copyright usage? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckox (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Geckox, if you follow the instructions at WP:DONATETEXT, then you are welcome to recreate the page. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Aviation Historical Society

Since you have commented about the deletion of the article, is there some way to resurrect the files used to create the article? I reiterate, I saw the notice after the article was already deleted and received no reply on a query I made to the admin that removed the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC closed

I have put up the closing rationale at the RFC. It is awaiting your countersignature. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me

So sorry to get you involved in all this, especially in this discussion recently. Things go awry on Wikipedia as always, but all in all, everything seems to be safe now. SportsLair (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For beating me to REVDELing those revisions over at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (At least I got credit for protecting the page). Here's a kitten to distract you so I can beat you to the next admin action :D

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)