User talk:Primefac

Rugby St Andrews RFC

Could I ask that you undelete the Rugby St Andrews RFC page, I am the owner of the Rugby St Andrews Website, and the information that is on there is my work as well.

If you would be able to help me create the wiki page for the club that would be great.

Tennis templates

Could you take a look at the "Top ... male singles tennis players"-templates? They keep appearing at Templates with disambiguation links but I can not find links to dab-pages in the templates. The Banner talk 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The base module is using Module:Disambiguation - could that be triggering the tool? The module is checking a list of names against whether they are disambiguations (using "title.exists" and "isDisambiguation") and then formatting them accordingly to avoid the dab. I feel like pages using the Disambiguation module shouldn't be triggering the tool, though, since that's the entire point of the module... Primefac (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

To be true, I have no idea what triggers the listing. I tried to solve it but failed as the links go to normal pages. The Banner talk 08:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Troubleshooting thread started here. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. Thank you very much! The Banner talk 14:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there is no solution in sight. Would reverting be an option? The Banner talk 09:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless you want a dozen or two templates with dab links showing, not really. I'll have to think about it. We sort out some of the unusual dabs right at the start, but the most common disambiguator is "(tennis)" so we need to check whether that's a valid option if the page is disambiguated. Otherwise, there's no real way for us to track outliers. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

AFD comments

Hello, Primefac,

There are two AFDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Lazaroo-Hood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zubin Dowlaty, that ordinarily would have been closed a long time ago but have instead been relisted several times. I think that is because of comments you made that implied that deletion might not be the best option. However, that has been the primary outcome put foward by the nominator and discussion participants. Could you close these in a manner you think is appropriate? Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have zero interest in closing the discussion. I also do not think that ArcAngel should have been relisting that a third time - the consensus seems to be clear enough, and I am not advocating for either position (delete or draftify); my note is purely a note and thus should not factor into the final close. As a minor nitpicky note, saying "final relist" is kind of a misnomer, since it could be relisted a fourth time, though that would be even more unnecessary than the third one. Primefac (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox YouTube personality reverts

Hi,

Firstly, the MOS specifically discourages using the specific styling of trademarks for article organisation. Secondly, {{Youtube user}} is a sub-template: you've just broken its transclusion at Scott Manley. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, if you feel strongly about it, start an RM. Secondly, {{youtube user}} has been a redirect since 2015, and is not a "sub-template". You gave an invalid input and thus did not get what you expected out of it. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: your revert broke more than my move did, and the revert of the user template was egregious (doing literally nothing except breaking the sole transclusion). I'll waste the requisite minutes on the RM at some point, but more of your own life was pointlessly wasted here than anything else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If I have nothing else to do when I see something like this, is it really wasted time? I would also not call "restoring the status quo" to be "egregious" (and for the record, I fixed that sole transclusion after restoring). Primefac (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS specifically discourages using the specific styling of trademarks for article organisation This is a stronger claim than what WP:MOSTM actually says about trademarks. Izno (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting AFC track record

Examined 2,045 reviews:

• Accepts: 962 (93.22%)
• Declines: 59 (5.72%)
• Comments: 11 (1.07%)

Please look at https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/ for Graeme Bartlett who seems to have amazing lucking the drafts revised. Note particularly Philip Agbese where I have flagged major deficiencies post acceptance. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a rather interesting track record; usually the stats are the other way around...

Not sure the implication here, whether it's that an admin is a rabid inclusionist or we somehow have a rogue admin (who for the record has been one since 2009) taking pay or other incentives for accepting drafts. If it's the former, a nice talk page discussion may hopefully alert him to any potential problems. If it's the latter... kick any evidence to ArbCom.Primefac (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've left a very nice (I hope) message. I'm not sure I'm competent to investigate deeply, but I will take it to Arbcom if I have to. Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest solution may be a mixture of inclusionism coupled with an odd idea of what the acceptance criteria are. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an answer Graeme's talk page, and I understand it, though disagree with it wholeheartedly. What is pleasing is that there is no dark secret, simly goodwill, though what I see as misplaced goodwill. I have tried to ask for a modification of their thought processes now that I understand them.

I am wholly unsure what to do with the Agbese article. My instinct says draftify, but I am not sure that is a valid approach. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If the subject meets our notability criteria, there might be nothing to do other than stubify if there are quality-related issues; I've certainly done more than a few of those in my day. Graeme appears to be taking the approach that if a page meets GNG, then everything else is somewhat immaterial (i.e. puffery, V issues, etc can all be fixed "in post" after acceptance). It's a valid viewpoint, though as you mention one that is not generally held by many AFC reviewers. That being said, our biggest critics are often complaining that we are somehow letting perfect be the enemy of good and should accept crappy-looking drafts with terrible sourcing if "they are notable" is obvious. It's a delicate balance to pull off; maybe we all need to move somewhere more towards the middle... Primefac (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm pleased in one way that another editor in good standing has rendered it down into a stub, yet disappointed that the cues in it that required references are now gone. My view is that this would have been handled better by leaving it as a draft. But that is history and this is Wikipedia, and I am not Don Quixote. I took the simple step of marking it as unreviewed.

Some of us may ask for too much. I'm sure I used to a lot and may still do at times. We need to get ever better at accepting borderline work. I applaud Graeme's quiet call to action on that, yet it feels like exaggeration for effect if all but the very basic fact that meets GNG is allowed to pass unreferenced. It puts an undue burden on NPP, while simultaneously devaluing AFC in the eyes of many. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

retracted comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafar Mahmud (3rd nomination)

Hi, would it possible for you to explain why my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafar Mahmud (3rd nomination) was retracted. The comment relates to a potential conflict of interest that was flagged in the user talk, see User talk:Shahidm#Welcome!. I do not think there is anything wrong with pointing that out, sincee the same user is the creator of the article and he was the one who added his name to the article, i.e., Survivors include his son, Shahid Mahmud and his daughter Nevin (Chandi), but you maybe disagree hence why I am here FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless someone has disclosed their real-life identity on-wiki, or it is very obvious, we should not be making claims as to who they are, who they work for, etc. This one was a bit on the borderline due to the name similarity, but fails the "very obvious" bit so I opted to redact. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Meatbot question

I'm reaching out for some advice on handling a situation. There is an AWB approved user who has done big runs of edits using JWB that had a high rate of error in the past. It was pointed out to them in ANI (by me as well as other users) that this was likely because they were going too fast, operating at that time sometimes 30+ edits per minute. I suggested to them that they report as a meatbot if they were to continue at that speed. For awhile, they did seem to slow down their JWB edits, but recently, they have ramped up again. And again, it appears to result in a high error rate. A review of their edit history shows that at one point they were doing 40+ edits per minute. They do show a willingness to clean up their mess, but IMO, there wouldn't be as much of a mess if they would just slow it down. As an AWB user myself, I know that no one is perfect. But this editor is showing a pattern of problematic editing with the tool, IMO; and in the past, it has seemed they were more concerned with speed simply for increasing their edit count. As far as I know, they are not registered as a bot. Would you advise bringing it up to ANI, or rather to an individual admin with bot/AWB expertise? Or am I just being to knit-picky and should let it go, considering that they are willing to fix their errors? TIA for your wisdom and input. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If the user has been warned in the past (and there's clear evidence/acknowledgement) then any admin can pull their AWB access if they have started bad behaviours again. I would ask them once more to stop, and if they don't contact an admin. They might turn you down, at which point ANI would be your best bet. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll reach out to them and see where that goes. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced autocommenting

This user was far too tentative. Absolutely the bot should not've been placing Wikicourse notes at the tops of talk pages instead of the bottom (example). The previous reply was similarly tentative, but hopefully it has already fixed by now or the use of the bot for that purpose discontinued. [Edit: Oh, from the redirect, I assumed this was just a renamed page for comments on the specific bot project. Since this looks like a personal talk page, (a) thanks for your help with the project, (b) sorry for the overly brusque tone above, and (c) the bot in question is/was "PrimeBOT".] — LlywelynII 15:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely curious, are you trying to chastise me further for something that happened more than a year ago, or are you actually looking for something from me? Primefac (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Road triple murders

Thanks. Sorry about that, I thought I was putting the capitalization back, but I got confused reviewing the diff because two of the changes made by a vandal (115.134.232.191) were actually retained. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I've done similar things before. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)