Jump to content

User talk:Primefac: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Primefac/Archive 29) (bot
No edit summary
Line 183: Line 183:
Hi Primefac, I'm a big fan of rev/del for copyright violations, but I think this content, while promotional and inappropriate for use here, is provided by the US government for public use [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Naval_Supply_Systems_Command]. Cheers, [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8|2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8|talk]]) 18:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Primefac, I'm a big fan of rev/del for copyright violations, but I think this content, while promotional and inappropriate for use here, is provided by the US government for public use [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Naval_Supply_Systems_Command]. Cheers, [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8|2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8|talk]]) 18:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
:Thanks. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac#top|talk]]) 18:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
:Thanks. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac#top|talk]]) 18:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

== Wanted to let you know that I'd retired ==
Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof [[Special:Contributions/73.210.155.96|73.210.155.96]] ([[User talk:73.210.155.96|talk]]) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:31, 24 June 2017

query re national coverage, reliable, independent...

please check the SMH and numerous (freely accessible) significant reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject... Skinduptruk (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skinduptruk, what's this about? Primefac (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kurt_Pudniks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinduptruk (talkcontribs) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Skinduptruk, the issue is not that the sources aren't independent, the issue is that the sources are all pertaining to an election that he did not win. Per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES people who unsuccessfully run for office are not generally considered notable. The "significant independent coverage" that is required for these individuals must be from outside the political sphere to show that they are independently notable from the campaign. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the links you provided (with my bold emphasis added):
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
Thanks for providing your logic. However your phrase "outside the political sphere" appears to be your personal interpretation of the criteria about "independent, reliable sources", no? There is also guidance about "non-trivial / non-merely-directory-like details" of the news coverage. The Cairns Post (newspaper) & Sydney Morning Herald (newspaper) & 4CA (AM radio) & ABC Far North (FM radio) both offered multiple, independent, reliable, in depth coverage of the campaign, which was quite unique for Federal politics in FNQ up to 2016. Skinduptruk (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your logic in prodding the above article. There are not one but two independent sources on the article and absolutely nothing in the recent RfC changed the general assumption that multiple independent sources exist. As a matter of fact, US, Canadian, British and Australian schools were specifically mentioned in the close affirming that assumption. A quite lazy (or ignorant) new editor created this and several other school articles with just an infobox. My data connection is slow until Tuesday, so I'm trying to flesh them out a little now and more when my data speed increases. Fyi, this school is in suburban Flint, one of the largest cities in Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to any other country, but every single high school in the US will meet GNG (ORG is specifically not required) on athletics alone. Please don't waste people's time with deletion processes on school articles. John from Idegon (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon I'm not sure I follow your logic. How will all high schools meet GNG? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that and I also did say how. Almost all US papers have a sports section. In all but the largest cities, at least two days a week, that sports section is devoted to high school sports. Not just game results, but detailed description of individual games, discussion in detail of individual programs, articles about particularly successful coaches, discussions of rivalries etc. If a newspaper happens to be in a competitive market, coverage of local sports is frequently the deciding factor on which paper to buy. Every state has a tournament system for all sanctioned sports. So even a small school in Podunk will get covered in a fairly major paper when it has successes in the tournament. There are enough sanctioned sports in the US that virtually every school has a chance to succeed at something. Sports like cross country, tennis, and golf require very little capital outlay for a school so even the poorest schools can and do have successes. Both the USA Today and the Sporting News cover high school sports. The coverage of athletics in US schools alone is enough to guarantee GNG. However, it is certain that local papers will cover budgetary and taxation issues, construction, staff issues and the inevitable crime on the campus. Some of the more local papers aren't indexed on Google. Many midsized city's papers aren't indexed prior to the turn of the century. Sources only have to exist. There is nothing saying they have to be able to be found easily. Logic dictates they are there. I understand the skepticism people not from the US have about the importance of high school athletics. I cannot find a link to the sources for this, but in the early 80s, a high school team from a very small town in SW Michigan had a very successful football team (Mendon). They went to the state tournament in Pontiac at the stadium the Detroit Lions played in at the time and literally (no hyperbole at all), every single citizen in the village left town and attended the game, nearly 200 miles away. I know that for certain because I was a volunteer firefighter in a neighboring village and spent that day in their firehouse so all the firefighters could go. This fact was covered in three television markets, including Detroit, which at the time was the fifth largest city in the country. It seems somewhat nonsensical to me, but that exemplifies how Americans feel about high school sports. Friday Night Lights is fictionalized; it is not fiction. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon You did say that above. "every single high school in the US will meet GNG". But regarding the other stuff, GNG will not always be met. Coverage in local papers is not really significant and coverage of every game is routine... and we routinely delete stuff that has quite a lot of coverage in local papers for both of the reasons i've already mentioned. Saying that all HS will meet GNG is wrong and silly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@John from Idegon::--Did this massive enlightment reach out to you after this edit?Seriously, prodding an article which had just enough to identify itself as a school and then following up with this advice is pretty..... Winged Blades Godric 05:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued both ways about coverage from local papers. I do not see it as a principle; I see it as supporting a decision on whether we want to cover the topic or not, based upon our idea of what an encyclopedia ought to be. That it can so easily be argued both ways shows the practical uselessness of the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason there is no point in prodding a highschool which has a reference of any sort is that the prod will unfailingly be removed (or almost unfailingly, if nobody concerned with that side of the argument is watching that week}, so no mater how strongly one feels about it, it's necessary to go straight to AfD, unless theres there's enough copyvio or promotionalism abuse than it is possible to use speedy. DGG ( talk ) 14:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017-18 NCAA Football Bowl Games Template

Why Did you Delete the template for please save it please. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:99BD:D3E3:1189:B71F (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. If you wish to contest the closure, you will have to contact either the editor who closed the discussion or start a deletion review. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please start a deletion review now. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:99BD:D3E3:1189:B71F (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I nominated the template, no. Today's DRV page is here, and the instructions are at WP:DRV. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did you delete this for is it too soon or Crystal Ballish Bring It back now I don't want to wait 6 months for this. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:7DEF:6F0:885B:D293 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion

Erm...
I just "patrolled" an AfD discussion page. What in the name of Lucifer is the point of adding AfD discussion pages in the number of backlog?
I can digest adding drafts, and userpages in the queue; but adding pages where a bunch of wanna be admins are active, why? —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Kiran, they are not actually in the backlog/queue as it is currently talked about in the NPP project, which is generally understood to mean the backlog of new main space creations that can be viewed at Special:NewPagesFeed. NewPagesFeed does not list anything other than userspace or mainspace creations, and is filtered to one namespace at a time. At the same time, all new pages regardless of namespace can be viewed at Special:NewPages until they are patrolled or thirty days have elapsed. You can see more discussion of this topic here. I also believe there was a proposal at some point to autopatrol AfDs but it didn't get any traction. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I once reviewed the main page. True story. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Tony.
I am not not sure if you are telling the truth or pulling my leg Timothy usernamekiran(talk) 20:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really did. I think it may have been a bug. Maybe I should have attempted to try out some of the curator functions, you know... for science. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Main Page Reviewer(verify) here, checking in! I doubt using the rest of page curation would have ended well that day... --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

UTM Parameters and archvied page

Hello, I noticed that the removal of UTM paramaters is being performed on wayback archived links too. This could lead to some issues, like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benvenuto_(song)&curid=33045399&diff=784576057&oldid=782054563 The archived link has been changed from https://web.archive.org/web/20120324234729/http://www.am.com.mx/nota.aspx?id=498062&utm_source=am&utm_medium=slidebox&utm_campaign=upnext to https://web.archive.org/web/20120324234729/http://www.am.com.mx/nota.aspx?id=498062 but the new link does not exist, while the previous one points to the right source, which is no longer available online now. Is it possible to avoid the BOT to remove parameters from archived URLs? Thank you! Stee888 (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stee888, I'll update the code to keep the archives untouched. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Whatever you're doing to [IOBDB] links is making a huge mess. Please go back and check your work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, maybe before you go reverting everything you check what you're actually doing. This undo now links to I Could Go on Lip-Synching, instead of Best Foot Forward as it should. The links were broken, and this was the only way I could figure to fix them. I think instead of "you made a huge mess" it should be "what's with the gigantic error messages?" It was the only way I could think of to draw attention to the issue. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not leave gigantic error messages on articles. If you see a problem and can't figure out how to correct it properly, leave a message on the talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, {{IMDb}} leaves exactly the same error message. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm frankly astonished! You need to go back, undo what you did. There were no gigantic red error messages there before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, before I saw this note and fixed everything, nothing worked at all. So no, I will not "undo what I did", because what I did technically fixed things.
Now, I can agree that the error messages are a bit naff, but I can guarantee that if the error messages aren't there that they'll never be updated properly. If you have another suggestion, I'm all ears (genuinely - I couldn't think of another way). Primefac (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you leave a note on all the musical theatre talk pages for articles where you saw an IBDB error and ping me there, I'll go to IBDB, look up the musical and fix them. If you would do the same for the Lortel ones (should be a smaller number of articles), then between us we'll fix them all correctly. Howzat? I've got to run out, but I can do that tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I didn't do anything to IBDB, just IOBDB. Also, for reference, there are about 1300 pages that currently use {{iobdb}}, and they're all in this cat (or will be, once the dbase updates). They may display the error message, but they also link to the generic search to allow for the more specific template to be determined. And yes, I was planning on updating some of these. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the ones on my watchlist, but 1,300! Now I understand what you did, though I still don't agree with it. Anyhow, you could try to gather a group of people at WP:MUSICALS or some other sort of message board to each take a bunch, and give the volunteers instructions on how to update the templates for a show or a person. I would be willing to help, if you do this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why I couldn't find anything more specific than WP:WPBIOA&E (I let them know yesterday about it). I've now looped in MUSICALS. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for leaving the message there, but it does not tell us less tech-savvy folks how to help you. You need to give step-by-step instructions for how people should 1) go to a particular page to find the list of pages that need updating, 2) explain how to search for the correct number at the IOBDB website, and 3) how, exactly, to update the links in the case of shows or bio names. Also, check out WP:THEATRE. Good luck. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac,

Could you remove and revdel the revisions that have plagiarized information on the article linked above? [1] -- 1989 01:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I'm actually surprised only two of the summaries added in that revision were copyvios, but I couldn't find sources for the others. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up, that info isn't plagiarized from the site, it was the other way around: it was plagiarized from Wikipedia! The source in question is a sketchy bootleg cartoon streaming site. That info was taken from Wiki and used by them as descriptions for their eps.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gen. Quon, I was thinking that might be the case, but I looked at the source code for the pages in question and they were dated a month before the data was added to Wikipedia. That's why I removed and revdel'd the content. If there's other compelling information that shows otherwise, I'm happy to reverse my decision. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they were taken from the Stakes page, and then added to the website? The Stakes page doesn't have the blurbs anymore, since I figured it was redundant. Either way, I guess it doesn't matter that much since it was only two summaries. I (or someone else) can just whip up two new ones.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iobdb

Hi Primefac -I am unable to figure out how to use the Iobdb template. On the page Template:Iobdb/doc you do not give any actual examples. Could you put such a concrete example on the documentation page. It would also suffice if you simply said: For an example of correct usage, see page [name of example page linked here]--Toploftical (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toploftical, it's pretty straightforward. {{iobdb}} links to the generic "search" page, so if you're looking for a specific person (say, Franklin Underwood, you'd end up here. Then you click his name, get the ID (25087) from the URL, and change the {{iobdb}} template to {{iobdb name|25087}}. For a venue, you'd use {{iobdb venue}}, and for a specific production you'd use {{iobdb title}}, all with the same procedure. Full instructions are at each template's documentation, as well as the category page. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're making it unlikely that people will help us! I took out the mention of the broken templates. Would you please undo your last edit so that people can see that we need help and might help us without seeing a big argument on the talk page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now everyone's attacking me, so I give up. I did not intend to insult you, and I apologize if you felt that I did. My intention is to get those big messages off all those pages, as they make the pages appear completely unreliable to non-Wikipedians. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Water under the bridge. The important thing is to get the templates updated. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The best way to do that is to strip those three Talk pages down to just the instructions. Can we do that, please? I will happily remove all mention of the broken templates/links if you can strip back or hide your last comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTM parameters in nowiki tags

Hello, I've reverted your bot's edit to User talk:Graham87/Archive 29 because it messed with some quoted wikitext from an article. To solve this issue, the bot probably shouldn't touch links within nowiki tags. However, I'm probably a bit crazier than most about changing talk page comments; A few years back I probably wouldn't have been OK with this edit, for example. Graham87 01:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot should not remove from these lists

Hi. Regarding this edit: [2]. This is a detection list and bot should not touch it (I guess). -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As PrimeBOT is exclusion compliant, I'd recommend making use of {{Bots}} with the appropriate parameter. ~ Rob13Talk 13:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe restrict to article space? {{Bots}} is not common outside article space. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that bot broke more pages in non-article space. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a specific page that was broken, don't spend the extra time, just fix it. I won't be upset. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just making sure the bot won't revisit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the template is not a good solution. Imagine I was doing this to all pages that AWB bugs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting to article space is probably a good idea, Primefac. The initial BRFA linked to a search restricted to mainspace when estimating number of pages affected. Easy change in AWB. ~ Rob13Talk 10:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AWB contains a filter and an option that the list will contain only articles in mainspace. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing fragment after UTM parameters

Hi! This replacement breaks the link. I don’t know if it’s OK to change archives using bots on enwiki (we don’t like it on huwiki), but removing the fragment is certainly a bug. Please review your bot’s edits and correct them if necessary. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll probably be restricting the bot to the article space in future runs. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gurbaksh Chahal

Hi there, it seems like there has been a lot of trolling to my wikipedia page Gurbaksh Chahal and you have banned it for 1 year. Can you revert this so it can go back to the hands of actual contributors who can fix it from the incorrect information currently on the page which further projects vandalism. The fact you banned it for one-year from editing is just exacerbating the current situation for me.

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

Gchahal2017 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Gchahal2017[reply]

Trial

Your bot task has been approved for an extended trial. Please see here for details. Thank you for your work. ~ Rob13Talk 16:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox film template

Hello! Primefac this is a message about the film infobox. Can you add a label concerning voices. In a animated film they use voices for the actors. This is important for those who are interested in these films. They use starring when it is a ordinary film. This is important for those who are interrested in these movies in general. Yours sincerely, Sondre--2001:4647:25CB:0:3DD9:9B59:B158:EF11 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Please pardon the intrusion P. Hello IP. Before anything can be done to that infobox template you will need to start a thread about the change at Template talk:Infobox film. You will then need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for the change. MarnetteD|Talk 22:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To save you some time P the IP has been making edits like this one where they are trying to add a field to the infobox that does not exist. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring

Please revert yourself. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do agree this is an important issue. And I agree further clarification would be useful. Do you want me to start a discussion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Will take me two weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Task approved

Your bot task has been Approved. Given the large scale of this task, please run it with an appropriate throttle (e.g. wait a day or two after an initial run of ~10,000 pages to see if anyone notices a bug). Thank you for your work. ~ Rob13Talk 23:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bug, but this edit doesn't seem to be right :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's different. Rolled back, {{nobots}} placed on the page. Thanks for the heads up! Primefac (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you run this mainspace-only to start? That's where the changes are unambiguous and most urgently needed. ~ Rob13Talk 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Magic links bot is running through mainspace already. It's about halfway through now, with maybe 20 days of work left. I suppose Primebot could start from the end of the alphabet.
One nice thing about having the bots run through mainspace first is that a handful of edge-case articles are left behind, unfixed. Human editors are needed to clean up these ISBNs embedded within a template on the page, embedded within square brackets, or (when no ISBN link is present in the page's wikicode) transcluded within a template that causes the category to be assigned to the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Primefac. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yashovardhan (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

draft error

sorry about the AFCH notifying your bot.I don't know what happened. The garmine (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, The garmine. For some reason when the bot was running it ended up being listed as the submitter for the draft in question. I get random decline notices every once in a while from drafts I've simply edited or commented on, mostly due to how the submit template works (i.e. it requires a submitter and gets pissy if there isn't one). Primefac (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Silent Hill: Betrayal edit - Primary sources

Hi there

Thank you for your comment on my Silent Hill: Betrayal draft. You mentioned there are way too many Primary sources, although I have seen wiki pages with far less sources that me. I've been reading through what primary, secondary and tertiary sources are in the wiki docs, but I was wondering if you could guide me as what would be the best type of sources to use? Maybe with an example or two. Would it be sites referring to the interviews, rather than the interviews themselves? I'm trying to wrap my head around how best to get this article approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowolfdg (talkcontribs) 14:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rev/del

Hi Primefac, I'm a big fan of rev/del for copyright violations, but I think this content, while promotional and inappropriate for use here, is provided by the US government for public use [3]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]