User talk:Primefac/Archive 34

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Draft:1995 UN Children's Conference on the Environment

Dear Primefac,

I have made the addition that you recommended to the website at https://www.makingnaturalhistory.co.uk/the-1995-united-nations-childrens-conference-on-the-environment - at the bottom of the page.

What should be my next step?

Yours,

Ralph Lucas LordLucasCD (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Contacting me, incidentally. I have restored the page. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I am, well, not puzzled, but discomfited

Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_Flaneur#A_major_inconsistency and at this editor's absolute single minded determination to create a draft about Goodden, noting their contributions record (including deletions) here and on Commons. I feel it is time for someone with admin goggles to take a look. If I am barking up the wrong tree, or am barking mad, please let me know. What I do know is that this needs more eyes than mine on it, please. Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I started glazing over about halfway through that huge thread on your talk page, but from what I did make it through it sounds like someone very poorly trying to hide their identity, then deciding it wasn't worth the effort. COI, sure, but I do believe them not giving their brother access to the account. I will leave final decision-making to Oshwah though. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that something is up, but I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and let it go. He says that he's not sharing his account, and some of his statements are inconsistent, but I have no evidence of wrong-doing. If the user performs any actions that are inconsistent with policy, we just need to hold him responsible for it. Regardless of whether or not sharing was/is going on, he's ultimately responsible for the edits that are made on the account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Joan Palmer Hughston

Why was my page deleted I was going to re create it by deleting old and adding new contentJoan Hughston (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Your page was deleted because it was a copyright violation; see User_talk:Joan_Hughston#Wikipedia_and_copyright on your talk page for more information. You are welcome to recreate the draft, but you must write it in your own words. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Follow up

I sent you a follow up mail which might interest you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My Articles for Creation returning reviewer request

Hi Primefac! I'm sure you've been busy. I just wanted to follow-up regarding my request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants#User:paul2520.

When you get a chance, let me know if my request looks good, or if there is anything else I should do. = paul2520 💬 16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, no idea how I missed that. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about a potential attack page

Hello, I've randomly found a page, Rindos v Hardwick, while browsing a category of articles tagged as needing clean up. This article has a very odd history, starting off as a blatant attack page, that consequently attracted one of the parties of the conflict, that edited the article. This individual then left a lenghthy comment in the article's talk page, and asked for its deletion. Now, the article has since been trimmed, but is still only sourced to primary sources and well, the BLP violations are still present both in the article and in article history. I've considered tagging it as an attack page, but I don't know if it qualifies. I've seen your name around CSD, could you take a look? At least some revdel would apply, I think. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The earliest revisions have been hidden per WP:RD2, and while I only took a quick skim of a few of the later diffs it didn't look like anything else particularly needed it. If there are specific revisions that need hiding let me know. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yunus Brothers Group

I view this as a doubly unusual acceptance, the first because of the referencing, the second because it was created by a proven sockpuppet.

WHat perplexes me now is that our reviewer has just rmeoved the CSD tag that asks that it be deleted as created by a blocked user. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

They do seem susceptible to education, though, and have reinstated the CSD tag at my request FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Not always easy to find socks if the blocked user script isn't enabled, and I always think that "learning from one's mistakes" is an admirable quality in a person. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
We've had a cordial conversation. I'm not expecting that conversation to develop, but we all make errors and almost all of us are better for it. The same, I think, can be said for the argy bargy below (currently). FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I understand enthusiasm about "rooting out evil", but it seems like some people see it around every corner. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Just like being concerned about letting kids out to play because there are paediatricians out there, somewhere. (I remember a poor paediatrician got a brick though his window some years ago by someone rooting out evil) FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This needs your intervention

Hey! @Primefac, hope all is good. Since AfC is more like your department, I am reaching out. I don't know what's going on with @Celestina007 and a few other editors. She is acting like Wikipedia Police, outright blaming me "there's something fishy about this editor...". Please refer to this conversation. I accepted a stub class piece at AfC that I felt was okay to be passed into mainspace as per 50/50. now that is at AfD and everybody is creating so much fuss about it. This really discourages me to be a part of AfC. I would be grateful if you share your thoughts about it. @Barkeep49's feedback is also much appreciated. If this mistake is that serious in your opinion, please feel free to take my AfC and NPR. I don't enjoy coming across such judgemental editors who cherrypick stuff to blame. thanks! Dial911 (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You have come a long way since you first joined AFC back in 2018; I'll be honest if this had come up back then I probably would have pulled your AFCH access, but in the last couple of years I've not seen your name come up at all regarding problematic reviews, which in my mind is pretty much as good as it gets. We all make borderline (or even questionable) accepts at times (I can't find the diff but I self-un-reviewed one myself a few months ago when questioned on it) so please don't take criticism about one accept too harshly. I've left a note at Celestina's page to that effect. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Since I was the person who started this, I would like to apologise Dial911 for the discouragement I caused to them. I really did not wanted to take this to this much. You can see I had not behaved so rude to any users including Dial911 till this moment. I already had left my apology in two talk pages. I just wanted to let you know I am really worried by the mess I caused to them. I hope that you, as a senir editor has taken my apology. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I always welcome constructive criticism. However, their approach made it evident they did not care about AGF. But thank you @Primefac for understanding my point and providing your valuable guidance. Dial911 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Template move

Hi, I just closed a request to move Template:Tlu to Template:Template link universal. Fairly straightforward, as such cryptic acronyms are usually discouraged except as shortcut redirects. However, when I went to move the template I notice it was linked from Module:User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster/row. I cannot figure out how the template is being used or linked from that module, so I wanted to check that moving the template won't cause any problems. Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 21:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The module's documentation uses {{tlu}} to link to the related user template (as it should). The only thing to really keep things from breaking is to update the redirects at Template:Utl and Template:Tu, as the double-redirect bots might not fix them. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK question

As my DYK restrictions are still in place alas, I would like to ask you another question just to clarify. Would it be OK for me to run a DYK based on the late Prince Philip's personal flag? I ask as his article is not listed under any of the political Wikiprojects so I just wanted to check it was OK? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's not political, then it should be okay. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Helping

How can I contribute in more helpful way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinerd001234 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikinerd001234. My main concern with your edits was not that they were not "helpful", but more that they were not accurate. I don't want to make assumptions about who you are or where you're editing from, but your edits seems like there is a language issue getting in the way of good edits to grammar and spelling. Instead of spelling mistakes, try fixing WP:MOS issues or helping out with WikiProject Check Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your reply at the TfD holding area regarding the merge of the FSS template into find sources. It appears that Module:Find sources needs to be edited for this to be performed, unless I'm mistaken, and I am not adept using this language. So, it appears that I will have to leave it up to you to complete the merge. North America1000 20:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Template issue

Hi there, having issues with the squad template on the Pone Fa'amausili page which is showing in the collapsed option instead the expanded option. Can't see anything in the text that is causing this issue. If you've got any time any chance you could take a look for me please. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think the {{multiple issues}} template is causing the page to reach the "two or more collapsible tables" limit, which autocollapses the navbox. I have added |state=expanded to the article's navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Jonesey95, I'm sure of tried that but didn't seem to work, maybe I made a typo. Page is on my list for a tidy up though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your diligent work in admin related areas and it’s arduous intricacies. Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Didn't understand what just happened

Hey, apologies but I got a notification that I was mentioned in the participants list. However, at my request, I don't see the proper probation tag as I see on others [1]. I am confused what happened. Please help and advise. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Typo in the template. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Priyanka Lalla

Hope you are fine. Plz if you could give me a chance to rewrite it in a way to meet the policies here Humble84 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC).

I have moved the page to Draft:Priyanka Lalla. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ohio State Buckeyes colors

Just so you are aware, the Ohio State Buckeyes' athletic colors are scarlet & gray, per OhioStateBuckeyes.com. Also, the official HTML color codes were derived from NCAA.com. I also checked to ensure that the gray color was WP:CONTRAST compliant. It is, per WebAIM.org. I just thought you should know all this. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks? I can't say as I remember ever editing OSU's page. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned all that earlier about the Ohio State Buckeyes' colors & references because of this edit diff you made over at Module:College color/data? Does that help? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yes, didn't think to make that connection. Refs all checked out so I guess mea culpa for not seeing the difference in dates for sources. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User talk:194.72.112.178

There's another edit summary needs removing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, missed the box. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Agricultural Food and Allied Democratic Workers Union

I have noted that you have voted the page mentioned on the subject/headline to be deleted, the issue has been fixed. if there is any issue with the page please let me know I will attend to it.--Willingtonw (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Willingtonw, the issues clearly have not been fixed, as the page was deleted again and I just deleted your draft page for the same reason. Just to add extra emphases, you cannot copy and paste text that other people have written. Everything you put on to Wikipedia, except in very limited circumstances around quotations, must be written in your own words. Do not copy and paste text directly from copyrighted sources. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I have seen your reply but I was frustrated as to why the content was a copyright infringement, to which Sarahj2107 pointed out the source ("http://afadwu.org.za/about?tab=about") where the copyright right infringement has occurred. The reason I did not note that as a copyright issue is that I was the same person responsible for writing that content as well as responsible for the development of the website, as you could notice from the website header tags [Author: Willington Mhlanga]. My apologies for the confusion or misunderstanding caused. Can you advise in this case, if you can, since apparently I will be removed if I make another attempt to add the page with the same content to which I am the author, and the content did cite its authenticity from multiple sources including national newspapers. --Willingtonw (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Willingtonw, the issue is that you wrote the content for someone else; they have a notice at the bottom of their website Copyright © 2021, AFADWU, which means that we thus cannot reuse the text. However, if you are the author and have the ability to add a "copyleft" notice, we would then be able to use the content; see WP:DONATETEXT for information on how to leave a copyleft notice at the source. I would still encourage you to rewrite the text in different wording (mostly to avoid being overly promotional) but if the copyleft is provided there is no longer an issue with reusing that text. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Template trouble

You helped me once before with this template, so I hope you can again. Can you ferret out why Template:List of disc golf courses in the United States is suddenly displaying error messages in the "per capita" columns? Deor (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

An IP removed all of the anchors needed for the template to work. They'll need to be re-added to get it working again. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've now restored the anchors in List of states and territories of the United States by population. Deor (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hi, Primefac - I went hunting a diff for an in-general comment I made but it appears you made a broad sweep with the mop (06:14, April 28, 2021‎ Primefac talk contribs‎ m 47,361 bytes +60‎ redact), and took out the whole shebang. Has it been positively determined to be OUTING? I need to know before I comment at the MfD discussion because I interpreted the article much differently. Atsme 💬 📧 15:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The piece made a connection that had not been disclosed on-wiki, and used speculation in order to determine the connection. I don't know what you mean by "positively determined", as even if we (ArbCom or OSers) did know who was behind the account, we wouldn't be able to confirm or deny.
Regarding diffs, as near as I can tell from scanning through the history prior to redaction there were no comments removed or significantly altered, so linking to a permalink or the live version of the page should hopefully be suitable. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Positively determined = arbcom or other consensus, or was it sole discretion because if the latter, there are opposing views which is what caused my confusion, but when Primefac speaks, everybody listens. My primary (no pun intended 😊) interest focuses on avoiding an inadvertent path into quicksand. As someone who was outed (per Notes "a" of OUTING), my personal information was not only disclosed, my privacy was invaded to the umpth degree including research into what domains were registered in my name, my FB account, etc. The doxxer walked free, which may help explain why I don't see this case as OUTING. What I'm focused on now is what policy states; i.e., the posting of Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. It goes further to expain (my bold underline): While in the limited circumstances outlined above, links to external websites containing solicitations to edit Wikipedia may be posted on Wikipedia to demonstrate that there may be conflict of interest editing, links to personal profiles on external sites should not be connected to any specific Wikipedia editor unless that editor discloses it themselves. That's the only circumstance I saw for "connect" or any other form of the word. I did not see any indication of the latter in The Signpost article. I just want to be clear about what you're saying now and the redaction, and my understanding is that we cannot say editor X appears to be closely connected to the BLP they've been editing; therefore, a case has been opened at WP:COIN. That is basically all that The Signpost article ascribed to, and that's where I'm getting confused. Perhaps we need to change the policy because what you're saying pretty much cancels COIN. Just the editor's chosen name indicates a potential COI. And therein lies my confusion. Atsme 💬 📧 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
In regard to the "limited circumstances" bit, that would be like linking to a Fiver or UpWork request for someone to write an article as evidence that the creator is UPE; there's no link to specific information such as who they are. That sort of thing would be fine at COIN or other venue; behavioural evidence is often more than enough to indicate there is a COI or UPE.
In this particular instance, the author of the signpost piece said (and yes, I'm quoting) Taken together these these parallels suggest that it's very likely that Patton, the former Trump employee, edited as <username> which followed three paragraphs of breakdown of exactly why Person A is User B. The Oversight team has long held that "opposition research" in an effort to make specific connections between users and people is a violation of the outing policy.
Now again, if someone had said "User B is editing exclusively pages X, Y, and Z, and has made no other edits, and therefore could be connected to Group XYZ" that is not stating that they are a specific individual, just one connected to the group of which they're editing. It's only when there is a direct link to a specific person (alive or dead) that it becomes an outing issue. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Ahhhh...ok. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 19:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello. Could you please remove the edit summary from this edit in Adobe Flash Player? I know WP:REVDEL says "ordinary" incivility should not be deleted, but unlike the previous edit summary by the same user, this one actually messes up the revision history page layout, depending on the browser window width. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Heh, yes, that definitely fits the description "purely disruptive". Hidden. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits of this user

Hello, sorry to bother you. Is it possible to suppress the edits of Namfon Palawong? --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ashleyyoursmile: I don't believe this qualifies for OS (though I'll let Primefac be the judge of that), but I did request revdel on IRC – it's gone now. Best, Blablubbs|talk 12:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 Done (and yes it does). Primefac (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I think you missed one. Blablubbs|talk 13:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh my. I didn't see the image change in the diff. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Primefac, Blablubbs many thanks. The user has been indeffed. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Did anyone reported to stewards for global lock and review of (note: mature content) cross-wiki contributions? –xenotalk 13:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if this requires a glock; the uploader claims it's them, so it's (I think?) within Commons' purview. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Based on heuristics, I would think this would fall into the category of intimate image abuse (despite what the uploader claims): however, I understand commons has quite different content policy, and I have not done any kind of reverse image search at present.. –xenotalk 13:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Xeno, yep, at SRG and I'll try to find a Commons admin somewhere. Blablubbs|talk 13:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Meh, this is why I don't deal with Commons. Dick pics are fine, but upload a nude selfie and it's all hands on deck to delete... I just don't get it. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The EXIF isn't valid (it's from a PDF viewer) so I have some doubts about the own work claim and I'd go for "presumptive deletion" because of the privacy concern. Also, not sure if that was intentional, but it seems like you reverted the suppression. Blablubbs|talk 13:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Suppression isn't required for the image. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I had only seen the images and didn't realise that there was more – disregard my comment about not being OSable. YGM, btw. Blablubbs|talk 13:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't work at commons either, but I'm approaching it from the concern that the uploader is not the subject. I would do the same if an intimate image of male anatomy were uploaded and abused by a VOA account, as well. I don't feel competent to judge with the present information whether this is intimate image abuse, or someone uploading their own image and putting it on an inappropriate page, so I will err on the side of caution. –xenotalk 13:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair point, though I too cannot really do an image search either since I'm at work... don't need the kids seeing that, let alone my boss. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Martin Martinez

Did you intend to be histmerging this article into article space? If so, that is fine, but it now has an AFC tag on it, and it looks as though its WikiProjects have been lost. I could try to clean it up, but I want to be sure that I am cleaning it up the way you intend it to be cleaned up. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It was a copy/paste pagemove from draft to article. If it should be returned to the draft space, I have no opposition to that; I was not intending on cleaning anything or doing any more than the histmerge (time constraints). Primefac (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:National squad

Hello! Is it possible for you to make the template show national coach as a default. Then coach is shown in the template it should be possible to have a national coach as default. Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Which template is this? Primefac (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! The template i mean is the template for national squad of course. The coach label can be changed to default. Coach label can be changed to be national coach as a default. Check the template national squad again.
Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot it was that specific. I guess I'm also not sure what you mean: there's only one field for coach (i.e. there's no separate parameter for "national coach"), so there's nothing to make "default". If you're suggesting that we change the wording to "National coach", I would respectfully disagree, since by default the coach of a national squad is the "national coach". Primefac (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Continued below. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

National squad

Hello! Is it possible for you to defauklt the coach_type label to national coach?. That should be default for all the templates which includes national team. That is logical because it includes national teams and not club teams. See what you can do about that?. Yours sincerely, Sondre --62.73.207.204 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said higher up the page, I don't really see whatever change you're proposing as necessary, as the coach of a national squad is, by default, a national coach. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries in histories

One each on Richard Holden and Grahame Morris need to go. DuncanHill (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Done. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Asahi Graph

I know, I never mentioned or intended to refer to http://camera-wiki.org, not all content on Fandom/Wikia is cc-by-sa 3.0, some wikis were acquired by them and are under a non-free or incompatible license. If you look at the bottom of https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Asahi_Graph, it says "Community content is available under GFDL unless otherwise noted." Dylsss(talk contribs) 16:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Would https://www.fandom.com/licensing be considered "unless otherwise noted"? There, they say that unless it is explicitly stated otherwise, it's a CC-BY-SA release. Thus, we have a page-specific "unless otherwise" notice, and a site-wide "unless otherwise" notice, and I'm inclined to believe/go with the site-wide notice. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Err, no. The footer is there for a reason, because it was a wiki imported from another site. There are also imported wikis with nc, nd, and nc-nd licenses. Apart from the fact that it is not legally possible to take this GFDL licensed content and relicense it to cc-by-sa. Dylsss(talk contribs) 17:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
And if you want, also see https://web.archive.org/web/20100726122435/http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Asahi_Graph, from where it was licensed under GFDL 1.2, not on Fandom. Dylsss(talk contribs) 17:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hoary, are you the same user that created the two articles (Camera-wiki and Fandom)? Primefac (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I did a lot of work for Camerapedia, at the time a scrappy but often excellent 'pedia, delightfully free of commercial interests. This certainly included both its stub on Ars Camera and that on Asahi Graph (as well as its articles, or anyway stubs, on other Japanese camera magazines). The man whose server hosted camerapedia.org then suddenly sold Camerapedia to what was then called Wikia. The result had the content of the old Camerapedia plus repellent quantities of adverts (which was Wikia's raison d'être, after all). Luckily the content of the old Camerapedia had been downloaded in toto and was copyleft. So one or two or three kind people (I've now forgotten who, but I wasn't among them) relaunched it as camera-wiki.org, free of debasement by advertising. (I don't think that any of the people who'd edited [non-commercial] Camerapedia at all vigorously continued on Wikia's "Camerapedia".) Since then, I've only made a very small number of trivial edits to camera-wiki.org, which I'm happy to see still continues. (As for Wikia/Fandom's "Camerapedia", I've hardly glanced at it. Ten minutes ago I did so for the first time in years; it's still horrible.) I note that the WP article Asahi Graph says "This article incorporates material derived from the 'Asahi Graph' article on the camerapedia wiki at Fandom (formerly Wikia) and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License (June 2018)." Yes, probably true, but it's only at Fandom because Wikia got it from [non-commercial] Camerapedia. I wish the WP article instead said that it was derived from the article within Camerapedia, with a Wayback link to pre-Wikia Camerapedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Hoary: The issue is that when you contributed that content to Camerapedia under the GFDL 1.2 license, however that license is not compatible with Wikipedia. If you do not wish to license your content here under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, it should be deleted. If you are fine with it being licensed here under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, then I am not really sure what the correct process would be, normally when we import content from a copyrighted and unlicensed or incompatibly licensed source, the copyright holder should email permissions-en@wikimedia.org to freely license their text. But you are an active editor here, if you simply write here or on the talk page of the article that you agree to license the content under CC-BY-SA 3.0, I feel that would be enough. Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Dylsss, is this OK? -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary, that looks good to me. Dylsss(talk contribs) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sphenophorus parvulus vs. interstitialis

Hi, is it possible for you to reverse the move of title Sphenophorus parvulus to Sphenophorus interstitialis? I just realize that the synonymy of the two names does not validate S. inaequalis because of date priority. The mere listing of an unused name in a catalogue does not prevent maintenance of an established name. I will publish a scientific note to fix this error. I apologize for upsetting the community. Thanks! IVicky (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to its original location. If it does need moving in the future, please file an WP:RM so that there's a consensus that it is indeed the right move. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Oversight bolding

Is there a way to make suppression bolded for log entries as well? aeschyIus (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't say, would be worth asking at the phab task. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Logs, etc are being scoped in to T23272 already. — xaosflux Talk 02:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Line-ups in football finals

Hello! Can you upload line-ups for the European Cup Winners' Cup finals from 1961 until 1989?. See if you can find the starting line-ups and see where you find them. Also starting-lineup files for Cup Finals as well from 1948 until 1989. And League Cup finals from 1961 until 2000. Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Upload them where? I'm not much of a football watcher, so I don't even know where I would find who played on which team anyway. I'll be honest, you need to start including more detail and more wikilinks in your requests, because constantly asking for clarification is becoming rather tedious (I mean, I'm happy to help out where I can, but I shouldn't have to ask you what you mean every time). Also, while it is not the case here, if there is an existing section that deals with the issue you want to discuss (e.g. at Template talk:FlagIOC) you should edit that section instead of starting a new one. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

AfC archive query

Hello, Primefac,

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 1 was archived and then tagged for speedy deletion. I think that it is content that should be archived but is perhaps is at the wrong location. Since you participated in discussions contained on it evaluating editors' suitability for AfC reviewing, I thought you might know where this content should go. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

People get a little slap-happy with OneClickArchiver, I guess. Maybe they should rename it to TwoClickArchiver and actually get a sanity check in there? Primefac (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for removal of AFC and NPR permissions

Hi Primefac. Can you remove my access to articles for creation as well as my new page reviewer right? I haven't done anything in either area for a long time and am no longer interested in either. — MRD2014 (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright - Patrick Whelan page

Hi Primefac

Thanks for the update. Can you please explain what steps I need to take to make the additional edit of this page? The copyright is not mine obviously as the song was written over 100 years ago. Do I need to ask Comhaltas Ceolteoirí Éireann directly for permission to use the material, which is here on their website: https://archive.comhaltas.ie/tracks/15785 or can I just copy the same symbol in the references?Helen Larkin (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for the advice

First off, I do not think we need to have the entirety of the song posted here (regardless of copyright status); a simple link to the lyrics would do. To address the copyright question, though, yes, they would have to release copyright in order for us to host any part of the lyrics to the song. Please see WP:DONATETEXT. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Primefac, I believe the copyright in question is to do with CCÉ's version of this song, so I'm also trying to track down the original version to see if there's copyright attached to that. Thanks for the link/information. Hopefully I can do something with it Helen Larkin (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Auto archiving on Talk:Absolute pitch

Hey, just wanted to give a heads up that the reason why "auto archiving isn't working for some reason" at Talk:Absolute pitch is because I just put in the syntax for it like 6 hours before (the diff got oversighted), so it's probably not broken. But yes, the counter should be at 2. Thanks for your work! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that while dealing with some unrelated business. I didn't even think to check the history to see when it was added! Primefac (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions

I noticed some problems in my updating films with the short description. I see you made this change which seems to be the cause. I asked first here. Anyway - was there a discussion anywhere which prompted this? Were you or others aware that it would break the Import function (via Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper) Which pulls the short description from wikidata? (it instead automatically pulls "American film" from the infobox as I understand it.). Is it something you'd be willing to restore to its previous state? — Ched (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

In order to avoid decentralized discussion (and have a productive one at that) I have replied at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Shortdesc. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I know you want the discussion there, but in case the "ping" got lost: Thank you for your work on this. — Ched (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The ping, no, the edit notification (stupid bots) yes. Either way, you're welcome :-) Primefac (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC) And something like this is totally fine to split off/keep separate/duplicate

fyi

We appear to have lost, certainly for the present, Commander Waterford. You may wish to see discussions on their talk page, at ANI, and small ones on mine. This is depressing, because it will affect the backlog adversely. I make no comment on the issues being raised, especially at ANI. The way the ANI thread is going it does appear we will lose them permanently. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Systematic and orchestrated abuse on Wikipedia

Hi. I am seeing in this Wikipedia (and expanding into wikis in other languages) a widespread abuse of the misuse of WIkipédia's information system to turn us into an ideological pamphlet of ecologists, with dozens of users combining off-wiki actions, some possibly being paid to edit here. There are even administrators involved. I'll explain below: Trying to find information about a supposed "deforestation in Brazil", I found DOZENS of articles talking about the same thing on the same subject. The titles of the articles normally are repetitive and very similar, which seems clear to me that it is an forced attempt to spread the same information. You find the same information in articles like: Deforestation, Deforestation in Brazil, Deforestation by region, Deforestation and climate change, Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, Human overpopulation, Brazil, Conservation in Brazil, Soybean, Biodiversity, Trans-Amazonian Highway, Category:National_forests_of_Brazil, articules about politics and wherever you can wearily repeat the same thing to see if people are convinced of a specific idea. Do you think they've abused enough? The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change is creating a few hundred more ideological articles with the same texts. I am clearly seeing a denial of the principles of: WP:COI and WP:DWH.

I don't want to file such a lawsuit because these users are vindictive, stalkers and use orchestrated team attacks against any user who tries to complain about them. They have become "owners" of the articles and repel any user who tries to face them, in a clear dictatorial system established here and spread on Wikis in French, German, Portuguese, Spanish and others. There are administrators and other users here using dozens of sock puppupets and dormant accounts (including dormant administrators) to create the effect of supporting the discussion and quickly ban users whenever necessary.

If you can act against this clear political activism, it would be very healthy for people to continue to believe that Wikipedia is really exempt. Because, with this protectionism to people who clearly abuse the system, I really don't believe it anymore. Corbont (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you suggesting that I (or Kevin, or Doug, etc) do about this? The articles you list above make perfect sense from the perspective of "having related articles on the same subject" (for example, "Brazil" is a big topic so splitting off "Conservation in Brazil" make sense). I also suspect there is no grand conspiracy to create these articles. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem is not information, it is editorial behavior. Editors of these topics are stuck in the "I need to prove my point of view" mentality and act in a terrible way: creating dubious and multiple articles on the same topics to force the visualization of their text somewhere. Editors of these topics tag-team outside and inside the wiki to ban anyone who tries to write something within this type of article that is not in their class. Editors of these articles are being biased. Editors of these articles have not allowed the adversary within the same article: they run to banish the person who dares to try to do this. Badly and badly walking through these articles I managed to find reversions from administrators who should not even exist physically, they are accounts that edit once a month on average, just to "help" in these cases. Corbont (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
That's a pretty serious issue, if it is indeed true. If there are multiple administrators involved, please get together sufficient evidence to demonstrate your claims and either send me or ArbCom an email so that we can look into the matter. Primefac (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with userpage

Hey, I saw your name at WP:USERPAGE and thought you might be the right person to ask this. Do you have any advice to offer on how to make my userpage more mobile-friendly? The main page image seems oversized on mobile browser, while the talk page's archive box doesn't appear at all on mobile browser. Those are just a few things I noticed. I'm not the most computer-literate person here, so any other tips would be appreciated. Thanks. isento (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I fixed some syntax errors on your user page. It looks fine on mobile, except for the image on smaller screens. You have set the image to a fixed height of 650px, so any screen smaller than that will crop the image. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out with that. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. isento (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

However, the new user Seguesubs looks like he's passing off content from other users' pages as his own, eg.

  • AFC stats linked to Curb Safe Charmer's account
  • Overall AFC stats linked to your account
  • Most active reviewers linked to KylieTastic's account

This is clearly misrepresentation - even if it was done innocently - and I don't think it should be allowed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

They're an lta sock of a globally locked master. YODADICAE👽 16:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Drm310 although the AFC stats link to Curb Safe Charmer is wrong, Primefacs page is general (old) general AfC stats, and my link is for all active reviewers not just my stats. However they falsely clim to work on AfC but they are not a participant, and claim to have worked on GAs which is just a lie. A very odd page to put up for your third edit! Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Given they're socking, I'm not surprised about linking to things beyond their capabilities. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Just realised its just a straight copy of User:Curb_Safe_Charmer#What_I_do_here KylieTastic (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Drm310. Eostrix has already reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaid Zayd, awaiting CU. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, maybe next time he'll choose the name of an owl for a username. There's more than one account on this try, attempting to make it appear like many editors (6!) edited this new article.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

PrimeBOT broke a template on DAAN

Hi, FYI, this edit seemed to break the {{Infobox musical artist}} template. --Azertus (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's... different. Definitely a GIGO issue, just not sure how to fix it (or at the very least, stop it from happening again). Thanks. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosi Prince

Praise Daniel Ukachukwu (born 5 November), known professionally as Rosi Prince, Is an independent Nigerian Singer and Songwriter, he was born in Ebute Meta, he spent his childhood in Anthony Village, Lagos, Nigeria.. he attended Anthony Model Nursery And Primary School as a kid, Then graduated to Ajao Estate Junior High School as a junior student and Finished from Anthony Village Senior High School..

He started music in the year 2020 and released his first song tittled "Omo Ta Fefe" which rose him to fame.. he is working on shooting his official music video for his first song(omo ta fefe) he also have an album called "Roadside Love"

Rosi Prince Tracks under Roadside Love Ep Omo Ta Fefe Closer 911 Praise Daniel (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Praise Daniel, that's interesting information, but my user talk isn't really the place to put new articles. I highly suggest you read through WP:YFA if you want to write about someone. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I need a Wikipedia page but I can't create it. Plus help me create on .. title it Rosi Prince Praise Daniel (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Praise Daniel, no one "needs" a Wikipedia page, and after having looked at your user page and doing some quick googling, I'm pretty sure you meet none of the requirements for having a Wikipedia article. Keep doing what you do, and maybe in a few years you will have received the necessary attention to get a page written about you. Primefac (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, can you write about a Nigeria artist, his name is Rosi Prince.. his information are in my talk page.. please help me do this Praise Daniel (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not going to write about you, for the reasons I stated above. Primefac (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't need you to write about me but about my favourite upcoming artist Praise Daniel (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If you are not Praise Daniel, then you need to request a username change. If you do not, your account may be blocked for impersonating him. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Could you also undelete parent Category:Order of the White Eagle (Poland) ? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

yes Ekeey bunduki (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem

No problem. Thanks for your concern. I don’t have any problem for you removing some informations from my user page. And again, thanks for showing your concern for me. Chynapras (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


As you deleted few personal informations about me, will others see those informations anymore? I didn’t re-edit those areas which you deleted. I am just worried about that will others see those personal informations anymore. Chynapras (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Chynapras, that information is only visible to the Oversight team, who are bound by NDAs to not release it. Additionally, we rarely if ever have a reason to even look at those hidden diffs. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your reply. Really appreciate you. Chynapras (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

user talk:125.239.24.161

Can you revoke this ip's talk page access? Drill it (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ARCA assistance

Hello, Primefac. In the future, plans to request the amendment of existing WP:ARBPIA4 which includes strong and more powerful measures. In my proposal for the future ARBPIA4 amendment, any users, even for EC users, cannot moving any articles or contents that have been related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in other words, only administrators can only moving an page subjected to the topic (topic-wide page ban), which only can be archived with consensus from all users. I think the proposal is acceptable because my mind is disturbed with phrase [Move=Require Extended Confirmed access (Indefinite)] which in my opinion should be page move only by administrators only because only EC page move deemed it more distruptive. But, I'm having a obstacles about how to filling an request for arbitration amendment because i'm non-autoconfirmed users. Can you help me a guidance how to fill an arbitration amendment request please? Please answer the question about my urgency. Thank you. 36.77.80.201 (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ARCA is not protected, so if you follow the directions in the big red (pink?) box at the top of the page you'll have a link to create a pre-filled template that will allow you to create a request. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A favour please

Hello Primefac. Hope you are doing well. I am Chynapras. I want to ask a favour to you. I requested for Rollback rights yesterday. But a bot wrote that my request comment is an “Automated comment”. Now what is this Automated comment? And my request is still not answered by admins. Could you please tell me what is an Automated comment and how I should write my request so that I can gain the Rollback right? Thank you. Chynapras (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated comment is one added automatically by a bot, which is why it is tagged as an automated comment. Please be patient, we are all volunteers, and not all PERM requests are answered immediately (some take a few days to be answered). Personally, I do not review rollback requests, so I will not be able to help you in that regard. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Election box templates

Hi! I was working on various articles, updating the election results for Singapore's parliamentary elections and noted some formatting differences. Template:Election box begin no change 's header seems to be unbolded compared to Template:Election box begin and alignment seems to be different also. See Alexandra Single Member Constituency for an example.

Is it possible to help to bold and change the alignment? I am fine with reducing the Party column which seems to be a wider column or other adjustments to make the alignment looks alright. Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, to be honest; I'm looking at the Alexandra article and see almost no difference (formatting-wise) from the first two tables in the #Candidates and results section (both sets of headers are in bold). Primefac (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm I was using my pc and it looks not bolded to me and now on my mobile browser (desktop mode) it seems alright. Should have double checked with another device.
How about the alignment? Slight OCD to adjust all the boxes to align to the same width or at least adjust the Party column to be of the same width as the other boxes. Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to column width, as the alignment is (as near as I can tell) the same between templates. Unless one is hard-coding the exact widths of each column (which creates an entirely different set of issues), it's not possible to line up between tables (barring "minimum size" settings). Primefac (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I am usually off-wiki on weekends so quick followup.
* Normal desktop using chrome - [2]
* Desktop chrome browsing Wiki in mobile site - [3]
Hopefully you can notice that as mentioned, the rendering looks unbolded, or a font size or 2 smaller (on hindsight, it looks bolder but a font size or 2 smaller). Yes, I am talking about column width, somehow it escaped my mind on how to express it. The column width is longer for Party column for Template:Election box begin no change compared to Template:Election box begin. I am not looking into hardcoding which as you say, pose a lot of problem. If the template is really the same, I guess there are other factors affecting it and I probably just ignore it then. Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples. While I can see what you are describing in the apparent differences in font, they are both definitely bold (i.e. compare it to the text in the table itself) and any differences are due to the size of the display and/or rendering of the text itself by the processor. Someone at some point might notice the column issue and come up with a clever solution for it (I don't, sadly) but until then I think we'll just be stuck with every once in a while having tables that aren't visually perfect. Primefac (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
So I guess no fix available. Guess I have to bear with the odd rendering and sizing till I am done with updating all the wards. Thanks~! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Primeface. Hope you're well. Can you please further explain why my right was revoked as I have no history of BLP violations and never blocked for that. I accept I did a blunder yesterday confusing two people and readily requested its deletion. I have created more than 500 articles and working hard to be compliant. Can you please restore the rights if possible? Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My primary concern was not so much that you made a mistake between individuals, but that you were including information in an article that was nowhere to be found in any of the references. Someone with AP should ideally only be including well-referenced material (even if it is about the wrong person). Since AP quite literally does not affect you directly, I suggest you carry on as usual and re-apply in a month or two to have things re-evaluated. If I was overreacting (and for this sort of thing, I hope I am), you'll get it back without any issue. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: following onto this, I've brought up another concern with regard to this editors dabbling in BLP and figured I would notify you as the administrator who removed it. I have since been asked to stop editing their talk page, which I will adhere to but you and they should be aware that I plan to take this to ANI. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

KZPO

Why did KZPO-FM shut down and license cancelled Scottlover20248 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that I've never heard of the station, I have no idea. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove all obstacles on Aashish Kaushik article

We have strong third party references to publish this article again thanks Diksharohilla (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Diksharohilla, given the deletion history of the page, I suggest Draft:Aashish Kaushik where you can work on coming up an article about the subject together with other editors first. – robertsky (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Write the draft first, get it to a point where it won't be speedy-deleted, and go from there. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

kindly help me, suggest me any editor who can help me yo do so? I can provide all the necessary information, references for the article Diksharohilla (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

if you do not wish to write an article yourself, go to WP:RA and request an article be written. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Revdel, please

Please see this diff where an editor has left their phone number in plain sight FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hello, Primefac,

Did you delete hundreds of empty categories? Those categories sit for a week in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion before they are deleted (This is an administrative category for category description pages that have been tagged as empty using {{db-c1}} or {{db-catempty}}, and will be eligible for deletion after that tag has remained in place for seven days.). Did policy change here? Typically only between 10-30 categories are deleted each day, not 200+. I should know, I tag them each day. Would you please restore them since you deleted them out-of-process? Liz Read! Talk! 14:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Dammit, yes. I thought there was an unusual number of pages in that cat, and I clearly got the two categories mixed up. I'll undelete them in a mo. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your close of Template:Auto archiving notice TfD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_13#Template:Auto_archiving_notice

You arrived at a consensus to agree to the proposed merge. A most shocking outcome - I was convinced the outcome would be "no consensus".

Per Deletion Review, the first step is to ask you about your close, so here I am. There were dozens of dissenting opinions, and lots of arguments you basically ignored.

Can you tell me anything I have missed? CapnZapp (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, first off, if by "dozens" of oppose votes you mean "16", then yes, there were "dozens".
I read through every single comment, and with more than 3:1 in support of merging, there would need to be some seriously weighty opposition and very weak support, neither of which were true. There were valid arguments on both sides, but in the end the weight of consensus fell on the side of merging. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Most comments in support for a merge did not even consider the strong arguments against the merge. You know it's not a vote tally, so what is the merit of pointing out the 3:1 share? I would characterize the discussion as about equal (when it comes to weighty arguments) and far from a clear consensus. At the very least, while the support for keeping the template might be weak, the specific outcome of merging it with Talk Header was not strong or clear, and could very much have used a thorough discussion - something SDKB started but then short-circuited when he found no clear support for his intended outcome - not only to get rid of the template, but to merge it with Talk Header. An outcome of "delete" might be supportable, but then really, why not simply keep it around? No "no consensus", not even a relisting, nobody discussing the worthy points brought up (I believe a single editor changed his mind). You enabled SDKB to force through his deal without having to answer any of my questions, for instance. CapnZapp (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a lot to unpack here...
  • Supporters of a proposal do not need to address those opposed.
  • It is not a vote tally, but when three times as many people are advocating for one position, that fact in and of itself has its own weight (consensus is, after all, is widespread agreement among members, and 3/4 people support is generally considered "agreement") . I've overturned 2:1 support in the past when the opposition had really good rationale and the support didn't; I mention the ratio purely to indicate this necessity.
  • You clearly did not read my entire close; when both templates are present, {{Auto archiving notice}} should be merged into {{talk header}}. If not, it's up to user discretion which makes more sense.
  • You are the only one opposed to the discussion you link above (which incidentally was started by Trialpears and not Sdkb).
  • An outcome of "delete" might be supportable, but ...why not simply keep it around? Because... deletion was supported?
  • I see little reason to relist a discussion that was !voted on pretty continuously by over 60 individuals between 13 May and 3 June; relisting is usually reserved for when there is little discussion or the closer wants to clarify a point (example), and relisting such a huge discussion clogs up the newest log entry.
  • I see no instance, in either discussion location, where your comments were not responded to. If you had questions that went unanswered, it was not for lack of people replying to your posts, and you should have asked for more clarification or further explanation if your concerns were not being addressed.
If I've misinterpreted or misconstrued any of your statements please let me know, but hopefully I have responded to all of your concerns in a manner that explains my rationale for why I closed the discussion as I did. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Importance

For WikiProject US can you include importance in the format when you insert it and plug in the answer if it was already given Bigmike2346 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought about that, but since every project grades importance differently I didn't want to choose the "wrong" importance (see all of the various discussions at WT:AST about importance to the project). Primefac (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Malfunctioning

FYI, this is incorrect. I think you need to adjust your regexp to include a | or }}. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

More, [4] [5] [6] ... Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I'm an idiot and didn't think that there would be anything other than something starting with {{WikiProject United States, and in typical fashion it didn't show up until after I had run my initial manual checks to ensure the regex was working properly... Primefac (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

block

Hey, Primefac. I saw the unblock request by Ibn Daud and was wondering about considering it. I read the ANI, so I know it was for repeatedly outing/attempting outing. Their attempted appeal within hours was also ill-judged. This new appeal does seem sincere and to indicate they understand what they did. The user has indicated they'd actually welcome a t-ban from the areas that were maybe causing them to lose their shit the ability to work collaboratively. I haven't done a deep dive into their contributions, but they look reasonable, although I think they need to go back over some of their creations with Headbomb's or SuperHamster's source markers enabled. I was thinking about possibly opening a discussion with them about editing with a topic ban and extreme care w/re behavior toward other editors. Do you have any thoughts about that? —valereee (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If you can open dialogue and be reasonably convinced that the issues leading to their block can be avoided in the future, I have no issue with an unblock (with or without restrictions). Primefac (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Palapa-C1

Please consider rev-deleting the previous iterations of Draft:Palapa-C1 as parts of the page seems to have been copied from a non free source. I have removed the copyright part. Jupitus Smart 17:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

incompetent tech

Hey, Primefac! What should I have used as the permalink instead of whatever I did per Special:Diff/1027087522? I'm constantly trying to figure this stuff out. —valereee (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The only time you really ever need a permalink is if the discussion/headers might be removed or altered in the future (for example, a thread here will be archived at some point and thus a link to User talk:Primefac#incompetent tech won't work). For something like an RFA talk (or really, any non-archiving page), a section link is sufficient. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll never completely understand this place. —valereee (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Neither will I (I mean, just look at the few threads above this one...); best we can do is try our best. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

2015 Cricket World Cup

Hey Primefac, what are your thoughts on removing protection from 2015 Cricket World Cup? It's been five years since your protection and the last fifty edits span two years. Anarchyte (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Great. I've gone ahead and removed it. Anarchyte (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for making me an "extended mover" for three months. I really appreciate it. I just want to let you know that I already carried out a page swap on WP:RM/TR. I also denied two requests, though I am not sure if I had the authority to decline round robin swaps. Is it okay if you check my latest contributions to WP:RM/TR to see if I did anything wrong? Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I take it back. I'm just second-guessing myself. I would have encountered objections by now. Sorry to bug you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries. Little busy with other wiki-drama right now, but I'm fine to leave it for now. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Renamings to 266

Please also rename Category:People executed by the Jin dynasty (265–420) Thanks!! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No time like the present for you to learn how; instructions are at WP:CFDS and it's criteria C2D. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Bad edits

Hi, could you fix your bot so it doesn't add pages to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of proven. Your regular expression should account for the |1= in many of these. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing this for how long now, and still can't remember that a {{example|1=this|that}} throws everything off? You'd think I'm an utter noob at this... thank you again for pointing out my oil is leaking. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
FYI there's another example here where instead of "1=" it had "god=". Le Deluge (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, thought I had found all of them but clearly missed one. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
And another one with username=. Mind you, you've got to admire the genius of calling a sock "New identity"!!!!!Le Deluge (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. We're all intelligent people, and yet somehow I have found almost as many improper uses of this templates as proper ones... Primefac (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Refugee Olympic Team

Not sure how too, but the Refugee Olympic Team's 3 letter code now is EOR [7]. Do you mind changing it? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done, though I do note the page hasn't been created yet. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd imagine it will be created very soon, with a lot of information coming out today. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
True, I suppose the code splashes a big error if not in, while a missing page is just a redlink! Primefac (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry

Thank you for handling the situation on those RfAs. I want you to know it was never my intention to start a controversy there. Honestly I feel it is a relevant and non-controversial question. I really feel that RfA is a microcosm for the type of scrutiny and stress an admin will be dealing with on a near daily basis doing their job.

I am sorry about my part in the disruption. I had no idea that a discussion from the RfA policy talk page would follow over into an actual RfA, and the accusations of bad faith against me are upsetting as they are not true. I tried my best to diffuse the situation by not reverting, and by giving a clear and simple answer and refusing to participate further.

In the future if I want to ask that question I will use the user talk page of the candidate. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. RFAs are... an interesting beast. For what it's worth, I do not see any bad faith in your asked question; everyone has their own metrics for determining if a candidate is suitable for the mop. Good call on not edit warring, though! Primefac (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Really? You didn't find that not simply irrelevant, as so many questions at RfA are, but actually coercive and pointy? I'm surprised. I'm fine that striking it wasn't the answer, as at least three other editors think so, but this editor is currently arguing that RfA "is not that bad" and they're asking this question of current candidates ostensibly as part of their metric? I find that coercive and pointy, and frankly I'm having a hard time thinking of any good faith reason to ask it. —valereee (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
An irrelevant question is not one that needs to be stricken or removed. One does not have to go very far back in the RFA histories to find truly silly questions being asked of the candidates. Additionally, we have people who oppose based on what some feel are ludicrous or inordinately specific reasons (and you really don't need to go far back to find those). And, as mentioned elsewhere, candidates are welcome to answer a question, or not, as they see fit. Thus, if we assume the question was asked in good faith, we only have a potentially irrelevant question which might not get answered and whose answer will likely only change the opinion of one (maybe two) editors. What's the harm? Primefac (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Ay, and I've never removed any of those other irrelevant questions. I've only commented on the silliness of them. But this one was not simply irrelevant, it was also pointy and coercive. I'm not arguing about the in/appropriateness of striking it, and with others objecting to that, I had zero objection to have it restored. But honestly, a coercive and pointy question -- and from an admin! I probably just lost my temper. —valereee (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess this is a reasonable section to ask this in. I don't want to reopen an RFA talk page section closed by a crat, or post below it, or open a new thread about the same thing. And I don't want to make a bigger-than-necessary deal of this. Primefac, FWIW I agree with the short version summary that this was an irrelevant but good faith question, and I agree with what you say right above this. But then you removed the question completely, because Vami asked you to? I don't understand how a candidate can request that a question be removed. If they don't answer it, that's fine. In this case, their refusal to answer it would have increased my opinion of them. But unless HiBC acquiesced somewhere I haven't seen, I don't understand the justification for removing it altogether, and I don't understand the lack of an uproar about it. Without making you beat a dead horse, could you expand slightly on how this was removable over the questioner's objection? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    I'm open to discussing the matter here. At the time, with multiple threads going on in multiple places and emotions running high, I felt that removing it entirely would be the easiest way to solve the problem and the dispute. In hind sight, I do recognize that it flies pretty much in the face of everything else I said regarding a candidate's actual options; I don't think we've ever had a candidate remove questions from their RFA, so doing so on their behalf would likely be something completely novel. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    Understood. At this point, I'm not sure what to think; I don't think I'm officially nagging you to reinstate it yet. I'm just surprised, more than anything else. I guess my main concern is not this particular instance, but the precedent it sets, which I realize is kind of a slippery-slope argument. If it seems likely that this was a one-off, I'm not going to pester you about it too much. Perhaps the one possible fair thing to do would be to tell @HighinBC: that if he still wants to ask the question, he can, without fear of being reverted, but if he no longer wishes to, we let sleeping dogs lie? I don't know. TBH, a part of me thinks it might be best to restore the question, basically for the reasons you list at 13:44 on the 6th, and to make this kind of removal at the candidate's request less likely next time. I don't know, I think maybe I'll just defer to your judgement now that I've made my objection known. Thanks for the reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    Re-ping for caps. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Floquenbeam:, long time no see. Thanks for the ping and your opinion on the matter. I will keep this brief as I don't want to stir this tempest in a teapot. I was surprised at the removal, I did not know candidates could do that. I did not acquiesce to it but also don't mind at all.

To me this is a simple question about the candidate's reaction to scrutiny and stress. The question was always optional. No candidate is required to answer it. I think this is much ado about nothing. The user already answered me on their talk page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a question removed at the request of the candidate, and there might have been more blowback if the discussion hadn't been closed as well. I can see the reasoning for it as things were getting rather heated, but I wouldn't want it to set any kind of precedent. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I was still mulling this over, leaning towards re-adding, but the recent closure has made it a moot point. I most definitely do not intend this to be any sort of precedent-setter, and should be viewed as an outlier from normal practice. I have no issue if there comes of this a discussion about whether candidates can or should ask crats to remove questions, though. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Marcia Pally from LGBT people living in New York City

This decision seems a little odd considering that Pally was one of the most prominent lesbian journalists and activists in NYC throughout the 1980s, among other things, arts editor and dance critc for The New York Native, columnist for The Advocate, contributor to Christopher Street, winner of a Gay Journalists Association Award, co-host of Vito Russo's "Our Time", an original board member and acting chair of GLAAD, the subject of a portrait in Robert Giard’s “Particular Voices: Portraits of Gay and Lesbian Writers”, and participated as herself in the making of the film "Vito" in 2011 (see IMDb).Dreifoos (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If you can find a source other than one that's throwing her under the bus that discusses her sexuality, then by all means add it back in. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I followed your advice to Dreifoos and my edit was immediately undone. It also seems there is also an editor named Missvain who is systematically removing references to the subject from WP - even her being a member of the original board of GLAAD on the WP page about GLAAD - erasing objective history of the organization. Apparently the subject is more controversial than I knew. I don't think I want to put myself in all of this, so I'm am stepping back. I leave the sorting of it out to you. AlexaVamos
Ditto. This reminds me of the recent fight about describing Isaac Bashevis Singer as a Jewish-American author, which seems was ultimately resolved despite a long disinformation campaign to describe him as a Polish author. I would conjecture that missvain is another sockpuppet of the same person who has been advocating for the removal of Pally's WP entry (probably the subject herself) and is whitewashing.Dreifoos (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Seriously? I highly suggest you read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcia Pally, which was closed as "delete". When that happens, links to the page are removed to avoid redlinks. There is no campaign or conspiracy; I was asked by Pally and her associates to nominate the page for deletion. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is hat collecting apply for AWB? Dr Salvus 22:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so; AWB is less of a true "PERM" and more of an aid for doing repetitive tasks. The main reason it's restricted is to make sure there's some accountability for the ability to make dozens of edits per minute. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I've understood. At this point I ask you to give me the possibility to use the AWB. I won't use the software for "increase edit count". Dr Salvus 23:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome to make a request at WP:PERM/AWB. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Dr Salvus 05:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Despite, I wish to have the software, I withdrawn my application since I'm afraid to return in the WP:ANI. I was there in March. ANI's a place like the hell. I'm afraid that another adimistrator will read and refuse the application and to return to ANI. Dr Salvus 13:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

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

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Abusive use of the Wikipedia framework

I understand that there is great abuse of misuse of the Wikipedia framework for left-wing ecological and ideological propagandism by Projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment and many of their members. How do I expose this to the community and stop the abuse of the members, who are acting as "social justices" here in this project, and as single-purpose accounts, massively creating articles on the same subjects with slight title variations and spreading the same text in dozens of articles, using partial sources and creators of unprovable climate theories attested by partial "experts" and biased information? Corbont (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, as I said last time, please get together sufficient evidence to demonstrate your claims and either file a case request or send ArbCom an email so that we can look into the matter. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
They're obviously NOTHERE, are they not? Getting all the way to ArbCom in less than two months from their first edit... Wait, they have nearly no edit since their spree back on the 29th of April. I've applied the DFTT treatment, if you'll excuse me (sorry, I've temporarily put the Arbcom case request page on my watchlist) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
What is your great personal concern with the subject, are these people funding Wikipedia by any chance? I see a garbage dump written in all the articles about Brazil, about agriculture and cattle raising of all countries, about deforestation, conservation, about right-wing politicians, etc. If I try to edit such an article, is it clear that they will revert me as these articles have become "private property of left-wing users"? I don't even try, because the organized mafia here is already very big and cross-wiki, isn't it? Corbont (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
For those playing at home, please note that Corbont has recently been indeffed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Drmies might have WP:ANI 2.0, should I call this WP:ARC 2.0? Primefac (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Haha, you better not shaft me with that redirect. While I'm here, let me break a lance for How Did I Find Myself Here?, a great favorite with all Greenpeace-inflected bubble-living Communist college students. Corbont, it's "propaganda", not "propagandism". Please don't be libertarian with the English language. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Also never a good idea to believe in isms. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Singapore at the 2018 Winter Olympics

Hi Primefac, I'm not hung up on the short desc I wrote at Singapore at the 2018 Winter Olympics [8]. However, could please explain to me your reasoning for reverting it? I would appreciate it. Thanks. JBchrch talk 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

For context, mine was WP:SDNONE, which specifically lists Alpine skiing at the 1960 Winter Olympics – Men's downhill as an example of where a shortdesc is unnecessary. JBchrch talk 11:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was previously unaware that {{shortdesc|none}} would give no shortdesc (I assumed that it would just give "none" as the shortdesc). I've self-reverted. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Revdel please

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_abuse&type=revision&diff=1028221855&oldid=1028111754 Further action at your discretion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent:  Done. In future, please report via Wikipedia:IRC#Channels_for_specific_tasks #wikipedia-en-revdel or email, don't post publicly. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor understood. I always forget that route FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
If it's not super-urgent, I can also be emailed. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Timtrent: --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thanks, both. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Voice actors

Hello! Can you add a parameter for voice actors?. They only used that in animated movies and so forth. Check what you can do about that?. They can also use voices in Stop-motion movies. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.103.4 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have zero idea which template you're referring to, and the few that I can think of either already have one or there is consensus against it. If you want to see voice actors added to a particular template, you should start a discussion on that template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You like cats, so here is one :3

Su si eik wjywa6 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My userpage

Please give back the edits on my userpage, it's not that revealing, and if you want, I can re-add it without my year of birth. Thanks, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

DinosaurTrexXX33, that's pretty much the only thing I removed. Primefac (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Unblock Request

I made the mistake of logging into a redundant account that I forgot I had the credentials saved on my Google Chrome, and now my IP address is blocked. Is it possible to remove the block on my IP address? Yamazaki442 (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you can still edit while logged in, so I'm not sure the issue here. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Apologies. My IP was locked, but it appears it is no longer so. Thank you for your help in clarifying this matter. Good day.Yamazaki442 08:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Talk Page

Did you WP:SUPPRESS a portion of User talk:SlimVirgin on June 12 [9]? This must be a mistake. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do you feel that it was a mistake? Primefac (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
While I don't think it was a mistake, it will make me thank in prose for an edit that I would just have clicked thanks to - which may be a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Not a problem. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Primefac, your edit summary mentions "elink vio". There were 70+ comments from registered users. What did they do wrong? (Can you tailor the elink vio edit to resolve the particular problem edit – then the innocent users will have their posts visible.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I removed an elink violation that was introduced in Special:PermaLink/1022738847, which means everything between those two diffs needs to be hidden, because it exists in every version of the page between those points. I did not remove or alter anything other than the external link, so the posts made by other users are still on the page (as evidenced by the fact that the time stamps of the hidden diffs still match the timestamps shown on the page). Primefac (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
(watching, + ec:) I noticed a similar thing for some psalms: text was inserted (in good faith) which was later regarded as a copyright violation. As it was present in all edits between insertion and removal, all these edits were suppressed, example Psalm 100, inserted 30 June 1918, removed 16 September 2019, 37 edits later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The history list shows the time stamps. But the actual commrnyd by the editors on the talk page are not visible. (Seems this is a technical problem. Perhaps your user privileges let you see the edits, but ordinary user edits (like my own) are not visible.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I would argue they are still present. For example, this edit was made at 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC) by Jbmurray, and if we look at the version that exists right now there is a comment made by Jbmurray timestamped at 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC). Primefac (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with you. I can only report on what users see. And they cannot read the actual comments. An example is here. 16:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit of an idiom, fwiw. As to the specific edits themselves, sure, but if there are specific concerns about a specific edit those diffs can be provided. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like we were going around two different mull-berry bushes. When using Chrome my search button did not give me results. So I switched over to Safari and found the edits. And now Chrome does so. Perhaps Chrome decided to be more cooperative because I was threatening to permanently switch browsers. Thanks Thanks Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Abhilasha Will

It's ok friend, also would like to make my mistakes correct, I admire your grate advice, and I hope you help me with ever. Thanks lot brother — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilasha Will (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Verify

Hello please I believe this article has met all requirements, kindly verify and make it live. Thanks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam

Rubiesar (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, but I don't tend to do reviews-on-request. I highly suggest placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article to request a review. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:GAN § General question

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GAN § General question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. Would you mind looking at this when you've got some time? Maybe it's not really an issue at all, but it seems like something's not right. Perhaps there's simple fix to tweak the way the GA review page is being transculded onto the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I'm not really at all familiar with the inner workings of the GA process (specifically, the transclusions etc). I personally think it's a little dumb to have a GAR on a subpage but then transclude it onto the talk directly, as it leads to the issues you mention. There are likely a few ways that this could be mitigated, such as having an <onlyinclude> section that has some sort of table or checklist to indicate where and how the discussion is progressing, but I would not even consider implementing such a change without discussion and consensus on how to proceed.
For what it's worth, I disagree somewhat with the idea that "nothing is broken" because we shouldn't be clogging a talk page with dozens of unnecessary subsections, but I don't know if it's enough of an issue to merit an overhaul of the GA/GAR process. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. It seem odd to me as well to have such a huge review with editable subsection on the article talk page; it reminded me of times when I've seen someone trying to make an edit request basically copying and pasting their version of the entire article onto the talk page. I asked about this at WT:GAN and then here just on the chance there might be a quick and easily fix. The editor who actually did the GA review seems to have fixed things by moving replace the content with a link in {{Article history}} at the top of the page, which at least as "removed" it from the talk page. If that's the best that can be done, then that's good by me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Bebo Kobo

Further to your protecting the Bebo Kobo article, I was going to start a discussion about whether or not to include the disputed content at Talk:Bebo Kobo and WP:BLPN. I have now done so. Edwardx (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio, request RevDel

I've removed a copyrighted table from a new article, Johnny Swaim. Would you take a look, please, and RevDel? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've actually undone your change, because the table itself, while technically "copied directly", is just a table of statistics; there really isn't any other way to present that information and the stats themselves cannot be copyrighted. More information about this is at WP:NONCREATIVE. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful to know. Copyright is a complicated topic! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision deletion?

Hello, Primefac,

I saw you did a revision delete at Keddie murders but I'm concerned that there are other edit summaries there that might violate BLP guidelines. There is a very active editor making comments on this 40 year old murder case, witnesses & suspects and throwing out a lot of accusations. But as I don't do a lot of Rev. Del., I thought I'd ask you if you could look over the page whenever you had a minute and advise. The editor has received a talk page warning. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit summaries definitely contain a bit more editorializing than is ideal, but I'm not seeing anything that really jumps out at me. The RD'd summary accused someone of being involved, which is enough of a BLP violation to merit hiding. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac/Archive_34"