User talk:Primefac

Jag Chima Article Advise

Hello Sir,

Can you please help in making changes to my article 'Jag Chima'. It has been rejected twice by StraussInTheHouse.

Here is the article - Draft:Jag_Chima

Any pointers would be highly appreciated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav Dhingra PG (talk • contribs) 06:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Gaurav Dhingra PG, firstly, you need to replace the {{redacted}} templates with the content which was removed due to copyright violations but put it in your own words. Secondly, you need to cite reliable sources, the fifth and sixth sources appear to be unreliable. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

StraussInTheHouseThank you very much for pointing me in the right direction. I have worked on your inputs and resubmitted my article. --Gaurav Dhingra PG (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Fleecehold in the United Kingdom.

Dear "Primefac".

You very kindly looked in and left some comments on the first draft I submitted of an article titled "Fleecehold". I then spent an intensely busy week re-working the article, eliminating all opinion, eliminating anything "primary", and ensuring that every statement is evidenced by a citation. Then I resubmitted, but the article was very swiftly rejected as if by a swashbuckling blow from a warlord who surely failed to carefully examine the editing record, and who must have failed to observe the substantial rewriting.

I really can do no more for this suggested entry about an issue which is extremely topical in the UK today. Only this morning, 16 April, further articles about Fleecehold issues have appeared in the UK press, AND a 40-minute radio documentary about Fleecehold was broadcast on BBC Radio 4's "You and Yours" programme at lunch-time, so I am appealing to YOU, Primefac, to do whatever you can to ensure the article is published.

Could you, please, fashion it according to whatever formula you know the Wikipedia guardians require? I don't mind at all if it is altered - after all, once it is published it will then be edited by many people as weeks, months, and years pass by.

Further background to my request to you, is as follows.

The rejection reason was again that the article "reads more like an essay", but both submissions were written according to encyclopedic form, that is, I used encyclopedia articles as models. So the submission does not have the form, style, or the elements of an essay (those elements being, as you are most probably aware: an exordium, followed by narration, partition, arguments, refutation, and conclusion). There is not even a classical introduction or a conclusion in the submission. It only presents information about what has occurred, and what has been stated in reputable secondary sources.

So the submission does not, for example, bear any similarity to any of the 33 essays by the celebrated essayists presented in Morley's "Modern Essays", as at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38280/38280-h/38280-h.htm

As the article's list of External Sources shows, the issue of Fleecehold has been "hot" in the UK since 2016, and I wrote the submission expecting that Wikipedia would be eager to include an informative entry for the benefit of readers. I am sure the submission could be better as it is rare that any article cannot be improved in some way. However, I am aware that the submission is majorly more informative and helpful than many of the articles which can currently be read in Wikipedia. In terms of formatting, it is possible that the number of endnotes could be reduced by using Wikipedia's method of combining endnotes, but after a month's work on this article I can afford no further time learning how to implement Wikipedia's styles, particularly as it is highly unlikely that I will ever submit another article, given that I have never submitted an article before.

So, please, Primefac, could you make the submission publishable? Or could you, please, facilitate an expert Wikipedian doing whatever is necessary to make the piece publishable as soon as possible?

The submission is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fleecehold#Fleecehold

Lastly, to ensure you fully understand my puzzlement, the following Wikipedia articles, all very recently edited, are longer and more complex than the Fleecehold submission.

An article on a pop-star: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Collins Last edited on 7 April 2019, at 21:15.

An article on a medieval nobleman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Ros,_6th_Baron_de_Ros Last edited on 7 March 2019

Article on an economic idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism Last edited on 5 April 2019

Article on a religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church Last edited on 31 March 2019

Article on mythology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology Last edited on 6 March 2019

Please help as best you possibly can, for the benefit of the dissemination of knowledge!

Over the course of many years, I have instructed 100s of students in the art of essay-writing, so I reach out to you in exasperation. (My career has been that of a university lecturer in English Literature, Business English, and Business Communication, my postgraduate qualifications being in Linguistics.) I can do no more for this article, except ask you to take care of it.

Sincerely, Ioscrivo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioscrivo (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Many hands make light work"—proverb

@User_talk:Primefac, (I now watch your page because of my 'crat vote) I am now reworking Fleecehold. I am struck by its UK POV, and I think I might try to make that page an article. It's going to look different, as we all know, but 'I have no dog in this fight' and I will try to cast the information as encyclopedically as I can. @Ioscrivo, "Many hands make light work" (says a Wikipede). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In looking at the draft, my first thought is that it's just... wordy. I mean, the entire Private Estates section doesn't even mention the word "fleecehold" except in the opening sentence, and it's six huge paragraphs long. Does it need to be that lengthy to get the point across? In skimming over it I'm failing to see how a lot of that content is relevant to the subject material (but in fairness I'm just skimming it). It is always easier to expand a small article, but often much more difficult to trim a bloated one. Start with "just the facts"; what is a fleecehold, and why is it notable? How did it come about? A short, well-worded draft is much more likely to be accepted than something that looks like an essay.

If you want to discuss more about your draft being declined, I'd start a conversation with CAPTAIN MEDUSA, the editor who declined it. I see that Ancheta Wis has also offered some assistance - maybe you could coordinate with them at Draft talk:Fleecehold to work on the draft?

I know it can be frustrated to have a draft declined for failing criteria that seem to be rampant in existing articles - just please keep in mind that all pages are judged on their own merits, and the existence of one (or many) poorly-written articles is not necessarily an excuse to create another; they should be cleaned up instead! I'm happy to give other thoughts if you still need them. Primefac (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Primefac,

Thank you for your comments.

I appreciate that the draft will appear wordy to readers who are unfamiliar with the issues, particularly as the issues are entirely new, and complex. I do believe though that a careful reading of the articles which have been selected for the "External Sources" section of the draft will assist anyone who is unfamiliar with the issues to fully comprehend the whole submission.

I am delighted that Ancheta Wis has advised that they are reworking the draft.

Regards,

Ioscrivo (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC).

Draft:Retford King Edward VI Grammar School

Sorry but I'm new to wiki. Does your edit mean it is now OK to be published? I added lots of citations, lots of bits were removed - I assume they were too close to the associated citation so were deemed copyright breach. Ok for now, I think I need to represent those but until the basic article is published it's very difficult to interpret various editor actions. What is the basic next steps I need to take please? Gedgmoss (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)G.MossGedgmoss (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioscrivo (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Gedgmoss, my only contribution to the draft was to remove the content that was in breach of our copyright policies. I haven't had enough time to actually look at the draft and form an educated opinion about its potential. I would suggest asking Theroadislong, who declined it the first time, or StraussInTheHouse, who was the one that removed the copyright violations and took it off the review list. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Page mover

How about this proposal? You are the admin who declined the prior request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure whether admins have a common view on what the candidates ought to have. In my opinion the best qualification would be frequent participation in WP:RM or WP:RMTR using arguments that show good understanding of WP:AT. But probably that's not very common. So my inclination is to guess whether they are able to negotiate, stay off the admin boards, and show some effort at diplomacy. Also, one guy had 32,000 edits and had created a featured article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say your initial assessment of what admins look for is pretty consistent; most of the folks I talk to on a regular basis feel RM and RMTR activity is the best way to gauge a user's need/ability to use the right. Not showing up at the drama boards helps, though! Primefac (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request for FWTH accounts

Now that I'm no longer blocked, would you please unblock my alternate accounts Zawl, FWTH, FloodedBot, Z0 and KingAndGod that were (enthusiastically) blocked because of this account, according to the reason given "alt account of blocked user"? I'm not going to use them per the ArbCom sanction but they do not necessarily need to remain blocked. -- Flooded w/them 100s 10:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds, genuinely out of curiosity, why should those accounts be unblocked if you are not allowed to use them? Primefac (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Because they were blocked for being alternate accounts of a blocked user, but now that reason is moot due to my successful unblock appeal of this account. It hasn't to do with the ArbCom case and my not being allowed to use them. Furthermore, it would be nice to not see the red block notice on the contribs page of those accounts nor see their usernames striked out, for my own psychological benefits. -- Flooded w/them 100s 04:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Flooded with them hundreds, I do not think Primefac should unblock your alternative account. But I think they can consider changing the block reasons Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Think of the psychological benefits of the sense of accomplishment you would feel if you spent your time improving the encyclopedia instead of worrying about things that don't matter. Natureium (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

stale unblock requests

Hi. I went through WP:BLOCK, WP:GAB, and appealing block; but I couldnt find about dealing with stale unblock requests on any of the pages. I think there is something like "procedural decline, declining stale request". What to do when one comes across a stale unblock request? Say, 30 days old or more. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Let it sit there until someone takes care of it? Ideally it should be an admin who declines an unblock. If there are any really old ones you could always post a notice at WP:AN to get some eyes on it Primefac (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

erm... Okay.

Thanks for the reply :) see you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft re-review

I was hoping you could re-review the Draft:Lowndes County Freedom Organization. I rewrote the article to satisfy stub-class standards. Mitchumch (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Mitchumch, it's looking better, but I prefer to let a different reviewer take a look at the draft to avoid any unconscious bias. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Mitchumch (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

Saw you reverted my change to the archived Editing Restrictions page; why would my old account name need to be listed? The restriction is still in place on this account. All that's changed is the name, and I need to have that removed per the fact that it contains personal information that I can't have up here anymore. Renamed user 2423tgiuowf 00:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Two reasons, the first being that your change broke the links so that it didn't actually lead to the proper thread on the proper page. Second, the related thread lists the old name, which must be linked to, so removing it from the RESTRICT page leads to potential confusion as to who is actually being sanctioned. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

color templates / semi protection

Hi there. I see you added semi-protection to {{yellow}}. Recently there was vandalism done to {{lime}}. Where can I ask to have that template semi-protected as well? It was up for a few hours and caused issues at Mueller Report. Thanks, - Paul^T+/_C 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah it wasn't immediately obvious that the color template was the problem. I think all the colors should be protected. starship.paint ~ KO 14:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see the necessity of protecting all of the colour templates, but since lime is used on a pretty major page (though I don't necessarily see the necessity of using it there) I've semi-protected it. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion

Hi. You just deleted Tonga women's national under-18 futsal team per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Islands national under-18 futsal team. However, the article was never actually tagged with an AfD notice, and per WP:MULTIAFD it needs to be tagged. See also the discussion at User talk:DannyS712#AFD where I removed speedy deletion tags from the article for the same reason - looking through the (now-deleted) history, the page was never tagged. Would you be willing to restore it please? Thank, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Primefac beat me to deleting this. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Good deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There is zero point in restoring an article where there was unanimous consensus to delete the page and a half-dozen other pages like it on a minor technical glitch. All it would do is delay the inevitable for another week. You're welcome to recreate the page and/or take this to DRV, though. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Would you be willing to email me a copy of the deleted page? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of User Page concern

Hello Primefac. Firstly I would like to thank you for restoring my user page on Wikipedia. However, I am just concerned why it was deleted, though I think I know why.

Looking forward for your answer,

DerpieDerpie:D 00:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's just say that it's best not to put too much personal information on a userpage. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I get what you're saying.

Thank you for the clear answer,

DerpieDerpie:D 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 15#Template:Infobox UK place

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 15#Template:Infobox UK place - "The result of the discussion was keep." Why that?

Could you give more background? Why are UK places treated differently, cf. Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place? Why exactly should it not be converted to a wrapper? Ping User:Gonnym 77.13.194.116 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)