User talk:Primefac

This is Primefac's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48: 15 days

Sorry

Primefac, I'm sorry that my WikiProject needs so much oversighting. I see that there was another instance of that just yesterday. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth another note somewhere. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

Hello! I put a G3 CSD on this as it is misinformation. There is no such company outside of the imagination of the kids who are making these pages; they are not releasing a film every two months in 2021. Nothing in the article is verifiable by a source,because the claims are all false. Does that not meet the G3 criterion "applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation"? (BTW, check out one of their films on Youtube.) Thanks. Possibly (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but as a draft there is a small amount of leeway we can give for such things; if there are partial truths, then a review of the draft will find and encourage removal of the falsehoods. Being mostly false isn't a reason to speedy something. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really disagree with your take on this. This is the product of a kid's imagination. It serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to waste our time. Possibly (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. To be honest, if this were in the article space I would likely delete this, but there have been several discussions recently at WT:CSD that indicate that the current rough consensus is that there's no harm in drafts sitting around until they're deleted due to being stale. As it is, the page is listed at MFD and very likely will be deleted in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. There is actually harm: that draft got reviewed! And MFD is a wasteful time sink as well for, well, junk made by some kids. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Possibly (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The Charles Close Society for Ordnance Survey Maps page

I now realise that using existing content/text from the Society's website was not suitable for Wikipedia. Please would you return the page to the Draft page status so that I can resume editing? Cantiana (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't allow copyrighted text on Wikipedia, so restoring the draft isn't really an option, unless you want the infobox. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please would you restore the infobox? Cantiana (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Primefac - much appreciated. We live and learn! Cantiana (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Cantiana: Can I recommend that instead of writing a new article about the Charles Close Society, you expand our existing article on Ordnance Survey instead? It's a common error for newcomers to think they need to put a subject in a new article, when often there's an existing one that can accommodate them. For example, the Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts (which has quite a few common goals) doesn't have its own article, but is mentioned in road enthusiast#SABRE instead. The CCS is mentioned as a reference in the Ordnance Survey article, as is Charles Close himself (as you might expect), but not the society. I have a couple of news and book sources that can be used as third-party reference material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, Ritchie333. I think there is room for both; i.e. for the OS page to be expanded and scope for a CCS page to stand on its own merit. The CCS is the only learned society in the world dedicated to the output of a single mapping organisation, which is notable in itself. Cantiana (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hi. I would like to understand why you didn't give me permission to use the Auto Wiki Browser. I am "sick" of WP: EDITCOUNTITS. I would like to increase the number of contributions. I didn't exactly understand why you didn't give me the authorization. Best Regards Dr Salvus (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page watcher here: I saw your AWB application, and I would have rejected it as well. Two reasons: you gave no indication at all why you would need AWB, which is mainly for simple, repetitive tasks across many articles (a kind of editing you haven't done yet, as far as I know); and your editing in general still has way too many problems, so giing you a tool to make fast editing easier seems a dangerous move. An error made by manual editing is not too bad: an error made with AWB across dozens or hundreds of articles is a lot worse. Fram (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Ok thanks now I understand. But I would like to know if he refused me also because I have very basic English. Dr Salvus (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if he refused me also because I have very basic English - no. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Big Data Analytics

You deleted the page big data analytics. How do I access the content of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it to Draft:Big data analytics. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saved the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mike Wingfield

Not sure what was with this revert on this. There's an entire section without a single inline cite and very serious WP:OR concerns in that same section. And when did it become a thing to just revert someone's decline instead of talking to the reviewer first? I know I've been off for a few months, has something changed? Sulfurboy (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, a single unsourced section shouldn't tank a draft. Second, ilc should rarely (like, very rarely) be used, generally only in situations where it's a big draft, the subject is very likely notable, but there are almost no inline references, which would cause it to run afoul of BLP guidelines in the article space. Third, I've been reverting incorrect declines on drafts for a few years now, but it's generally on new or not-actually-AFCH editors (you're not the first experienced editor I've reverted, but it's been a while).

Another way to think of it - if you removed that one section, what would you think about the draft? Would it be acceptable (or close enough)? If so, remove it and accept. If it would still have issues after removing that section, then decline per that rationale. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "a single unsourced section" diminishes the issues completely. That single section accounts for nearly half the prose of the article and it's basically just some random dudes commentary. Also half of his education lacks cites. 4/5ths of the awards as well. All and all, probably close to 7/8ths of the article. Slash and burning 85%+ of an article just to push it through is a patently absurd suggestion. I'd maybe let it slide if the refs were properly formatted making verification easier, but they're trash as well. We have a broad difference in opinion on what are subjective matters.

More importantly, I think you really need to consider how reverting is just plain bad here. It's just as easy to drop me a note on my page. It's also just as easy for you to be bold and do what you suggested above, remove the problematic areas and publish it yourself. Even easier to just resubmit it for another review. With the revert, I can't think of a single benefit, but can think of three really bad effects:

1) You've removed the commentary and decline reason so now the drafter doesn't even know what is still problematic on the page.

2) It's going to piss off tenured reviewers; we don't need to be babysat.

3) You're going to create a chilling effect. What reviewer (particularly a newer one) is going to want to stick around if you are just going to come behind and play ultimate arbiter? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, all of them, and I will keep them in mind for the future. For what it's worth, I didn't leave you a note upon reverting because I felt the edit summary was sufficient; in hindsight that was not a good idea. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:1995 UN Children's Conference on the Environment

Dear Primefac,

You have deleted my above draft page because I copied the content of the draft to one of my own websites because I needed it up somewhere as part of the 25th anniversary celebrations last November, and my draft Wikipedia entry was stuck in the queue for approval.

I will delete my own page as soon as the Wikipedia page goes live, and substitute a link to Wikipedia, but for the moment I need the text live somewhere as we argue for space at COP26.

Please could you therefore restore my draft, and if you can do anything to give it some impetus in the approval queue that would be much appreciated.

Yours,

Ralph Lucas — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordLucasCD (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been written, so there's not much to do there. As far as the website goes, you don't necessarily have to delete it, but if you follow the instructions as WP:DONATETEXT and release your text under the appropriate license then the page can possibly be restored. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive top purple deletion

Should not have been deleted. There wasn't a consensus for deletion. You also didn't give a reason for deletion in your closing remarks. p b p 18:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus for deletion. When the "head count" is 6-2 in favour of deletion, the "keep" !votes need to have a compelling argument against those in support, which they did not have. As always, you are welcome to take this to WP:DRV, but I would be very surprised if you got enough support to overturn the close. When the close is that obvious, no rationale is needed from the closer. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Mistake

Hi, I made perhaps a Mistake with approving the Draft of Tinabeth_Piña, exactly 10 seconds after clicking approving I noticed that the Username is the same like the subject of the article - I do not see any peacocking or lack of NPOV, the Awards are sourced and I immediately tagged the Article for COI but she had not disclosed any COI yet - anything else I could/should do? Sorry.CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a COI isn't forbidden, just strongly discouraged, so if the draft is reasonably neutral and reasonably sourced then I'd say you're okay. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

revdel request

This edit names an individual intrusively and would be best removed from the records. Thanks. PamD 11:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Similar

Hi, Primefac,

You deleted this template @ 03:58, 5 January 2020, per here,

It's been recreated on 12 February 2021, here.
See it here: Template:Similar, a bit garish! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FYI, 220 of ^ßorg 03:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... looks more like a user testing things out, so I've moved it to their userspace. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request

Hi Primefac, please take of this. S0091 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC reviewer removal

Hi there - I'm not quite sure where to request a removal of my AfC reviewer status.. here should do for now. Since I don't really review or intend to review AfC's at all anymore, the title's just sitting there collecting dust. Can I get my AfC reviewer name removed? dibbydib 01:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Primefac (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus_required_on_COVID?. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can this IP be blocked?

Hello admin, can this IP 23.233.138.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? --Ashley yoursmile! 13:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have been blocked. Sorry to bother you. Ashley yoursmile! 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed findings"

I have made a statement regarding the "Proposed findings":[1]

I would appreciate a detailed response. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seen, not had time to fully reply yet. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. After a detailed response to my statement, I would also ask for an explanation about Paradise Chronicle here:[2], why the evidence showing Paradise Chronicle repeatedly removing text sourced to The Washington Post while simultaneously adding citation needed tag and rojname.com and bianet.org as sources and how this combined with the ISIS accusations does not warrant a topic ban for him.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WJ Arbcom block

Hi! Walrus Ji has received an indefinite ArbCom block. I understand that this must have been based on information that isn't, and can't be, available on-wiki, but it would be helpful if at least some general indication is given of the sort of infraction that got the user blocked. This could help inform the evaluation of their contributions, when they're encountered in an article's history or in discussions: a block for personal attacks, for example, will not be as relevant as a block for POV-related sockpuppetry. Is there nothing that could be publicly divulged? – Uanfala (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best way I can say it is that there were both CU and OS issues, so we had to go with an ArbCom block. I will say there was nothing pernicious in their edits specifically, though. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! That's a relief then. I take it that he's not connected, or can't publicly be connected, to any of the established sockmasters? – Uanfala (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

Sources for the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate on History of Kyrgyzstan

1* http://factsanddetails.com/central-asia/Kyrgyzstan/sub8_5a/entry-4744.html (mentions it on Origins of the Kyrgyz)

2* https://prezi.com/n4x6wpyxdtln/the-leadership-of-yenisei-kyrgyz-in-eurasia/

3* https://dbpedia.org/page/Yenisei_Kyrgyz

4* http://www.ehobbex.com/node/35896 (Bars Bek) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I'm not sure why you're contacting me about this, as I don't think I've ever edited either page. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve asked be to provide sources on the talk page so I did, the article needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. You should put those references on the talk pages so that other interested editors will see them and be able to comment on them. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers thanks for the advise I’m Kyrgyz btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.52.84 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Draft:SH Hotels & Resorts

Hey, this was my first submission that you deleted. Am I able to retry the entry with much less information? as I want to make sure that I am putting information in correctly. I know that there was copyright issues that I am happy to fix. Lesliepelrine (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! The reason it was deleted is because the information was copied directly from another source, which is not allowed, so if you want to re-write it in your own words, go for it! Primefac (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the fast fixups BLP fixups last night

For the talk-page-stalkers, Primefac was johnny-on-the-spot with a BLP REVDEL request I posted in the IRC channel yesterday. I wanted to brag on him for his extraordinary speed - he revdel'd it and some related edits before I could finish researching the editor to see if there was anything I had missed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]