User talk:Primefac

December

December songs

3 of them

That one resolved, what do you think of Castor et Pollux? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You know, I've been to (and listened to) a fair number of operas, but I don't think that one is on the list. Should I add it? Primefac (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I have seen it, decades ago, admittedly, but that's not the question, - the little infobox squabble is, - or: what do you think about the layout in the upper right corner, and the handling of the dispute? I voted for you, and will probably not change my mind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think having that sidebar is necessary; there's no actual information there, and the navbox at the bottom has all of the same links. Now, if it had information about when it was written, how long it was, where it first appeared (you know, "infobox stuff") then I'd say it's worth keeping there. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for having closed the Rameau template discussion. Could you imagine restoring my design for Hippolyte et Aricie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven in 1803

The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Avery Atkins (American football placekicker)

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Avery Atkins (American football placekicker). While there's only so many ways to report straight statistical information, this article could be rewritten. That said, is there a way you could privately provide me the source of my submission as it stood prior to deletion? Many hours went into creating this article, and it would be very helpful to have, at very least, the sidebar, list of references, and stats tables. This would save a considerable amount of time in recreating this draft in a new form. Hanna Lauren (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. Redacted draft has been restored. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I consider the non-redacted portions as "safe" - not seen as copyright violations? Hanna Lauren (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the text in the draft is currently not a copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced all the removed copy - hoping for a speedy acceptance as that should take care of any copyright concerns, and notability questions have been answered in depth. Hanna Lauren (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking a lot better. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this article okay, or not?

Laksh Vaaman Sehgal Myy first accepted article. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well... this is awkward... Primefac (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on this, and your comment here, I'm bumping you down to Probationary status, which means that any administrator who finds reason to remove you from the project can do so. It looks like you need to maybe re-read the notability guidelines and the reviewing instructions. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Calling all TPS

Okay, so I know I have a fair number of (talk page stalker) that are template/regex-savvy, and I need some thoughts. Working on some template modifications, splitting parameters under a generic |team= setup and moving them to a |team1=, |team2=, etc setup.

1. {{nowrap|[[Auckland Rugby Union|Auckland Women's Sevens]]}}
2. {{nowrap|2008–2013}} <br/> {{nowrap|2015}}
3. {{nowrap|[[Great Britain women's national rugby sevens team|Great Britain]]}}<br>[[England women's national rugby sevens team|England]]
4. [[Yorkshire Carnegie]]<br/>{{nowrap|[[Northampton Saints]]}}<br>[[Saracens F.C.|Saracens]]
5. {{nowrap|[[Edinburgh Rugby]]<br/>[[Leeds Tykes]]<br/>[[Glasgow Warriors]]}}
6. {{nowrap|{{rut Counties Manukau}}}}
7. {{nowrap|{{rut Brisbane City}}<br>[[RC Toulonnais|Toulon]]<br>[[Lyon OU|Lyon]]}}
8. {{nowrap|{{rut Counties Manukau}}}}<br>[[Yamaha Júbilo]]

I need to write a regex (or two) that will remove the {{nowrap}} in the above examples so that I can split at the line breaks, but so far I'm hitting a wall. I've looked through AWB's NestedTemplateRegex from the Tools catalogue (since I'll be using AWB) but I'm not 100% sure it will actually give me the guts of the {{nowrap}} without removing the rest of the line. Thanks for any help! Primefac (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Also, as a note, these aren't the only instances, but they represent a fairly good cross-section of what I expect to find

I haven't the slightest about AWB, so I don't know if this is useful to you, but if I were processing these strings in Javascript I would do s.replace(/{{nowrap\|([\W\w]+?)}}/, '$1'). – bradv🍁 23:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Borks on line 7, as it matches the }} of {{rut Brisbane City}}. Sometimes simple just isn't perfect ('cause that's one of the first things I thought of). I suspect it will require something silly like the regex for my URL tracking bot task, but that setup is designed more for URLs and not templates. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

How about this then: /{{nowrap\|([^{}]*)}}|{{nowrap\|(.*{{.*}}.*)}}/, '$1$2'. It might break if you have multiple template calls inside one nowrap, but I believe it works for all the examples above. – bradv🍁 00:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

And a version that works if there are multiple nowraps on one line, or if there are multiple templates inside one nowrap: /{{nowrap\|([^{}]*)}}|{{nowrap\|(.*?{{.*?}}.*?)}}/, '$1$2'. – bradv🍁 00:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not something that should be done with regexes. If you can be sure there'll only ever be one nested template – bradv's regex can be used. If there could be more levels of nesting, you could go for a monster regex like the ones used in xfdcloser (see here line 4009). But it's impossible to write a regex that can handle any level of nesting. Does AWB have an equivalent for pywikibot's extract_templates_and_params function? Something like that is what I'd use – it'd give you exactly what's there in the first parameter of {{nowrap}}, no matter how complicated that markup be. – SD0001 (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

it's impossible to write a regex that can handle any level of nesting You are yet to discover the beauty of recursion :D —- I had one I used in ProcBot before I turned over to doing something saner. It works for this case, but not best idea just because there’s other, simpler ones that can be used. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

NestedTemplateRegex, if template name is nowrap then get arguments (the stuff you want), keep the first arg, then replace matched nested template with that argument directly? Uses PipeCleanedTemplate under the hood so shouldn’t get messed up on nested templates. Just initial thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This has some functions (based on s:User:Pathosbot/TemplateEditor.cs) that may be useful. I used Tools.NestedTemplateRegex there. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

TfM

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 3#Template:Hover title and Template:Tooltip. I know it just looked like recreation of previously deleted material at first, but that's because you found it mid-way through a feature merge from {{Hover title}}. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Coolio, thanks. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've also notified the "usual suspects" pages for internal HTML geekery. (WT:HTML5, WT:LINT, WP:VPTECH, yadda yadda).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Muslin

Greetings! May I request you to visit the subject, i have elaborated its history. Kind regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Was this appropriately reviewed? I need help.

Draft:Motion_RC 4thfile4thrank (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it's a borderline case. Remove the "Brands" section and it's better, but there's a little bit that's still somewhat promotionally problematic. Would it be enough to keep it from G11? Probably, but I don't know if it's a small enough amount to keep it from being taken to AFD for it. Primefac (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uselanguage

Hi Primefac! I tried to use this template today to advise a French editor to stop trying to create French articles, and found that it had been merged with {{UE}} as a result of this discussion. However, the merge doesn't seem to have been done correctly, as the switch that produces a message in the user's language does not seem to work. I undid the redirect so that I could use the template. I'm supposed to have discussed that with you first, but that rule was preventing me from improving something. My subsequent edit subst'd the template so I don't need it to stay there, but I would like to see {{UE}} work properly and I'm not sure what needs to be fixed. Can you help with that, or should I look for a template editor? (@Gonnym: courtesy ping) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

So it looks to me that it was user error not template error that is causing this issue. The language is passed to the first unnamed parameter in {{Uselanguage}}, but the second parameter in {{UE}} (the first param is for linking to the article). Knowing that, do you still object to me simply restoring the redirect? Primefac (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. It turns out that {{uselanguage}} was just invoking {{contrib-fr1}} (or whichever language was supplied) anyway, so less of a big deal than I made of it. Thanks! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the heads up though; much rather fix something than leave someone out to dry! Primefac (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alexis Crum

Hay how could you delete Draft:Alexis Crum she's Famous on the Times of Northwest Indiana. ArekSmith (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not find a single piece of information that indicated she exists, and thus the information in the draft could be considered a personal attack or defamation. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ontotext GraphDB

Thanks for reviewing my first article. I've added tons of citations this time. BildadtomyPeleg (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Good luck! Primefac (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request of Draft:Bhadohi

Reason already given in that draft please see and do it. 🇮🇳GoWB🇮🇳 (ask me any questions) 08:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

First, we don't delete pages simply because they're in another language, especially if they're in the draft space. Second, you can't just say "your draft is not accepted" when they haven't even submitted it for review. For all you know, they wrote in Hindi as their first language and will later return to translate into English before submitting. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Varija_Bajaj

Hi Primefac,

This is regarding Draft:Varija_Bajaj. I have incorporated the changes as suggested by you to avoid but there were some major issues with promotionalism and advertising in the draft. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mngulati (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you haven't done much, but what you added wasn't super-promotional (I removed all of the problematic content when I moved it back to the draft space). Primefac (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing POV template from Tim Palen

I am in the process of completely revising Tim Palen, with the goal of presenting readers a more complete article and to address the neutrality issues. I believe that when I am finished with the last few sections, I will have corrected the POV issues that led you to place the template, but I am reluctant to make "the bold edit" of removing it myself without first checking in with you. Understanding the care required in editing BLPs, I will ultimately submit the revised article for review, but in the meantime, would you please be so kind as to have a look and advise me as to removing the template? I would welcome any help or suggestions you might offer. Thank you. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Malcom Gregory Scott, to be completely honest, I've been waiting for you to finish your editing so that I can gut the article. While I will not deny that you've added a lot of well-sourced material, it has almost reached the point where it could be deleted as WP:G11. I just now went to the article, picked a random paragraph, and found Palen's team sold the love story aggressively. I honestly don't know how you see that as "neutral", because it's not (and should be removed). Almost every paragraph has that issue. I highly suggest going back through and revising again. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Primefac. In the specific instance you cite, I had simply paraphrased the source ("sell it hard"). If I had quoted the source article instead of paraphrasing would it still fail the neutrality test? I'm always concerned about the overuse of quotes, perhaps wrongly, and when the sources on a topic all gush, I'm not always sure how to pull it back. I want to do justice to the subject, of course -- Palen's influence on movie marketing, especially horror films, is significant according to industry trades -- but I'm alarmed to learn I've possibly made the original POV problem even worse. I will do a write-through of what I have already added, as well as remove some of the now-redundant content from the previous version. Perhaps then you would be so kind as to review once more. Thanks again for your guidance. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Good evening, Primefac. I was surprised tonight as I began to do a little more work on Tim Palen that another editor had reverted to an older version. I know I got off to a rough start, but I was earnestly trying to offer a lot of new, well-sourced, and interesting detail about a controversial subject, including criticism of the subject, and as I think the edit history shows, I was trying to be very diligent about POV and neutrality. But the other more experienced editor said my latest version of 12.15.10 was "a promotional nightmare." Perhaps the version I was trying to develop was problematic, but I'm crushed that so much good, well-sourced and relevant information must be lost. I think Tim Palen could be a B-class article, and the subject holds interest for horror movie buffs and Hunger Games fans, Hollywood marketing observers/students, celebrity watchers, and the LGBTQ community. Nonetheless, I am reluctant to simply revert to my last version for fear of seeming antagonistic. I want to be respectful to the other editor and their opinion, of course, but is not the version to which they reverted less neutral than my additions once I'd revised them? And if rounding out the article and including the bad with the good isn't a good approach for getting the NPOV Template removed, how should I proceed? Do you have any suggestions? I'd be grateful for whatever advice you might offer. Thank you.Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

After some time to think, and after re-reading all the policy info and guidance I could find on reversions, NPOV issues, and dispute resolution, I thought it best to politely start a discussion on the article's talk page. I would still appreciate your opinion/suggestions, here or on Talk:Tim Palen. Thanks again. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for the lack of reply, work, life, and some back-end WP issues have been keeping me quite busy the last few days so I haven't had a chance to really look at the page. I think a talk page discussion is a good idea, if only to figure out the best direction forward for the article (e.g. fix the old version, fix the new version, smosh the two together, etc). I'll do what I can to read through everything. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. After studying the deep revision history, I now see it's had issues with apparent sock-puppets, etc. So I totally understand the need for scrutiny. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Learned nothing from G12 CSD cleanup of legal statutes

Thank you for intervening in the speedy deletion of Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. Unfortunately my contesting its G12 status went unanswered, as well as questions on how to include legislation on Wikipedia, while the CSD process carried on as if the claimant had actually heeded the warning of the copyvio tool to manually check for a false positive. I know this place is not a dictionary, but I included the twelve definitions which are together the description of the article's jurisdiction, the c part of §197 in a giant charter for the City of New York (I think this nullifies the not-a-dictionary protocol). If you are not sure what the message is that is fine, I will try to find a better place to ask. But I ask you since you intervened as if the G12 claim was true. Thank you Louis Waweru  Talk  07:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I went to the root page of the alleged violation, which indicates that all content on that site is copyrighted. This is the primary reason why I removed and redacted the content. If you have evidence to the contrary, I am more than happy to restore it. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Aggelos Kiayias draft rejection as 'entirely PRIMARY’

Hello Primefac, Thanks for looking at the entry. You have rejected the draft saying: ‘References are entirely PRIMARY’, and that the draft does little more than list publication history. I based this entry initially on that of Elaine Shi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Shi, which has just 4 references, all of which appear to me to be primary by your judgement. I have 12 references, including to the Financial Times and the US Patent Office. Please explain your thinking.

I looked at the links used by the first 10 entries at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Greek_computer_scientists, and similar lists of science academics. I agree that many of these do nothing more than list publication history and many others are written like CVs. However, I have done work on two other Edinburgh professors and not had a problem. My first entry was accepted and Rated Start-class in 4 categories. That entry led to this one because they are co-authors. I try to ensure my entries are better than average with a wide range of sources. If you feel I have not chosen a correct model - my first entry was a law professor - please suggest someone I should use as a model.

I am confused by your interpretation of the PRIMARY definition. I can see a grey area with info from his employers and Maths Genealogy (though these are checked by the employer/project and most academic’s pages I looked at cited both these sources). But how can a patent granted to the Airbus aerospace group, and a Financial Times report be primary? I would be grateful if you could specify for each source whether you regard it as primary. If so, are you saying they can’t be used? Please add a briefcomment after each entry, such as OK/No-primary/needs expanding.

1. School of Informatics contacts, University of Edinburgh, https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/people/staff/Aggelos_Kiayias.html Retrieved 10 August 2020. This link is to an Edinburgh website to establish the fact that Kiayias is a professor there. Are you saying this is a PRIMARY source? I would have thought that anyone coming to Wikipedia would expect this link. Your reply:

1. Academic staff, Blockchain Technology Laboratory, https://www.ed.ac.uk/informatics/blockchain/people/academic-staff Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is to establish the fact that Kiayias heads the blockchain lab. Again, I would have thought that anyone coming to Wikipedia would expect this link. There was a report in Business for Scotland citing Kiayias and giving his affiliation. Business for Scotland is regularly mentioned in Scottish papers such as the Herald and the Scotsman and British national papers. The event was organised with the Scottish Government’s Elections Team and has been referred to in a written response to Members of the Scottish Parliament. Should I use this as well as/instead of the Edinburgh source?: https://www.businessforscotland.com/blockchain-academics-define-new-future-democracy-scotland/. Your reply:

2. Aggelos Kiayias entry at the Mathematics Genealogy Project, Dissertation: Polynominal Reconstruction Based Cryptography, Ph. D. City University of New York, 2002. mathgenealogy.org/id.php?id=58836 Retrieved 10 August 2020. I used this because the project is so widely used in pages about mathematicians; it appears to be a Wikipedia standards source; it is mentioned 7,000+ times. Your reply:

3. Anon (2005) “Aggelos Kiayias Awarded NSF Career Award”, School of Engineering News, University of Connecticut https://news.engr.uconn.edu/aggelos-kiayias-awarded-nsf-career-award.php Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is used to establish the fact that he was a lecturer at Connecticut and show his research interests. The Shi page uses a similar link at Cornell. I can add a link to the National Science Foundation website if that helps: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0831304&HistoricalAwards=false. Your reply:

4. Anon (2008) “Kiayias Puts Botnets in His Sights”, School of Engineering News, University of Connecticut https://news.engr.uconn.edu/kiayias-puts-botnets-in-his-sights.php Retrieved 10 August 2020. As (3). Your reply:

5. Cooper, N. (2009) “Engineer’s Research Targets Wireless Networks and Security”, UConn Today, University of Connecticut https://today.uconn.edu/2009/04/engineers-research-targets-wireless-networks-and-security/ Retrieved 10 August 2020. Work on wireless security cited 11 years later in patent (6). Your reply:

6. “Method for generating a digital key for secure wireless communication”, US patent 10,462,655. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10,462,655&OS=10,462,655&RS=10,462,655 Retrieved 10 August 2020. Prof Kiayias cited by aerospace giant Airbus patent. This establishes commercial interest in his academic work. Are you saying this is a PRIMARY source? Your reply:

7. ^ A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol, Aggelos Kiayias, Ioannis Konstantinou, Alexander Russell, September 12, 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160918110246/https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.pdf Retrieved 10 August 2020. Pre-print of original blockchain paper. Establishes cclaim of innovation and reason for notability beyond just professorship. Would a link to the Cardano page help? (I am wary of doing this this because anything linked to Cardano seems to be regarded as spam, which is a bit weird.) Your reply:

8. ^ Kiayias A., Russell A., David B., Oliynykov R. (2017) “Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol”. In: Katz J., Shacham H. (eds) Advances in Cryptology – Crypto 2017. Springer, Cham. 27 July 2017. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-63688-7_12 Retrieved 10 August 2020. Again, authorship of Ouroboros, the protocol behind a leading blockchain, establishes notability beyond just professorship. This is proceedings of a peer-reviewed academic conference that is cited on hundreds of other pages. This was one of 71 papers selected of 311 submissions. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yhUwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA357&dq=%E2%80%9COuroboros:+A+Provably+Secure+Proof-of-Stake+Blockchain+Protocol%E2%80%9D&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw6dq6hb3tAhUcXhUIHSshD4kQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=submission%20&f=false I can also add a US press interview from the widely-cited International Business Times: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cardanos-ouroboros-proving-proof-stake-can-work-wild-1663150 Google Scholar has the paper cited 700+ times. Shoiuld I link to this?: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%E2%80%9COuroboros%3A+A+Provably+Secure+Proof-of-Stake+Blockchain+Protocol%E2%80%9D.+&btnG= Of the papers that cite the Kiayias paper, the most cited (apart from another prof Kiayias paper) is ‘Algorand: Scaling Byzantine Agreements for Cryptocurrencies’ (667 times) Should I add this as an additional source? https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3132747.3132757 Your reply:

9. ^ Daian P., Pass R., Shi E. (2019) “Snow White: Robustly Reconfigurable Consensus and Applications to Provably Secure Proof of Stake”. In: Goldberg I., Moore T. (eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11598. Springer, Cham https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-32101-7_2 Retrieved 10 August 2020. This cites the Ouroboros paper and 2 other Prof Kiayias papers. How can this be a PRIMARY source for a page about Prof Kiayias? Your reply:

10. ^ Cardano (ADA) entry at CoinMarketCap. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/cardano/ Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is widely cited on Wikipedia, including on the List of Cryptocurrencies page. How can this is a PRIMARY source for a page about Prof Kiayias? Your reply:

11. ^ Arnold, M. (2017) “Universities add blockchain to course list”, Financial Times: Masters in Finance, https://www.ft.com/content/f736b04e-3708-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3 Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is the Financial Times talking about an financial academic innovation by Prof Kiayias in introducing blockchain courses. It is by Martin Arnold, head of the Frankfurt bureau. Are you saying this is a PRIMARY source? Your reply:

12. ^ Avgouleas, E. and Kiayias, A. (2019) “The promise of blockchain technology for global securities and derivatives markets: the new financial ecosystem and the ‘holy grail’ of systemic risk containment”. European Business Organization Law Review, 20, 1:81-110 Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is an academic, double-blind peer-reviewed law journal. https://www.springer.com/journal/40804/submission-guidelines Your reply: GreyStar456 (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

First, let me say that you are correct, they are not all primary sources; there are a few that are nothing more than a one-line mention.

That being said, yes, the institution(s) where people work(ed) are considered primary sources, because they are directly connected to the subject. I do not know of a university that doesn't give a bio (even if it's just contact info) for their professors, or publishes press releases when "one of their own" receives an award. This covers both of your #1s, as well as 3-5. Other primary sources are 6-8 and 12, as these are his own works.

2 is a database listing, 10 doesn't even mention him, and 11 is a two-line mention/quote from him (which is fine for verification, but does nothing for demonstrating notability).

I cannot view all of 9, but it is likely the best of the group, since it's actually referencing his work rather than him publishing it directly. However, it's still not great, as it likely says little more than "according to Kiayias...".

So in summary, yes, I misspoke in my extra comment, but I stand by the rest of my statement that he does not appear to meet our various notability criteria. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reddy

I deliberatly created a separate page Reddy (Irish surname), for the surname of Irish origin. The name is completely unrelated to the Indian name. Unlike say McDonald vs MacDonald in English. It deserves a separate page. Please stop undoing this. ---StevenBjerke97 talk 20:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

StevenBjerke97, if you take a look at Category:Surnames, you will see that we do not split by nationality or origin of the surname. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

That is blatantly incorrect and false. See Lee (Korean surname) and Lee (English surname). Could find other examples. They are completely unrelated names in different languages. They should't be thrown into a mixed article. Same with Reddy. ---StevenBjerke97 talk 20:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh, so there is an exception. Fair enough. I would argue the reason for that is because the Korean article is actually about the name and its origins, not just listing individuals, as is (for the most part) the English version. Reddy does neither, and I would argue that there are not enough names (on either list) to merit splitting them; it's not even 9k in size. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to come off as rude or argumentative, but names like Sabourin have less. In addition, I was planning on adding more names to the list, as well as the history and origin of the name (Irish). It has a significance to me and I think it's appropriate that it have a separate article. ---StevenBjerke97 talk 20:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you're clearly going to do whatever you want, so I won't edit war with you. I will ask, however, that next time you move a page please do it properly. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I'll be sure to move future pages the correct way, as per the link. My bad on that. Case closed. ---StevenBjerke97 talk 22:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

an issue with one of your edits

Can you clarify what you meant in this edit summary? You said there was an emerging consensus to include the contest material but that seems to prejudge the direction of discussion particularly when there is an equal number of editors who vouch for its exclusion - you seem to note as much when you said immediately afterwards that there was at best no consensus. Under such circumstances, WP:BURDEN would require that the contested material (which you restored) be removed. I should also point out that the criticisms of the arguments for including the contested paragraph have not been responded to (see the "paragraph removal" section on the correspondig talk page), so unless I am interpreting somehing incorrectly, restorations of the material by non-administrators without resolving the criticisms first should be treated as WP:STONEWALLING Flickotown (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This basically comes down to WP:BRD. The text was in the article, and someone removed it. That was reverted (a few times more than necessary) and a discussion was formed. Initially (and the reason why I didn't revert back to the stable version right away) was that it appeared consensus favoured the removal, but after a few additional posts by interested editors it appeared that (at best) there was a "no consensus"/stalemate, which means that the initial "bold" removal of text has no consensus to be enacted. Given that all of the new comments were in support of re-adding this content, it forms a trend of an emerging consensus, indicating that if it were to continue there would be (i.e. "emerging") a relatively strong consensus to keep the text on the page. If that changes at some point, then of course the content can be removed again. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how WP:BRD would justify restoring the paragraph. Why would the "bold" be the removal of the text? To me, the "Bold" in this case would be the edit that included the paragraph. The "Revert" would have been the removal (i.e. revert the page back to its pre-paragraph version). The "Discussion" should have happened without the revert of that removal.

Also, even if WP:BRD applied, why wouldn't WP:BURDEN override it? Flickotown (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Flickotown: I'm sorry, are you seriously implying that the content you removed wasn't sourced? Can you please detail specifically what isn't sourced, which is what WP:BURDEN refers to? Praxidicae (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, it's two sentences in the lead, with eight reliable sources: The Trump campaign has challenged the legitimacy of the election results by filing lawsuits, demanding recounts, alleging that mail voting is responsible for widespread electoral fraud, and claiming without evidence that election officials are conspiring to help Democrats.[11][12] Although Trump initially refused to commit to a transfer of power, he acknowledged on November 26 that he must leave office if the Electoral College votes for Biden.[13] or are you insinuating that NPR[1], FactCheck.org[2], BBC[3] Washington Post[4], CNN[5], New York Times[6] and USA Today[7] are all unreliable? Praxidicae (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you even here? You're the person who said "fuck it, this (the article) is someone else's problem now". Walk the talk, move on already and let Primefac answer me instead of trying to answer for him or her. Flickotown (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Becuase you've attempted to badger your version of the article with random WP:POLICY interspersed that you've yet to answer (or apparently understand) for yourself. So c'mon, what is it? What part of burden applies here? Praxidicae (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

They're not random if you read my arguments for it. Move on already. Flickotown (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I did read your argument, or at least your attempt at one. Where does burden apply here, as you pointed out above? Under such circumstances, WP:BURDEN would require that the contested material (which you restored) be removed. The content is factual, neutral, sourced. Where is the issue? Praxidicae (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

When i said "my arguments for it" i was referring to the arguments on the talk page not here.

On further review, it turns out that what I meant to say was that WP:ONUS would require that the contested material be removed. The confusion was on my part in thinking that WP:BURDEN = WP:ONUS - obviously BBC, NPR and the like are reliable sources. That said, while you are right that the issue isn't about WP:BURDEN, you'd still lose the overall argument that the paragraph should be kept out when the policy issue is about WP:ONUS (along with all the other issues that I laid out in the "paragraph removal" section of the talk page - this explains why I've heard crickets from you there and why you've tried to make as much hay as you can with my honest mistake here.)

@Primefac: Further to the discussion above can you address my following concerns: I don't understand how WP:BRD would justify restoring the paragraph. Why would the "bold" be the removal of the text? To me, the "Bold" in this case would be the edit that included the paragraph. The "Revert" would have been the removal (i.e. revert the page back to its pre-paragraph version). The "Discussion" should have happened without the revert of that removal.

Also, even if WP:BRD applied, why wouldn't WP:ONUS override it? Flickotown (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found when that paragraph was added, but it was there at least a month before the edit warring started, with a good hundred edits between. Thus, the default state of the article was "has the paragraph" (re: BRD). As far as ONUS goes, that is the root cause of the edit war and the discussion (i.e. that discussion is determining if that onus is there). Primefac (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) As a minor note, Praxidicae is one of many (talk page stalker) on this page, which is likely why she commented after seeing you post here.

Can you comment on the content dispute under the "paragraph removal" section on the talk page? As I said in my OP, the people who want to keep restoring the disputed paragraph (which includes the talk page stalker that you just mentioned) haven't been responding/have been refusing to respond to the criticisms of their arguments, so attempts to keep the paragraph without resolving the criticisms first should at least to me be treated as stonewalling. Flickotown (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There haven't been any additional comments regarding that paragraph since the last time I said something, so from that perspective nothing has changed. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No I meant policy or core content policy wise. I've been saying how the disputed paragraph violates WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE but people have been restoring the paragraph without resolving the criticisms I've made first. Can you comment? Flickotown (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Kanchan7122002

Hi Primefac they seems to be a suspected sock of Ranjit pasi. Though Kanchan7122002 have been blocked for 2 weeks but I think they will return in someway or the other. Anyways, already filled a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ranjit pasi. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Abushal

I opened WP:ANI#Abushal spreading virus misinformation before seeing you deleted their userpage. Even though no one has tried to engage them before, the extent of this misinformation warrants a block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

For something like that, I'd say ANI is a good place to get the issue resolved. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I thought to notify you as a courtesy as you could be considered "involved".--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I am most definitely not involved - I saw a page that needed deleting under U5 and deleted it. I do appreciate the notification though. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

As clarification, I was referring to WP:INVOLVED, indicating that I should recuse myself from any action against them, not just "involved in the situation". Primefac (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting updating of Women related laws in Pakistan with new text

Greetings,

As per Wikipedia's expected due process I have updated Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp building it from scratch with proper close paraphrasing. I suppose it would be acceptable at least as a stub.

Since updating of Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp we will not be depending on previous text of the article, I requesting to shift the text from Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp to Women related laws in Pakistan.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that temporary article has been deleted. Is there anything else I can help with? Primefac (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Question (DYK)

Can I ask another question in relation to my DYK restrictions. I am currently drafting this but I wanted to confirm it doesn't fall foul of the British politics issue. I don't think it does because it is a piece of legislation so it is law rather than politics. Also because it is in relation to the British Overseas Territories and not the UK itself. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Your restriction was only for DYK, so creating an article doesn't fall afoul of that. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said I was hoping to take it to DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say that an order issued by the Privy Council would be considered "related to politics." Sorry. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I see, the reason why I had doubt was because I felt it wasn't related to British politics, but to the Colonies politics. But then I presume that all legislation passed by the UK Parliament falls under it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the constant questions, but I do want to guarantee I get everything right by the book. So legislation that originates in the UK (Privy Council, Parliament etc.) is a no, but any legislation that originates in the colonies is a yes? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I think that would be a reasonable interpretation. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Hello, I see that you are helping with the Alahverdian circus. Can you please review the madness that is going on with the edits? Apparently NBC and CBS news affiliates are no longer reliable sources. Thanks. Dr42 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to stay out of it as much as possible to avoid getting involved (I'd rather stay as impartial as possible). If there are misconduct issues I will deal with them, but otherwise I would prefer to let the usual BRD and consensus processes go their normal course. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is marked as a hoax without any substantial proof or justification, just interpretations and platitudes on the talk page. Edits with reliable sources are being deleted and reverted. Editors are claiming that edits which are on archive.org may no longer be used on the article as sources since other archived articles were removed (I saw that the controversial archived articles were removed from archive.org, presumably by their administrative team). These issues do not allow for a healthy editing atmosphere. Dr42 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

ANB post

Thanks for letting me know why and sorry for my mistake. Dr42 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)