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)

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)

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)

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)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waskerton/Archive. Travelmite (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 10:30, 20 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)

Me again, sorry for the bothering, but just checking that the flags and heraldry of the British Overseas Territories would be OK for DYK too? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 30 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)

Edits on RfA

What did I do? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I basically was fixing the "scheduled to end", as it ended 13 years ago. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 22:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You apparently missed the big notice that says The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. There's nothing "broken" or "wrong" about leaving a little extra code there. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Fett merge

It wasn't a duplicate request, It was a request to a new target destination. I have created two redirects about the same thing in the last seven years, I just don't see the need for both. Rusted AutoParts 23:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but a merge isn't going to do anything (i.e. there's nothing to merge). If you think they should be deleted, feel free to request a G7 or send it to WP:RFD. Primefac (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The assembling of the stuffy arbs. Natureium (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the election and welcome to the 2021 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

• the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
• if you wish to assigned CheckUser and/or Oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the OTRS users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45), and your name must be listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, if you want CheckUser or Oversight permissions during your term, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, Primefac...and good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Cite Q template question

Hello Primefac,

Since you added the concluding remarks to the (archived) discussion about the Cite Q template, I would appreciate your contribution to the debate here and here (starting about half-way through at "Hi Geoff"). I think plant names should always be in italics (including in references) but MargaretRDonald thinks the usefulness of the template outweighs its weakness. A friendly debate, I think. Thanks in anticipation. (Watching here or wherever.) Gderrin (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Primefac: I think may be useful to keep the discussion in one place, my talk page, as that is where I have put forward arguments for the use of cite Q. I understand the problem with italics but I think it is far too early to shut down the usage of cite Q until many more people have had experience of the template and used it. Given that many many plant articles fail to link to author sources at all, it is surely preferable to have a link minus the correct italics than no link at all. Compare for example, Pogonolepis August 2, 2020 with Pogonolepis December 21, 2020 where the italics have been lost but we are linked to the source article and to an important researcher in the area, Philip Sydney Short. Two important links given by the simple use of {{Cite Q}}. (repeated from the talk page for @Plantdrew:). MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If there are any questions or concerns about the implementation of {{cite Q}} I'm happy to weigh in, but I generally tend to avoid discussions specifically about citations and citation styles (mostly because I don't really care); at the moment it looks like it's a discussion more about whether it should be used rather than any sort of technical concerns. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

• Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:

  Oversight: Joe Roe

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
• DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 Arbitration Committee

• *Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace me. (and that goes for the other new people also). We may overlap on one case. and if there's one thing I like, it's giving advice. . Especially now that I'm safely out of the war zone. I managed to balance arb com and AfC, but it wasn't easy. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! I'm curious to see how best I can slot this in to my current activities (with hopefully not too much lost in overall productivity). Primefac (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• 👏👏👏 Congratulations!! You're In like Flynn!! Good luck to you, Primefac! Atsme 💬 📧 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Congratulations!!!!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

CSD for templates

Hi Primefac. Are there any CSD criteria specifically for template? I came across Template:Timothy Freke via WP:THQ#question. Although I believe it was created in good faith, there's doesn't seem to be a real need for a template like this. Would it fall under WP:G6 or WP:G8, or does it need to go to WP:TFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would have said WP:G2. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. For something that would likely fail WP:A1 (no context) in the article space, G2/test would be sufficient. If I came across something that had a chance of being turned into an article I might draftify (but usually it's G2 deletion). Now that the TFD is going, though, I'd say just let it run its course. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't even consider G2. Anyway, as you say, things will be sorted out at TFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity question

Hi Primefac, hope all is well during the holidays, I have a question regarding Nelly Furtado’s ethnicity. So many sources have referred to her as Portuguese-Canadian and she has also referred to herself as not being one or the other, she equally believes she’s both. So my question is should the lead on her page just state “Canadian” or is it allowed to state “Portuguese-Canadian” since sources and herself have stated it? Pillowdelight (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I should also add her parents hail from Portugal but migrated to Canada. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We generally go with what the sources say, so if they say Portuguese-Canadian, then we should also say the same. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you please hop in the discussion on her page and respond to agreeing it can state Portuguese-Canadian? Another user is disagreeing with it.

Pillowdelight (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

hear, hear!

For better or worse, congratulations on your election, and happy end-of-2020! - JDL. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Urgent

Hello, Primefac. Please see this edit. I have already reported it to Emergency. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Seen, dealt. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

AfC backlog drive

Hi. Hope you don't mind me reaching out here. Just from the numbers, I feel like something needs to be done. Would you happen to have any ideas on whether a backlog drive is a suitable solution, and if so, if there's any way a proposal for one would succeed on WT:WPAFC? Thank you. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

​ I feel like I'm going against everything I always harped on when I was in university clubs, because I say backlog drives are a bad thing when the last one we had was before I even joined the project! I just heard stories about how useless/bad/unproductive they were and figured that was Truth. I think the main reason why backlog drives have failed in the past is because they've been gamified in some way, and thus we emphasize the number of reviews rather than the quality, which doesn't really do much other than flood NPP and annoy them (and potentially result in shoddy reviews as a whole). Because of that, I'm still opposed (in general) to the typical "backlog drive" as regularly pushed at WT:AFC.

I'm coming up with this off the top of my head, but I feel like if we really wanted to have a big push towards mass-reviewing we should have a division of labour that makes it so that one can do as much (or as little) as they wish, but still allows them to contribute overall. I mean, really, what are the main criteria we're looking for? Copyvios, good references, non-promotional prose, and "do they meet an SNG or GNG?" are the main points. The first three are pretty easy checks, with the second taking probably the most time for any of my reviews. If I could come into a draft knowing that there aren't copyvios and there are plenty of RS then all I would need to do is determine if the prose is reasonable and if there's enough to demonstrate notability.

So here's my thought, in a vague hand-wavey "we can work out the finer points later" idea: have a table of the oldest hundred or two drafts, with four columns: CV check, reference check (RS), reference check (significant coverage), and "promo prose" check, something along the lines of:

Draft	CV clean?	RS?	WP:SIGCOV?	Overly promotional?
Draft:Example	17:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)	4/5	1/5

So if I went to this table, I would see that there are RS but it's not significant coverage, so if the prose wasn't terrible I could decline as bio (and if it was I'd add in adv). Alternately, if something was green across the board I could easily go and accept it. Basically, it means you could have one person that checks the cv on a dozen pages, 2-3 people checking references on those dozen pages, and someone going through and seeing if the results mean it can be accepted or declined.

Not sure if this is making any sense, I'll probably have to read back through it in an hour or so, but I feel like this would encourage coordination between users who might be good at figuring out if a reference was reliable or not, but maybe not great at determining GNG, with someone who knew the SNGs and GNG better. Regular reviews could of course happen as normal, and a bot could keep the page updated to remove any non-pending drafts and add more to the end of the list. If needed we could get a script going to help out with the keeping-track-of-things, kind of like AFCBuddy. As a very rough idea, what do you think? Primefac (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I wouldn't view this as any sort of "backlog drive", but mainly "another way to help us review drafts". Primefac (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I like that a lot. You know... silly idea, but we should just do that with every draft, not just the oldest. We can hash out the number of steps (I favor just two, sources/notability and CV/promo prose), but the template should be modified to have one Y/N parameter for each, and then have the script give you "next draft needing a source check" etc. Surely this isn't an original idea, but a cursory archive check found nothing. I agree that a "backlog drive" of olden times would be tough to pass. Maybe scale it way back, and just give people a barnstar if they do >30 or 50 in a two-week period? Enterprisey (talk!) 00:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, two columns make sense. I was thinking only the oldest mainly because the newest have high turnover so it would likely be pointless to work those into it, but I suppose anything after 2 days old is statistically likely to not be seen again 'til it hits the oldest cats (so maybe leave out the 0- and 1-day submissions?). Depending on how well it works out we could certainly incorporate some sort of badge or barnstar system into it. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexa param cleanup for Infobox company/website

Hey Prime. A user has gotten themselves blocked trying to work on this, see Special:Contributions/Wikiwriter700. Another user I found was mass reverting the first, and I've chewed them out already for improper rollback use and clearly not reviewing what they were doing with 10+ EPM. Could you look into running your bot for Infobox website and Infobox company to remove the Alexa param? I'm not up to date on when or why it was apparently removed from either. I was never a fan of it besides. But it's going to basically be everywhere and should be cleaned up. -- ferret (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There was an RFC to remove it from ib website. Since there are a thousand or so instances of the ranking I can run the bot on it. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This was just infobox website I guess. I assumed company as some of the pages I noticed were for companies.... that happen to use infobox website since that's their main deal. -- ferret (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Izno#Infobox Alexa rankings I identified 3, Infobox software, Infobox website, Infobox online service. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I ended up being busier today than I expected, but fringe benefits of being an educator is that I have essentially a mandated two weeks off! (i.e. I'll get to it in the next few days) Primefac (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note, I only did ib website, as the others either didn't use |alexa= or only had a small number of uses. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Venue for asking/discussing template coding

Hi Primefac. Congratulations on your election to the ArbCom. I have a question on template coding and I just realized I don't know of a good venue for asking such questions. Can you suggest a venue? Happy holidays. --Muhandes (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Depends on what you're looking for, I suppose. If it's something module-related, then WT:Lua would be a good place. If it's just a general template question, then WT:WPT would be a good spot. Otherwise, feel free to ask someone who knows templates! Primefac (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try WT:WPT. --Muhandes (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Athens Democracy Forum page deleted

Hello. I started the page, Athens Democracy Forum, which you deleted and cited copyright infringement. I was hoping that you could let me know what I did wrong so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Thank you. --Nikol234 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa left a fairly good summary at your talk page, but basically you copied something from another website directly, that's not allowed except under very specific circumstances (which are explained at the links she listed in her note). Primefac (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting in-use references

Please make sure your bot doesn't cause errors in articles by deleting in-use reference definitions, like it did in this edit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s probably a bunch of extra work to code support for this, but we have another bot which fixes this. See user:AnomieBOT/docs/OrphanReferenceFixer ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No can do, sorry; AWB doesn't have that functionality. Anomie's bot can handle it. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And in this edit, too. AnomieBOT isn't guaranteed to fix deleted reference definitions, dosn't offer a timeline for such fixes, and isn't guaranteed to fix them correctly. Please don't rely on it. I think it's also bad form to use the Wikipedia corpus for a bot war playground. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's never failed to fix a bot run of mine before, runs every hour, and has a nearly 100% success rate (and I'm including those times when it cannot make the correct move and asks for human intervention, because I consider that a "success"). Additionally, this isn't a bot war, because that would imply Anomie's bot is reverting mine. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What happened here?

I saw that you oversighted a revision of the disambiguation page for oversight, but, how?

JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I clicked a button, then clicked some more buttons, one of which was the option for "suppress this revision". I guess I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I'll be honest, I don't even know what I'm asking. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you figure it out, I'm always happy to give (slightly less silly) answers! Primefac (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, If you will give less silly answers if I figure it out, I hope that I will never figure it out.

Also, how long do you think it will take for someone to nominate the file for deletion? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea, not much of a gambler. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

HawkEye 360

Hey! I see you accepted this AfC from a COI editor and I'm really struggling with it. I think it might be notable, but the content remains very promotional. I'm gonna refrain from sending it to AfD but it might be helpful to throw something on the talkpage about this one if you think it should stay. I'm not quite sure how to fix its promotional tone. FalconK (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm feeling snarky today so forgive me if my first thought is "fix it by removing the promotional language". Couldn't say how I missed that much nonsense on the page, but I'll take a look at it and see what I can hack off. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Primefac, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Important references

Hi, A lot of important references of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjib_Kumar_Karmee was deleted. Do you think a scientist among world's top 2% does not deserve space in wikipedia? Kindly advise how to proceed. Kdis98 (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I almost always do a copyvio check first, removing the offending content (and leaving the references) before doing any major cleanup to the article (thereby preserving the references in the history). This time (if I remember correctly) the copyvio checker was not behaving as expected and I did not get results until after my cleanup. I have restored the removed references. However, please keep in mind my comments regarding the bombardment of references. Just because the references are there doesn't mean they must be used.

Regarding the "2% of scientists" claim: this is not the first time I've seen that statement be made, and quite honestly I do not think the sources you are using are doing justice to that claim; I have searched through every piece of information provided by the researchers themselves, and unless I'm missing a data dump there is no inclusion of nationality (or in this case, of Karmee himself) in the data set, and I feel like the mystery provider of the Google Sheet listed in one of the references has done some original research to get this magical "2%" figure.

And also, as a minor point, even if the claims are true, it's not "the top 2% in the world", it's "the top 2% in India in the field of bioenergy"; Karmee is very far down the "worldwide" list. So no, I do not think that a scientist in the top 2% of a subsection of a subsection of the world's researchers is "automatically" notable. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

His worldwide rank in biotechnology discipline is 726 and he is among top 1.442. It is not subsection of a subsection. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article33043379.ece/binary/IndiansWorldRanking.pdf

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vadodara/gujarat-scientists-bag-global-honour/articleshow/79048679.cms

In addition, Karmee has also worked for social upliftment of western Odisha.Combing all these points the subject is notable. You may consider it for further review. Thanks! Kdis98 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

My point is more that The Hindu is the only place I've seen these "modified" results, the original data does not contain any of the information seen on those tables, which is why I view it as highly suspect. I could very well be wrong, but looking at huge datasets and interpreting them is something I do often. Wanting to improve his home area is commendable, but that in and of itself does not make one notable. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, Kindly look at the excel sheet available on IISc Bangalore website: Ranking of top 2% scientist from India - CPDM IISc (cpdm.iisc.ac.in › cpdm › World_Ranking XLS) shorturl.at/wACJO Kdis98 (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kdis98: What's your connection with Sanjib Kumar Karmee. Are you being paid to write this article or do you work for them/with them ? It has been your sole item of editing on Wikipedia for more than half a year now.

I've looked through both the Google Sheet that you've shared, and the original file from which it's derived (without attribution - somewhat dubious in the land of academia) and whilst I recognise Karmee is ranked as one of the top 2% of scientists in his field globally, he's down somewhere at 145,000 on the list. I've therefore looked at citation count and h-index and neither measure is particularly high, which would lead me to reject the suggestion they're notable per WP:NPROF. I don't see any evidence of more generic notability per WP:GNG so I'm afraid, at this time, I must endorse the decision to decline the article. Nick (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not paid nor I work with them. I saw a news item in the news paper. And thought of writing the article. H index 18-20 is very good for young scientists with 33 papers. Also, number of citations per paper is good I guess. Kdis98 (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I am a beginner in wiki. I will edit and create more profiles. Kdis98 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, With your permission, I would like to make one more point. How many scientists develop pilot scale technologies? How many scientists are converting lab scale into pilot scale process? In the context, GHGs emission and global warming this process is important: Odia scientist-led team develops tech for producing biofuel Kdis98 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You may kindly check:https://www.dailypioneer.com/2020/state-editions/odia-scientist-led-team-develops-tech-for-producing-biofuel.html Kdis98 (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

So that's a good thing to demonstrate notability, but there is still the issue that almost none of the sources talk about Karmee in any detail; it's well and good to be involved in important projects, but if the only mention of a person is "he runs it" then he's not really that important overall! WP:GNG can be summed up as significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; so far you have only demonstrated the second half of that. If you can find a few really good (independent) sources that talk about him, especially if it's in relation to this biofuel project, you will have a much easier time convincing the reviewer that he is notable. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Can peer reviewed papers be independ sources? Should I add bibliography? Kdis98 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not if they are papers he has written. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Can it be considered independent source? It is from OrissaPost (an independent news paper published from Bhubaneswar):https://www.orissapost.com/team-led-by-odia-scientist-invents-organic-energy-from-waste-materials/amp/

Kdis98 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that's a borderline case, since the majority of the content are quotes and statements directly from him. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Ambalavanar Vaidialingam

Dear Primefac

Thank you for reviewing the above draft on 28 Dec. 2020.

I have amended the submission to take into account your comments and have re-submitted it today. The amendments are: • Added two independent sources to indicate Ambalavanar Vaidialingam is a founder of United Socialist Party , the predecessor of Communist Party of Sri Lanka (Ref 1 & 4) • Replaced the election results ‘pdf file links’ to the Sri Lankan Election Commission ‘Parliamentary Election Results’ web page with the Wikipedia internal link to the relevant electoral district that gives also the election results.

I trust the amendments meet your requirement

Regards

VGSangar (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC) VGSangar

Excellent, improved references are always a plus. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Closing discussions at AN

Hello Primefac, how should closing discussions be done on WP:AN? Thanks for your time. ◅ Sebastian 16:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

For something like that, with a close that actually reflects the consensus of the discussion. You shouldn't just be closing discussions "because someone asked" or because it's been sitting idle for 48 hours, and especially if a potential unblock/restriction removal is being requested (and in the latter case, the close should actually address the request). Primefac (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks! Regarding “the close should actually address the request”: I had avoided that since I had previosly been criticised for having voted when I closed an issue. Actually, for this closure, I did do much more than I wrote down. Particularly, since DGG voted for granting the appeal, which btw. also harmonized with my own first impression, I read not only all arguments thoroughly, but also many of the linked pages, including all of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive324#Александр_Мотин, as well as many of the links from there. From that, I emerged with a different impression, and, to be honest, concluded that DGG hadn't studied the case as thoroughly. So, do I understand you correctly that it would have been better if I had somehow diplomatically mentioned that? ◅ Sebastian 17:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As a closer, you're expected to read through the arguments, and (if necessary) any tangential or related discussions that might affect the outcome of the discussion. If you had closed the request in the same manner (or similar) to how I closed it, then we wouldn't be having this conversation (re: your quote about addressing the request). There's a difference between closing a discussion and making a supervote (which from your description is not what you did or would have done anyway).

That being said, there is no obligation to mention every side of a discussion when there is a relatively clear-cut consensus, so really you'd only have needed to mention the "losing side" is if they make reasonable arguments but either didn't have the numbers or the strength of argument needed to overcome that disparity in numbers. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I see - now that I see your close, it all makes sense. I usually provide a resolution summary in the closing box, too. My mistake was caused because I shied away from declaring consensus against DGG's vote, but I now understand that that would have been appropriate. Thank you! ◅ Sebastian 17:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT infobox mangling

It's not clear what happened here, but somehow a simple parameter removal went awry. I reverted the PrimeBOT change, so you can try PrimeBOT against it at your leisure - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)