User talk:Primefac

Teaching Trouble Deleted page

Hi Primefac. I saw you just deleted my article about a short film called Teaching Trouble. Can you explain in detail what happened please and why you deleted it.Superpilot123456 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox deleted

methinks copyright infridgement nonappilcable. i am the owner of contents kickstarter, account just deleted, blog is kept alive by kickstarters. same content is on wordpress, indiagogo, amazon.com. truly sorry to have broken wiki rules. newbie will behave. Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, thanks for attending over there: I didn't particularly want to comment on the issue itself, not having been involved, so thought I would just address the multi-messaging. Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for that. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

copiright letter was sent to emails you have provided. thank you.Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting my old post as I'd forgotten my earlier comment below. I've just deleted his addition of an anonymous blog. Looking at the deleted sandbox it has some identical wording, so I'm assuming it's his blog. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Research help

Hey Primefac, thoughts on marking this as {{historical}} rather than deleting it? I imagine that it might be useful to refer to in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The ed17, I'm not overly inclined to do so, given that a) it was only used in a pilot program (widely, but briefly), and b) it's literally one wikilink with an image. There just doesn't seem to be anything "historical" about the template itself. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For sure, I totally see where you're coming from, but I suspect people are going to want to refer to the template in the future and see how it was implemented (either to argue for or against something similar). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Poggio

Why is he calling himself a newbie? He's been a SPA on Fomenko and New Chronology pages for years and has made at least one edit summary saying that my comments on dendrochronology were just pov, so he's not entirely ignorant of our policies. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that there's an 8 year gap in their editing history (2009-2017) there's a good chance they've forgotten/missed a bunch of rules/guidelines. Copyright infringement should be a no-brainer, but who knows. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

{{Wikilivres}}

I rolled back your edit because you said it's being deleted. The conversation ended but the consensus was explicitly to not delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if that would happen. Technically I closed it as "keep" but I guess when the script added it to the holding cell it put {{being deleted}} on it. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Request on 03:07:09, 6 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonathan629

• Jonathan629 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gokul Shrinivas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jonathan629 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxRequesting for Reviewing and Publishingxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello Primefac,

Previously, You have reviewed "Draft:Gokul Shrinivas" where i'm currently working on and left a comment "Need of Reliable sources"

So on that, I have 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 I'm writing in Wikipedia, So please guide me and help me to finish it off successfully. Thanks,

Jonathan629 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)jonathan629

08:57:39, 8 March 2017 review of submission by Logistics.topics

• Logistics.topics (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fourth-party logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello reviewer. As per your suggestion I have added more sources outside the field of automotive logistics and linked to a German source already dealing with the topic of Fourth party logistics (4PL). Please review my latest submission. With thanks, Logistics Topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logistics.topics (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby union biography

Hi there, After your recent updates to the above template, there is now a big misalignment of information, caused by team names wrapping to the next line, but apps/points not shifting down. Can you please insert a {{nowrap}} around all fields? Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I was working on that problem yesterday when I lost power. Thanks for the motivation to get it finished! Primefac (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nagging helps! Thanks a lot for the quick fix! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, there is still a problem with the very first team wrapping; you seemed to have inserted the nowrap for teams 2 onwards. Can you please do this for the first team too? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry, me again. I just noticed there are some articles where the different fields (i.e. years and Club/team) now don't align, eg. Deon Davids. This is especially the case in the "Coaching career" section, where there a coach might have had different job titles. There were carriage returns in the old template, which now cause problems. Now, surely, one key objective in merging templates is to retain the best features of each underlying template? If carriage returns previously could be used, but now can't, surely it's a step backwards?

I also noticed the "currentclub" needs a "nowrap", there is some unexpected wrapping occurring... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Television articles

Well I guess we're in store for some AfD. See User:Timothyjosephwood/Year in Israeli Television. Feedback welcome, or alternatives if you have them. I don't. TimothyJosephWood 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

By my count there are 24 such "List of years in <country> television" master pages, so... 24 AFDs? Even by deletionist standards that seems like a bit much. I think we could probably cram together a few of the less populated ones (Jordan, Turkey, Georgia, etc) which would cut down the overall total. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's no real opposition then we can probably clean up a dozen or more with a mass-mass-AfD, i.e., "the last four were unanimous, so here are the remaining 20". I mean you never know, there could be a frenzy that turns these into worthwhile articles. Only one way to find out. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm torn on the order. If we do the more-populated lists like Belgium or Brazil and they say "keep", then we'll not be able to use precedent to delete the truly empty lists. However, if we do the above empties and say "see, we can delete them all" then someone might accuse us of trying to slip Belgium and Brazil through. I think it's a good idea, though (doing a small number first). Maybe 50/50? Two empty lists, two full lists? Primefac (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we may be talking across purposes a bit. By "empty" what I mean is the content of the articles, but I suspect that by "full" you mean how many redlinks and bluelinks are in the overarching category. At least to me, the sheer number of empty articles is inconsequential, so long as the all have basically no content, and only enough to squeak by A3. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct; I'm talking about the bluelinks on the list articles. Now that I try and write a response, I realize that it's a rather silly thing to get caught up on. So yes, let's put forth three or four AFDs, see what happens, and then crack out the rest. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Any particular improvement you would suggest to the version in my sandbox? For the record, I generally dislike mass AfDs, have never nominated one, and rarely if ever participate. TimothyJosephWood 17:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything major that needs changing, though I removed the "750 in total" bit since it's mostly irrelevant to that particular set of pages. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Israeli television TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Sher Aziz

Hi there, I need your help this account User:Sher Aziz is blocked this user can't unblock request because ip is blocked please unblock this account or user talkpage(Proxoris (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)).

Closing TfDs - !votes lost

Hi, why are you removing !votes when you close a TfD, as with this one? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64, thanks for the heads up. Clearly it's a script issue - why would I remove valid discussion? Will close manually and alert script creator. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Pimonov draft

Hello.

There is a chapter "Volodja" in "Searching for Bobby Fischer" by Fred Waitzkin. It describes in detail the life and work as well as chess activities of Vladimir (Volodja) Pimonov in the Soviet Union. It is the SAME Vladimir Pimonov as in in the draft. The Russian name Volodja or Volodya is a synonym or nickname for Vladimir, as in English Bill is a nickname for William. If you read a story of Pimonov's life and work on Pundit Wire written by an American diplomat and professor Dan Whitman (see ref. 1) entitled "Vladimir" you will discover, that Whitman calls him both "Vladimir" and "Volodja"'and actually refers to "Searching for Bobby Fischer" confirming it is the SAME person. Please check up ref. 58 describing Pimonovs human rights activities before he left USSR and emigrated to Denmark. Again - it is the SAME Vladimir (Volodja) Pimonov as in the draft.

Regarding Russian name Volodya alias Vladimir: https://www.behindthename.com/name/volodya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.48.205 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Pimonov as a chess master. There are references only to 2 games in the modern chess base as he stopped playing chess in the 1980's But there are references to tournaments: the USSR quarter final in 1972 and USSR junior championships. For sure he had played hundreds of games in his life.

Regards, Thomsen 80.161.48.205 (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)thomsen

Regarding Citekill. Some reviewers demand multiple sources in different languages to show significant coverage. That is why the sources provided are multiple in different languages - English, Danish, Russian. Kind regards. Thomsen 80.161.48.205 (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Primefac,

I have just re-edited the draft trying to resolve the issues pointed out by you in your review and comments.

1. At your request the draft is now split up into separate units (early life and education, career, activism, chess).

2. To resolve CITEKILL I've trimmed down a number of references and sources - now again at your request - there are max. 3 references for a given statement. I have also deleted some references to the articles on banks in Iceland - an internationally covered story (criminal investigation in Iceland is not fully completed and dozens of bankers have been convicted and still in prison) and left only 2 sources referring specifically to Vladimir Pimonov (the same Vladimir Pimonov!) who (working with colleagues at the Danish daily Ekstra Bladet) broke the story in 2006.

3. Regarding "Volodja" Pimonov in "Searching for Bobby Fischer" by Fred Waitzkin.

In his essay on Pundit Wire about Vladimir Pimonov (essay called "Vladimir" - please, see ref. 1) Dan Whitman, a ret. Senior Foreign Service officer at US Department of State and Foreign Policy professor at American University in Washington, writes that Vladimir Pimonov "appears in 1988 book, "Searching for Bobby Fischer", by Fred Waitzkin".

This confirms that it is the same Vladimir (Volodja/Volodya) Pimonov in the essay by Whitman and in the 1988 book by Waitzkin. Whitman calls Pimonov both "Vladimir" (in the title) and "Volodya" (in the text). In both sources (essay and book) Pimonov is described as a journalist, Shakespeare scholar and chess master (who left the Soviet Union and settled in Denmark).

4. Chess master. Neither computers, nor internet existed when Vladimir (Volodya/Volodja) Pimonov was an active chess master in 1970's and the games were not electronically saved in any archive. Many games were lost as they only were registered on paper. Modern computer chess base does not include all games from 1970's - just some games played in very important tournaments. E.g. Pimonov's chess game with Dzindzichashvili, R. (see reference in the Chess base) cited in the draft, was played in the USSR quarter-final tournament in 1972. Pimonov's opponent in the game was the same Roman Dzindzichashvili, who later moved from USSR to USA and led the US Olympiad Team and was US Chess Champion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dzindzichashvili

5. Some linguistics: Vladimir Pimonov and Volodja / Volodja Pimonov. It is the SAME NAME. In the Russian language the name "Volodja" or "Volodya" (depending on spelling tradition in English - British or American) is a derivative or diminutive (a short name) of "Vladimir" which is a full official name registered in the birth certificate. Apart from "Volodya/Volodja" there are diminutives of "Vladimir" like "Vova", "Vovka" (usually used by kids).

http://learnrussian.rt.com/speak-russian/russian-baby-names

Other examples in Russian: Sasha is a diminutive of Alexander, Masha is a diminutive of Maria, Tanya is a diminutive of Tatyana. The same phenomenon found in English: Bob is a diminutive of Robert, Bill is a diminutive of William, Al - diminutive of Albert etc.

I hope I have resolved the issues and the draft can be accepted.

Kind regards. LWHVLWHV (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:RollerCoaster Tycoon (video game)

Could you do a WP:HISTMERGE of the deleted revisions here? There shouldn't be any substantial overlap (parallel histories). --Izno (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Kudos and coffee

Kudos on closing the fabergé egg RM (and the wise choice of a followup RfC). I had noticed it in the backlog for a while and was pleased to see it closed :). Enjoy some coffee! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

revised draft

Hello

I've revised this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lachlan_Philpott according to your and various other editors and the notes on secondary sources.

I've revised the section under main concern to expand all references, quoting from the transcript of the program and then also from various other peers of the playwright who spoke to publications of record. I've also expanded the next section in the same way, and included a new paragraph that also contains more substantial text.

How is it looking now?

Would you mind taking a fresh look at the submission and letting me know if it's on track for approval? I really do appreciate your help.

Thank you again for taking the time to review this for a second time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.149.122 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.151.9 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello P. I am working away on removing the rmv per Template:Fox NFL Sunday from the pages it is transcluded to. One of the ones listed is User:Pppery/noinclude list but it is not there as the template. I am guessing that one of the links P has there include it. Is there anything that needs to be done or will the removal of it from other pages eventually cause it to disappear there. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: Looks like it is gone now. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's basically just a TFD tracking category. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know P. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for ....

closing the RfC at WT:COI. I'm sure that one was not easy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Taito franchise template

Hi there, I seen that you declined the speedy deletion. I just wanted to let you know that the template was created by NamcoKid47. This user was aware that all Taito franchises are stored under

Matter of fact, the Square Enix franchise template was around longer than the Taito Franchises template. I've investigated this Taito franchise template, and a lot of entries are not even franchises. They're standalone games. This template is not necessary and acts as a duplicate. I will be placing another speedy deletion because there is no value in keeping a duplicate template. All Taito franchises are already on the Square Enix franchise template. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied at the template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Slight glitch

Hello again P. Your edit here has caused that redirect to be thrown into the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I am pretty sure that all you have to do it add {{pp-protect|small=yes|expiry=indef}} to it. Now, I have not dealt with this specific situation before so if I'm wrong we might need Redrose64's expertise. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD, it was actually the redirect template {{r fully protected}}, which should have (and now is) {{R template-protected}}. Thanks for letting me know! Primefac (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't use {{pp-protect}} and related templates on redirects. Instead, there is a family of templates intended specifically for redirs, these include {{R template-protected}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose64. I am glad that you both got to the correct template. I apologize for leading you astray P and thanks for fixing things. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

COI close

Hi Primefac, your close of "milieu 3" (outcome 1) contradicts this RFC from a few months ago where the idea of a special committee was rejected (four supports, 21 opposes). Also, "milieu 3" wasn't accurate in its wording: "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF". That isn't true. People deal with COI privacy issues all the time, in lots of ways, almost never involving the ArbCom or WMF.

I think you would need to hold a dedicated RfC about "outcome 1", widely advertised, including on CENT. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall, what are your thoughts regarding this new information? Primefac (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• That was a proposal to create a secret mailing list for Arbcom officials. This was a proposal to create a task force appointed by the community that will be able to deliberate in private. At first glance the two don't appear all that similar to me.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, the two proposals were the same. This recent COI RfC made no mention of a "task force"; that aspect of the close seems to be a supervote.

The Aug-Sept 2016 RfC asked to set up a dedicated functionaries mailing list to handle COI-related privacy issues, and the response was no. This recent one was posted with no knowledge of the previous one, and it proposed the same thing: "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF, but other bodies could be considered if there is consensus for this."

An additional problem is that "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF" is false. It wasn't a well-formed RfC, and it's not a good close, because (a) the close ignores that the RfC was poorly formed; and (b) the close ignores that the RfC paid no heed to another recent RfC on the same point that delivered the opposite result. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 expressed concern a few weeks ago that the RfC was poorly formed, so I'm pinging him in case he wants to comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (already was commenting) I fully agree on the supervote aspect. Fleshing out such a committee would need an RfC of its own. We've found consensus for M3, which states that the community approves of a "gatekeeper" of sorts handling private information. It doesn't say what that gatekeeper looks like or even requires such a gatekeeper to differ from what already exists. Fleshing out all of the specifics of this group requires community input, not an executive decision by two admins. The establishment of a task force with all the details provided by the closers is clearly not something approved by the RfC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SlimVirgin, I've been chatting with him off-wiki. I've reverted the close (sorry S Marshall), there are just a few too many things I'm not comfortable with now that I've taken a third look at it. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC) re-ping. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK.  :) Primefac being uncomfortable with it, I'll accept that the close should be vacated and redone by someone else.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, thank you for reverting it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Primefac, someone wrote that you're reconsidering your close, i.e. that you're going to close it again. Is that correct? There's a concern that the same problems will emerge, because of the way things were worded. It wasn't always clear what people were saying yes or no to, and lots of editors who normally comment on COI didn't take part. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, I wrote that. I reverted the closure because of concerns with the wording, not with the overall result. Another editor (or two) to add to the close discussion will result in a much more polished result. I see no reason to not partake in that discussion. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• If this is going to be closed again, I'd suggest two things: first, a team of three admins to close it; and second, that that team advertise the "task force" section at CENT and let it stay open longer, because that part of it is contentious.

I didn't comment on the RfC earlier because there seemed no point; there weren't clear proposals and people were interpreting most of the questions differently. Looking at it as an admin, I would say no consensus could be derived from it, though a couple of points could have been re-proposed for separate, dedicated RfCs. Anyway, thanks for the quick response. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal from AFC helper list

Hi Primefac, at over 500 edits and many months (years) editing, I'm an extended user and do meet the edit count criteria. Hope this helps. I'm going to add myself back and assume this was in error because the tool doesn't let you add unless you do in fact meet the criteria.DavidWestT (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DavidWestT, you are incorrect on a couple of fronts. First, it's 500 undeleted article edits (you only have 399). Second, any EC editor can add themselves to the AFCH list, but only those who meet the criteria are kept on it. Usage of the tool is only based on being on the list. There just isn't any way (other than permanently protecting the page) to keep everyone who fails the criteria from adding their name to the list. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Primefac (talk). In my profile I see 515 edits and 2 deleted (ie that's a net 513. Also, that particular page is in fact protected from editing by those under 500 edits, I promise. I saw "view source" a few months ago whereas "edit" on that page is now available.

Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Extended confirmed users, Users

Connected apps: Manage 1 connected application

Number of edits: 515

Registration time: 23:25, 2 October 2014

I might be going blind at my age so let me know what I'm missing? :) DavidWestT (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DavidWestT, check out the labs page for your edits. You have 399 article-space edits. Extended-confirmation is given to anyone who has 500 overall edits, not 500 article edits. The AFCH list is for users in the latter category. As I said above, the page may be EC-protected but it's not perfect, since clearly editors can have EC without having 500 article edits. I'm happy for your enthusiasm, but please be patient. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.DavidWestT (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Giant leap backward for accessibility

see here. I am sure you had the best intentions, but that was not the best way to merge the two templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for being patient with my help me request. The issue is resolved. It was indeed AutoEd. Here's something for your efforts (and also for the other work you have probably done as a Helper). Mr. Guye (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello, I hope you know that I am not trying to be a bad editor here. Try typing in almost any short name or country name in caps and see that thousands of redirect pages have been created this way. Why am I being targeted?? OBAMA CHINA JAPAN USA etc. PoisonAppleBite (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

PoisonAppleBite, it's very likely that those redirects could be deleted. Many of them appear to have been created in 2010 as minor edits, meaning people might not even know they exist! Other than saying "these other pages exist, so mine should too", is there any reason why I should consider uneleting these pages? Primefac (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that they would be useful on the grounds of somebody leaving their caps lock on to type, like my mom does all the time. I just don't want others creating pages and not getting chastised but then I do. Sorry if i've caused any trouble. PoisonAppleBite (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	How about a barnstar instead for that range block? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I second RickinBaltimore's barnstar! Also here's some cake and wine! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That rangeblock is going to make a positive contribution to my sanity after dealing with Atorres50 socks for over a month. Raymie (t • c) 17:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I third that Barnstar. The blocked editor is question obviously has an axe to grind against User:Bonadea. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomer Vial It's not just one LTA either but 4 and 2 very active! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Four LTAs in one rangeblock? You could make the case that the duration should be extended with that many LTAs at once. Raymie (t • c) 23:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

12:06:17, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Piaadibe

• Piaadibe (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:George Siedel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi and thanks for your valuable advices - I am a total beginner with Wikipedia articles. Selecting sources has been challenging for me. Now that I have a quite long list of fine secondary sources I wish to approve it beforehand. As I understand subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, I wish you find my evidence (below) by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.

Listed below are media appearances for (and feature articles on) George Siedel from May 2013-April 2016. Here are links to a dozen of these appearances, including a sampling of foreign articles. Could you please advise me further, which of these are proper sources for wikipedia? Thank you very much in advance.

IndustryWeek: http://www.industryweek.com/leadership/leadership-strategy-negotiating-union?page=2 Poets & Quants: http://poetsandquants.com/2017/02/28/best-free-moocs-business-march-2/6/ World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/4-techniques-that-will-make-you-a-better-negotiator/ The Motley Fool: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/25/the-one-wealth-building-skill-your-kids-must-maste.aspx Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emc/2013/10/22/the-next-byod-glass-in-the-enterprise/#37a768395352 CIO: http://www.cio.com/article/2380808/regulation/how-safe-is-google-glass-for-driving-.html Poets & Quants (paragraph 4): http://poetsandquants.com/2014/09/25/essential-mooc-courses-in-business-for-october/ Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-common-negotiation-mistakes-2014-10

Here are some examples from the foreign press. (Please click translate to read them.) Treviso Today: http://www.trevisotoday.it/social/segnalazioni/cimba-prof-siedel-university-michigan-paderno-2016-gennaio.html Stratego : http://www.stratego.hr/2015/08/26/razgovarali-smo-s-jednim-od-top-autoriteta-za-poslovne-pregovore-profesorom-siedelom/ Impresa Mia: http://www.impresamia.com/formazione-strategie-di-negoziazione-il-prof-george-siedel-university-michigan-al-cimba-aperte-le-iscrizioni-al-workshop-del-29-30-gennaio/ Wise Society: http://wisesociety.it/incontri/il-professor-george-siedel-la-negoziazione-per-risolvere-le-dispute/

2015/16 "The 10 Hottest Online Classes for Professionals in 2015" (Siedel's course is ranked #2.), Inc. 2015 "Most Popular MOOCs of All-Time", Poets and Quants 2016 "Coursera's Hottest Business MOOCs", Poets and Quants 2015 "Coursera 2015 Ten Most Popular Courses", Tech News 2016 "6 Free Online Courses on Coursera to Boost Your Career Skills" About Careers 2016 "10 Online Courses for Event Planners" (The course is listed #1.), Crowd Flow 2016 "12 MOOCs to Grow Professionally in Summer" (translated from Italian), Empleo Carrera 2015 The listed media appearances, which include some blogs and other websites, mention him and/or his "Successful Negotiation" MOOC. There are dozens of similar 2015-16 media appearances, in a variety of languages. Here is a small sampling. Grasshopper Insights for Entrepreneurs, InterPol, IBL, Minority Business Directory, Project Engineer, Sofia Vergara, BitofNews, LinkedIn Pulse, Librarian in Training, Class Central, The Muse 2016 "Educators Embrace Forces of Change in Online Learning"

His course is also mentioned in two other 2016 FT articles: (1) "Is Adding MOOCs to Your CV Finally About to Pay Off?" and (2) "A Selection of Courses From the FT's MOOC Tracker.", Financial Times 2016 "31 Elite Colleges That Offer Free Online Learning", MSN Money, 2015 "9 Free Online Resources That Will Help You Advance Your Career", World Economic Forum 2015 "43 Free Career-Advancing Courses You Can Take (And Actually Finish) This Summer", Newsweek 2015 "Michigan Ross Makes Popular Courses in Finance, Leadership, and Negotiation Available to the World Online", Business Wire, Reuters 2015 "In Arbitration, Someone Will Lose" (translated from Croatian), Lider 2015 "Trading Strategies" (translated from Italian), Impresa Mia 2016

2014/15 Best business courses, Panorama 2014 Four techniques to make you a better negotiator Business Insider 2015 Essential MOOC Courses Poets and Quants 2014 Courses that can benefit every entrepreneur, Entrepreneur 2015 Courses for young entrepreneurs Fortune (Greece) 2015 MOOC Tracker, Financial Times 2015 Wealth-Building Skills, The Motley Fool 2015 Negotiation strategies and tools, Business People 2015

2013/14 The role of compliance programs in strategic planning, Healthcare Finance News 2013 Article on my Contract Risk book, Supply Management 2013 Negotiation teaching, CIMBA News 2014 Legal implications of Google Glass, Forbes 2013 Negotiation strategy and tactics, Treviso Today 2014 Balancing preventive and positive law in strategic planning, Workforce 2014 Negotiation strategy, Wise Society 2014 C-level concerns relating to Google Glass, Computerworld 2013 Negotiating strategy, IndustryWeek 2013 EEOC complaints in the media industry, Indianapolis Business Journal 2013

(talk page stalker) Hey Piaadibe. It looks like you have no shortage of sources to choose from, although I would point out that conciseness is highly valued on Wikipedia, and there's a bit to be desired in that realm. Clicking through, some sources are probably not usable, like the Forbes article which would run afoul of the "trivial mention" part of our General Notability Guidelines. But other's, like the Business Insider piece seem pretty in-depth, and their ranking of his online course for example could easily be incorporated into the draft in a way that is neutral and not overly flattering. Although extended use of quotations and personal opinions on negotiation may not be appropriate, or may have to be very carefully used in order to maintain neutrality in the tone of the draft.

But that's what really needs done: finding ways to incorporate reliable in-depth content into the draft, which not only helps to expand its scope and coverage, but more readily demonstrates how the person has been covered and why the coverage is relevant. TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

{{Z180}}

What is this template for? And could you fully protect that template indefinitely? 178.42.96.252 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's for a template I created that never got added to the Z number doc. Thanks for reminding me. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing thingy

Greetings, I thought I'd say hi here to avoid filling up that user's talk page. What I plan on doing, when that editor responds, is firstly taking them through the steps required to add the "paid editor" templates to their draft article's talk page and their own user page. Then I was going to review their article for NPOV & balance, reliable sources etc., and then (as I'm on the AfC list) I planned on approving the draft once the wrinkles had been ironed out. If this sounds incorrect, feel free to slap me with a kipper. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Exemplo347, sounds great. Sorry for butting in a bit towards the end, I just kept remembering things (and there was some discussion on IRC since we all received notice of the {{helpme}}). Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll pick up on my message. I'm sure it can be turned into something workable if the reliable, independent sources are there! Exemplo347 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For your effort to make Wikipedia a better place. Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to explain you the situation. I have proposed this here Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 27 back in December 2016. It was denied in February. Today I came back with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54 but I have not noticed that you have filled a BRFA yesterday already. My proposal is the following: Since this is a very good task and it will be done via Find and Replace rules I think it's a good chance that many secondary tasks are done in addition to the main task i.e. enable general fixes and enable "skip if no replacement". This will save a lot of multiple bot runs (I hope this time I wite it correctly. I have a spellchecker enabled but it does not catch mistakes when the word actually exists!). Best, Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Primebot magic link bug

Buggy magic link edit. At least two problems: the bot edited inside nowiki tags, and it added a link to the |title= parameter of a citation, which it should not do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Another one. Unlike PMID and ISBN, it seems likely that RFC could have multiple meanings. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95, the RFC-is-multiple-things issue is already being handled. Other than the ones in <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags, there is no visual change to converting from magic links to templates, but via templates we can remove the invalid results. I'll add the nowiki check to the regex and make the template-handling a bit more robust. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Look at reference #7 after the bot's edit. The bot created a URL-wikilink error by editing within the |title= parameter. P.S. I looked at a few hundred edits, and I didn't see any other problems. Thanks for not doing general fixes; it makes the edits much easier to inspect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirect info

Thanks for answering my help call Primefac, I'll follow the tips you provided about how to solve my redirect problem. Happy editing! Jscarboro (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. George T. French, Jr

Hi, the account who repeatedly created Dr. George T. French, Jr. (which you then gave creation protection) has created another article at Dr. George T. French, Jr (without the last full stop). Just thought I'd let you know.  Seagull123  Φ  19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I saw. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about relisting discussions

Hello. I'm only curious, as I don't know the rationales behind re-listing, but the discussion in question is Template:Rhode Island Rams navbox. There are three users who support the merge, and one who opposes. How many generally need to be listed before it is closed? I nominate templates, but that is all I pay attention to, not the rationales of re-listing or closing. lol I've seen you do a lot over at TFD, so I figured you're the "go-to" guy! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, Corkythehornetfan, I'm not sure why I relisted that. It's very possible I misclicked thinking it was a different template! As you say, consensus seems pretty clear. Either way, it will definitely get closed this time 'round! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, mistakes happen! Like I said, I wasn't really sure of the guidelines so I thought I'd ask! Appreciate the help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping Notification from Talk:Bond-dissociation energy

@Primefac: 'Vaughan_Pratt' is just one person who helped on an earlier query. Why did sir use 'they'?
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Bkpsusmitaa, "they" is a gender-free pronoun, used in the third person to refer to someone else. It can be singular or plural. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

14:02:27, 28 March 2017 review of submission by Dansmo

• Dansmo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Emanuel Congregation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your first comment was that you don't see our building as historically significant. We didn't mean to imply that it is, rather it is part of the historically significant Emanuel Congregation. The submission is for Emanuel Congregation A Chicago Reform Synagogue who's historical significance dates back to 1880. The building is a piece of our history, but certainly not the focus. Perhaps that is how the page is written in your view, should we perhaps reorder what it included in the page? In the wikipedia page we list every Rabbi who has ever served since 1880 including Rabbi Felix Levy and Rabbi Herman Schaalman, who collectively served from 1907-1986, both were significant leaders in Chicago's Jewish history. The page describes our Czech Torah that was recovered from Nazi Germany, the Arc that houses our Torah's that was commissioned by a now famous Designer, our historical impact on OSRUI the summer camp. Chicago has a long history of Jewish culture and Emanuel continues to be part of it. We have not sought much media attention, but I would think nearly 140 of existence in itself provides some credibility as to our relevant place in history. We have studied many other Wikipedia pages for Jewish Synagogues and we attempted to provide color and historical significance of our organizations . Can you please provide some additional feedback on what you are looking for.

Could I modify Istanbul City Theatres for copy-pasted content?

Hello, just wanted to confirm that since the CSD G12 was declined from the aforementioned article, just wanted to confirm if I could remove the 'mission' statement from the infobox? It has been copy-pasted from a content that I checked here. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Topcipher, the infobox is the only place in an article where you can put the mission statement (and it's clearly allowed, since it's a valid parameter). It will obviously be copied directly from the source, because it's the group's mission statement, so it will always throw a small copyvio error. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Sorry, should've mentioned this too - the statement is question comes as a part of a paragraph in this link here and from what I understood, it clearly could not have been a 'mission' statement because -
1. It has been written in part &
2. There is no mention of this segment being a 'mission' statement on the website either
I could be wrong here though since it is not from a native that I'm fully familiar with. Will leave it as is if that's what would be best. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it's not actually a mission statement, then delete away! Primefac (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Perfect! I've done the same and have added an edit summary to it; in case it comes up again, will take things ahead accordingly. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary change to Draft:Claire Benedict

as the bot failed to notice that all categories were already commented out. Jim Craigie (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Craigie, not that it matters terribly, but you didn't close your <!-- so in fact they were not commented out. This landed the page in Category:AfC submissions with categories and thus the bot edited the page. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:121.54.32.0

Hey, instead of deleting it can you just put it on a draft page. I really worked hard on it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.129.153 (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

IP, you're going to have to tell me which page you're talking about, because despite my best efforts I still cannot read minds. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:121.54.32.0 14:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.129.153 (talk)

So when can I have the draft? 01:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.129.153 (talk)

I'm really not inclined to undelete it. You have a half-complete cast list for the nonexistent show "CSI Grand Rapids" and the discographies of a non-notable cover band from Grand Rapids. In other words, even if it is a "draft" it has zero usable information. If you absolutely must draft about something, try drafting a page on the band itself (though a cursory google search shows that they're most likely not notable). Primefac (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, how about sandbox? 01:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.129.153 (talk)

What do you mean? Primefac (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead of putting it in a draft page just put it in the sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox 02:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.129.153 (talk)

Lil Cory

I wouldn't even know how to use or think of using {{flatlist}}. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

excuse me?

while i can? care to explain how thats not a threat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNeK141 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) SNeK141 - Obviously not Primefac but a request to knock it off isn't so much a threat as letting you know that disrupting the AfC process needs to stop. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:George Ciccariello-Maher

Hello. Could you please move Draft:George Ciccariello-Maher to mainspace? This professor has been in the news several times now, and it is detrimental to Wikipedia's mission to "hide" him in draft space. I can improve the article if you move it. Please remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress, no article is perfect, and I believe he passes GNG. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with you that there are issues with the article (for example quoting Breitbart, which needs to be trimmed/replaced with third-party sources), but if you move it to mainspace with "under construction", it will be an improvement. I plan to cite reviews of his books.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've begun trimming some of the POV. I can suddenly see "Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes." (only on the draft article) and I need to go to the gym, but my suggestion is still to move it. There are book reviews on JSTOR that we should cite to give due weight to his scholarship. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Zigzig20s I'd recommend resubmitting it for review since it's already been at AfC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write it. We can't afford to waste time. It's just making Wikipedia look bad at this point.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s I'm not sure I understand why an article move from draft space would be so incredibly urgent and detrimental to Wikipedia's reputation... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

He's in the news yet again, for insulting a soldier... We can't claim to be the sum of all human knowledge and "hide" him in draft space.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, please show me where Wikipedia claims to be the "sum of all human knowledge". Primefac (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Famous quote, picked up by scholarship.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting sources. Of course, Jimmy is famous for making rather out-of-touch statements with barely any basis in reality. I think my point was that on Wikipedia itself we do not make that claim. And even if we do make that claim somewhere I'm not aware of, we can't just allow any poorly-written article to exist. We have rules and guidelines for a reason. Otherwise, you and I would be guaranteed pages, and I can guarantee we aren't notable folk. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, the appropriate way to deal with this professor is to take him to AFD once he is in main space. Not to "hide" him in draft space. I get that the style of the article is not perfect and that we should add more about his scholarship by citing JSTOR, but that can all be done with "under construction" in main space.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The AFC process is designed as a way to keep bad pages out of the Article space. In other words, if the result of an AFD would be "delete" then a Draft should not be accepted. The draft in question is at that point, so I'm not going to waste everyone's time by accepting the page and then immediately nominating it for deletion. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not that bad. I think you should let the community improve the article and then decide to delete it if they want to, in main space. He is definitely notable, even though the article may need a clean-up.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've trimmed a fair bit. If you have an issue with "Ciccariello-Maher comments frequently in the mainstream media, where he has defended Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, highlighted the role of white supremacy in the murders of Trayvon Martin[4], Mike Brown, Freddie Gray and Philando Castile[5], defended the Ferguson unrest and 2015 Baltimore protests[6], and argued for the abolition of the police.[7]", I can delete it too.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Was not aware

…that there was such a thing, as non-free images here. Thanks for removing. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

REVISION OF ARTICLE: 13:47:17, 2 April 2017 review of submission by 217.92.118.193

• 217.92.118.193 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Scoxit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer,

I refer to the recent rejection of my article entitled "Scoxit". I would like to assure you the article is not a hoax and I have provided three external links to mainstream news articles to prove that this is indeed a current issue in European politics. I have also made minor changes to my article so that it better reflects this.

I believe you will find that this article shall be of interest to readers of articles about European politics and is a useful complement to the existing articles which are on Wikipedia on this topic.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.118.193 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Laurie Buchanan

Hey fella, I understand Wiki is not for ratings however everything was referenced and citated correctly - please advise further on how to improve the page, also - the claudio and mckee references seemed fair enough to include in the page. You've taken 15-20 references out which seems slightly unfair given the achievements of the artist in question. I aim to get the page should be sitting at C grade or at worst start class but I feel she is eligible for better than start class? Help appreciated, best wishes -

JermainRobson (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)