Jump to content

User talk:Primefac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by S Marshall (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 16 March 2017 (OK). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contest speedy deletion on Librarians Association of Malaysia page

Hi, I'm noticed the deletion on "Librarians Association of Malaysia" page. I'm one of the owner of the website http://www.ppm55.org and willing to donate copyrighted materials to Wikipedia. I have read about "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" and I will follow the instruction to release the copyright of that work. Thanks. Akmalpent (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akmalpent, apologies for the long delay. If you wish to donate text to Wikipedia, please see WP:DONATETEXT and follow the instructions there. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:48:01, 4 February 2017 review of submission by Embby


Hi. I thought you were going to try to help me rewrite an article for Travelers United so that I could make a page for it? It has been over a month and I have not heard from you.

If you google the Federal Trade Commission report from January 5, 2017 you will see EXPLICITLY that in the report Travelers United is mentioned VARIOUS TIMES as being the only pro-consumer group fighting for travelers on the issue of resort fees. This is not from a news source, it is from the Federal Trade Commission of the United States of America. You will also see that the American Hotel and Lodging Association is the group mentioned advocating for resort fees. They have a Wikipedia page. Travelers United does not.

This is in addition to the clip from the NBC national nightly news that I think I already sent you where Travelers United was the only group interviewed to discuss a travelers issue that day.

Honestly - what else do I have to give you? A million sources and quotes from newspapers, reports from the Federal Trade Commission about the organization generally, and here is yet another news source about what we have done in working with the FTC and the surveys that we conduct to see what American travelers want. Here is one such article from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/01/06/hidden-hotel-resort-fees-come-under-fire-in-ftc-report.html

I do not know how to use Wikipedia well but I have been trying to get this page up since October. This is so disappointing that you have left up the page of the giants here that are doing all they can with their millions to crush competition in the travel industry and you deny deny deny the tiny org that is working against them a page. With all the sources I have given you, from the news to reports from the federal government, can you let me know what on earth at this point denies this non-profit a Wikipedia page?

Embby, I left a note on the draft page itself, and after a scan of Google News hits I stand by that statement. There is really just no coverage about Travelers United. Everything is either a one sentence mention (e.g. "according to Travelers United"), a quote from Leocha, or an article written by Elliot. As for the other pages that are on Wikipedia - sometimes size matters. The articles about them might not be stellar, but there does appear to be enough significant coverage to merit a page. I'm sorry that it's not working out, but it happens. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not helped me. I re-wrote the entire article. Every single other non-profit in the sphere is represented on Wikipedia except Travelers United. I cited every sentence. I double cited many. I cite amicus curaie briefs for the Supreme Court, FTC Reports, legislation from California, etc. If you read the report from the Federal Trade Commission, you might be interested to see that Travelers United is the only non-profit specifically named on the issue of resort fees & consumer advocacy. You have to actually open the report to read it.

What is the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embby (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Winter Games 2017

Hi, Australia, Kuwait and New Zealand will compete under the OCA flag, so I am unsure how to get that into their respective nation pages and the main article. Also, North Korea's pages do not show 2011 linked to the template on the nation pages. Can you please help me fix these? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234, I've fixed North Korea, must have been a holdover from when I converted all the IBs.
What's the OCA flag? I can't seem to find it on Wikipedia. For the moment just put them in as normal, and when I know which image to use I'll insert it into the system (which will then percolate appropriately). Primefac (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is not on Wikipedia (I thought it was), but its literally this on a white bg. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll see what I can do about creating a proper flag image. In the meantime, just put the countries as you normally would. Primefac (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan 1234, it's done. I left Kuwait as-is, because the page says it's competing under the IOC flag. Primefac (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That one is a bit confusing. Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, some changes have happened in entries. Bahrain will not compete, while Uzbekistan and Jordan will compete now. If you could get those fixed on the templates, that would be great! Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234, in the interest of not having to update the module more than absolutely necessary, I'll make these changes, but I'm also going to hold off until next week (in the off chance that more countries are added/removed). Primefac (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. These changes are final according to the OC. There might be changes in sports/athlete but not countries competing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi it appears Aus and NZL are competing under their own flags. I am so sorry. Sportsfan 1234 (talk)
 Fixed Primefac (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

internal line / virtual particle

is that really a commonly understood term? can you judge that if you're an expert on the subject? These pages are full of detailed jargon, dont links help people cut through them? Look how big the Feynman diagram article is. you have to read through so much before you get to something telling you what an 'internal line' is. Can't any supposed "overlinking" hazard be dealt with by the platform (e.g. if you have multiple links to the same page, render them in a less prominent shade) Fmadd (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fmadd, internal line was deleted because disambiguation pages require more than just two terms. Since it only had two terms, it was deleted as being unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
internal line sounds like such a generic phrase to me, I'd be surprised if it doesn't have different connotations in other contexts - which is why I didn't create a redirect *directly* from that. When I hear that , I first think of internal telephone lines. Asking google, I note that there are a few companies that use "Internal Line" as part of their name ('Internal Line Interior Design', Internal Line Marketing Contractors, Internal Line Marking'). what if any of those end up making wikipedia page later. Fmadd (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. We don't need to be creating pages just on the off chance that a page is created in the future. If we need a page in the future, we'll create it. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a 'crystal ball' of sorts. there's 7billion people on this planet, how do you know up front what everyone else will find to put here? An open structure lets you discover things later. Such a generic phrase, it's bound to be used multiple times. That was my intuition, and sure enough consulting google I do find different contexts. The only certainty is that knowledge will grow, surely? Fmadd (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know what people will put on Wikipedia. That's exactly my point. There is no sense in creating a disambiguation page on the off chance that someone decides in two years that they want to create an article about a third subject. We can just as easily create it when it happens. See WP:CRYSTAL. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, i've flicked over WP:CRYSTAL, and it does NOT seem to relate to the matter we're discussing here, it's rejecting speculative content, not speculation about what content should be added... I'm talking about leaving organisational structure in place that helps people navigate. Don't you like to use wikipedia in an exploratory manner? Often i'm frustrated because an article doesn't define something easily - I put these anchors in etc, I dont want to go and re-organize the whole page, but maybe someone will talke the hint and do so in an elegant manner. Fmadd (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


'stellar explosion .. defined 3 lines later' then why does the text say 'stellar explosion'??? "stellar explosion" conveys something more general - and, indeed, exploring wikipedia you can discover what. Fmadd (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


IR remote

I am trying to fix something... remote control is a hugely ambiguous term, and unsurprisingly it is mislinked in many different ways. This web of redirects might look chaotic to use, but i'm using those to disambiguate. It's not always obvious what they want to point at, but the more terms you carry across from the original context where it is used, the more chance you have of getting it right eventually. I've seen [remote control|RC car], [remote control]ed aircraft, etc etc. 'remote control' is a noun, and a 'general process' (the process of remote control).

There's "remote control (disambiguation)" which is far too broad i.e. including all the media titles using then there's remote control which is far too narrow ('consumer electronics short range remote control) and teleoperation.

There's cases where it's not immediately obvious what is being talked about, but it's clearly not songs/TV episodes, just the control case. thats why I made remote control (general).

this is like a 'rolling refactor' of software, making wrappers to get the right target eventually

Fmadd (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to achieve a consensus to change the way remote control and remote control (disambiguation) are structured first and then change the way that all of these articles are linked? You are making a vast number of edits in anticipation of something that hasn't happened yet, and may not happen (or not happen quite the way you are expecting). What if remote control (consumer electronics) is not where the current remote control article ends up? Remote control (general) is unlikely to ever be an article because "(general)" isn't a disambiguator we use. I think you need to get consensus for new articles / article moves & splits before restructuring the "web of redirects". WJBscribe (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably stating the obvious, i've tried to make an ascii art diagram explaining user:fmadd#disambiguating, why redirects seem so useful . If there are lots of intermiediate redirects, it's easier to resolve the ambiguity. They're like an abstraction layer or wrappers in software. Reading further, and looking at the history, it's not hard to see why it's so ambiguous. The article has obviously been changed, starting out as 'general remote control', and gradually being refined specifically to TV/DVD remote handsets. (with the pictures matching what it says in the opening paragraph). Fmadd (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fmadd, that's wonderful. You're still missing the point. If you want to make huge sweeping changes like this, you must discuss it first. I don't necessary disagree with your message, but how you're implementing it is incredibly disruptive. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks disruptive to you because you're evidently a 'judger' personality rather than a 'perceiver'. You expect everything to be finished and in it's final form all the time, obviously. Wikipedia being an open graph should support open ended,exploratory thinking. When you break things down into smaller pieces it's easier to connect them organically. You're butting into my thought process and complaining because one snapshot of one piece in isolation doesn't make sense to you (like organic dye..) Fmadd (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is disruptive, because you're going against years of policy and consensus. You cannot make unilateral changes to a system like Wikipedia. I'm not just some dafty who doesn't like what you're doing, as evidenced by the ANI that has backed me up. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
other vocal people like you. You're deleting redirects because they dont make sense to you... but they're moving pieces , like scaffolding , that help get the structure right . I'm trying to fix things and you're going around pulling the scaffholding away, because you expect everything to conform to some rigid plan in your head. Fmadd (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because a group of administrators, who have been selected as being the most likely to know and understand Wikipedia policy, "don't get it". We get it, all right, but that doesn't mean we can/should accept it. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No, they are not anything like scaffolding. That implies the pages need the redirects, but it is the other way around. You do not have to change the redirects first. As I have tried to explain above, you get consensus for the structure first and then adjust the redirects. WJBscribe (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'group of administrators' ... priestly cult... Like the damn C++ comittee that block various features for so long , dragging their heels
I can see now , looking how that damn article does actually have talk of teslas boat and military applications later, one option here would be to just generalise the 'opening paragraph'. But we've still got loads of contexts where people say 'remote' and they mean the literal damn handset for changing TV stations. If at least we point at an abstraction layer (which you are busy deleting??!!!) we can fix it more easily. It's been broken for years, because people try to put too much into one article, or they use that pipe trick to put literal redirects in one at a time. Fmadd (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
>>"No, they are not anything like scaffolding. That implies the pages need the redirects, but it is the other way around. You do not have to change the redirects first." ... yeah this is exactly the problem, I know your type. You have no concept of an organic workflow. Which is why you rejected 'organic dye', because it didn't make sense to the rigid plan in your head. But the process of digging around , with the redirect as a 'staging point', helps figure out what is going on, and eventually the structure is improved around it. You can't fix a decent structure as an upfront plan. No one knows as much as wikipedia. The key is to maintain an organic workflow (with abstraction layers), then the right structure emerges. Fmadd (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you still dont seem to understand what I'm trying to do?

PROBLEM

[1]the article remote control is too specific - it's about short range, wireless, remote control handsets for consumer electronics. remote control covers a much wider range of cases, including WIRED remotes, LONG RANGE, Operating vehicles/ submarines/ remote bombs in IED's etc.

[2] we have 100s of pages depending on the specific structure.

[3] we have many cases where articles point at remote cnotrol erroneously, when they actually mean teleoperation

[4] we have ambiguous examples, where if we split the articles we wouldn't quite know where to point them (are toys 'consumer electronics', or teleoperated?)

SOLUTION

[1] introduce an abstraction layer of redirects. like television remote control etc. All those redirects, like organic dye, that your rigid mind instantly can't accept , because their not part of your plan.

[2] Tthen it's much easier to change the articles that we point at. We can rework material between (remote control, teleoperation, radio control), whilst only having to update 10's of redirects rather than 100s of 'inline links'.

No one person knows everything here - we will arrive at a better structure (rather than this one which looks to have been broken for years) by working dynamically, rather than rigidly.

Fmadd (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand exactly what you're trying to do. However, an undertaking this massive must get input from other editors. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Unilateral large-scale changes just aren't acceptable on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even chaining the structure now. I'm just introducing redirects, which mean it will be easier to change the structure later. that's all. You're acting as if redirects are life threatening. Fmadd (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fmadd

...Why did you just revert all his contributions? I see a block but no sign the content edits were wrong?... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert, see this ANI thread. The long and the short of it is they have created a ridiculous number of unnecessary redirects, edited hundreds of pages to point to those redirects (often breaking or avoiding perfectly valid links in the process), and we're deleting almost all of them and rolling back their contributions. Yes, there will be a small number of valid changes that are being undone, but it is better than letting garbage sit around waiting for someone to eventually notice and clean it up. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have undone a great number of non-redirect related edits and this is not vaguely ok. I am going to go to ANI but I do not see a consensus for that yet there, there's no existing policy for such widespread rollbacks under the circumstances lacking a consensus, and this is not at all good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be a WP:FAIT action. I thought a great deal of Fmadd's contributions were beneficial. Please slow down. Sizeofint (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I agree with the decision at ANI. Sizeofint (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Rajlakshmi SJ

Dr Rajlakshmi SJ is a dentist in India's Bengaluru, known for her gritty spirit in fighting with a life-threatening disability that she suffered at tender age of 21 years.

Born in 1986, Dr Rajlakshmi had a normal life till 2007 when she met with an accident that cut her spinal cord, rendering her paraplegic for life. She however did not let her resolve die, and fought in Karnataka High court for reservation for disabled persons in higher education. She soon won the case that is benefitting hundreds of disabled students in Karnataka today. 

     Later , Dr Rajlakshmi went on to secure the State-level Gold Medal in Masters in Dental Surgery (MDS) and is today an independently practising orthodontist in Bengaluru city.
      In 2014, she also won the Miss Wheelchair India crown, competing with around 250-odd participants. TUSHAR KARMARKAR (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue sports bios

Hey Primefac. I just noticed the deletion of this template. Since I am the creator and was not informed about the nomination by the nominator, and would have had much to say about it, I drafted a deletion review nomination but then realized of course I should speak to you first. Since I already put it in draft, though, I'll just post it below since it contains my reasons for contesting the deletion (but I've nowiki'ed the pings I had included in it).

I am the creator of this template and was not informed about its deletion discussion and only discovered it today (nor were any other substantive editors of the template informed: {{U|SMcCandlish}}; {{U|Armbrust}} & {{U|TonyTheTiger}}).

The TfD also did not list its previous deletion nomination, where every rationale for deletion, such as they were, mentioned by every person in the current deletion discussion (just the nominator and one responder), was directly addressed by me at some length––which might have informed and changed the position of those participating, or drawn in lurkers to participate, or resulted in the closing admin coming to a different considered decision since I believe the deletion grounds included were effectively debunked by my response in the prior, undisclosed discussion.

None of the facts grounding my points in that prior discussion have changed: There's still only a handful of articles that meet this template's express criteria for inclusion, and over the intervening four years, the number of articles in Category:Pool players by nationality, has barely expanded (210 pages; it may have actually dilated through deletions), meaning the nominator's objection: "Never possible to be completed" (which I interpret as an ambit objection; the potential for indiscriminate, infinite inclusion), is ultra-hypothetical. That is, 16 years of Wikipedia activity still only allows about 20 articles to be included in the template under its inclusion criteria. If that potential objection ever comes close to being reality-based, say in 250 years at the current rate, it can be revisited then.

Are you willing to undelete based on the procedural and substantive infirmities in the nomination (and change your close based thereon)? Thanks for looking into this, and keeping TfD functioning. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, I have re-opened the TFD. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Fuhghettaboutit: Please try to be succinct at the reopened TfD. I read some of your arguments at the last TfD, but they were quite long and difficult to get at the heart of what you were arguing. ~ Rob13Talk 01:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, this is a writing project. As an admin that has closed hundreds of discussions, what I appreciate most of all is cogent analysis. Of course, I will not be participating in that illegitimate, tainted discussion as if the genie could be placed back in the bottle by reopening it and that reopening it was the proper path in response to me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish, Fuhghettaboutit. You said that you had not had an opportunity to participate in the discussion and wanted the deletion reversed. I provided you an opportunity to do so (and reversed the deletion) and now you say you don't want to participate in the discussion which would potentially allow the template to be kept? Personally I don't really care if you post a block of text at the TFD; it might sway others to !vote keep. I do find it odd that you feel that TFD, a place for templates to be discussed, is somehow an illegitimate venue for discussing a template for deletion. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Reviewing and Publishing

Hello, As you have suggested I have come with two more sources - The Hindu Newspaper & Times of India Newspaper. I have snapshotted both the newspaper where Gokul Shrinivas's name is mentioned. You can find those in these links https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3Ifg9NqQswtWjBDVFFpcFBfQ2c - The Hindu dated December 15, 2016. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ifg9NqQswtX0hsVDNBajk1X0E/view?usp=sharing - Times of India dated February 17, 2016.

This is my first article "Gokul Shrinivas" which I'm drafting in Wikipedia, So please guide me and help me to finish it off successfully. And there are lot's of local and National newspapers published about Gokul Shrinivas, I'm sure I'll collect all those and add one by one news and updating this article. And I'f possible I'll directly reach to Gokul Shrinivas and collect all the media's about him. Thanks,

Jonathan629 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Storm

Hi. This is highly unprofessional. Why exactly have you protected Opration Storm article? I made an edit and I have started a discussion. How else am I supposed to edit Wikipedia? An editor who clearly opposes my edit and who doesn't want to participate in the discussion has thought of a great way to get his way. Block the page so I can't edit it and ignore the opened discussion? Why should I be discriminated because I edit as an IP? Here I've opened an account just for this purpose, to edit this one article. Please revert your deed. Bilseric (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilseric, it's not a permanent protection (in time or in access). I see you've started some discussions on the talk page, and that's good. If that doesn't work out, there are other dispute options available (such as dispute resolution, Third Opinion, etc). As a note regarding your edits - we do unfortunately view IPs less favourably as we do registered users. However, this does not mean that IPs cannot make valid points/edits/etc (just the same as registered users can bugger things up). You made the first move, and even if you are right, there has been pushback from another editor, so I strongly encourage you to reach some sort of consensus on the talk page before you edit the main page (which you'll be able to once you reach autoconfirmed status in a few days).
The long and the short is that I'm not going to unprotect the page (it's only for a fortnight anyway), but in the meantime you should discuss the issues on the talk page with other users. And always, remember to be CIVIL. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started a RfC so this will be resolved. I still don't think it's ok to help someone who reverts and isn't willing to discuss have his way by getting rid of an ip. 89.164.132.96 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelle Prior

Saw that you draftified this and wanted to get your and SwisterTwister's thoughts on it. Came across it during NPP and am fine proceeding to AfD, but I always like to get input if there has been an AfC review in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, I declined it at AFC, and it doesn't appear to have been improved all that much since then. I generally watch those sorts of pages to prevent the creator moving it again, odd that this one slipped through the cracks. AFD away! Primefac (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the quick response. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contest speedy deletion of draft page "Axel Fassio"

Hello, the draft page "Axel Fassio" has been deleted because of copyright infringement. The text that has been copied from www.fassiophoto.com/about is mine and I am the sole owner and creator of the website www.fassiophoto.com. Can I rewrite another draft page with the same content once I follow the needed procedure for copyright usage? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckox (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geckox, if you follow the instructions at WP:DONATETEXT, then you are welcome to recreate the page. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Aviation Historical Society

Since you have commented about the deletion of the article, is there some way to resurrect the files used to create the article? I reiterate, I saw the notice after the article was already deleted and received no reply on a query I made to the admin that removed the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC closed

I have put up the closing rationale at the RFC. It is awaiting your countersignature. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me

So sorry to get you involved in all this, especially in this discussion recently. Things go awry on Wikipedia as always, but all in all, everything seems to be safe now. SportsLair (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

For beating me to REVDELing those revisions over at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (At least I got credit for protecting the page). Here's a kitten to distract you so I can beat you to the next admin action :D

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles copied from citizendium.org

Hello, I was adding an attribution tag to the article TPY-2 created by user Izaiah.morris as per this talk with NinjaRobotPirate. Citizendium content is published under CC-BY-SA, so I think there is no copyright issue. Advanced Extremely High Frequency (satellite) was already tagged by me with the attribution template. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<Edit conflict> Yes, I think I can live with it , In any case, I would like to know what would be the right way to handle the articles if the user would not have been proved to be evading a block. To know how to act in the future... Should an article that has some referenced information that could be used to improve the encyclopedia but was copied from a CC-BY source be deleted or should it be tagged with the attribution template? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think 1995 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony may have some content worth merging into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but I leave it up to you to make the decision. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crystallizedcarbon, those three pages have been restored.
In the future, completely duplicate pages (like most of their uploads) should either be tagged A10 or redirected/merged to the main article. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rest I think can rest in peace. You saved me a lot of work. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did tag many of them as A10, I could not tag those two as they had at least one valid reference (also some that were not WP:RS) I also added merge tags for both. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre

You made this revert on Ardrossan with the bizarre edit summary "unhelpful edit". Now it is many months (to the best of my recollection) since I've ever been reverted, so that is strange enough, but I don't think by any stretch of the imagination that my edit could be called "unhelpful". There is one small error I overlooked in the Infobox, but I doubt that could justify a wholesale revert on the grounds of "unhelpful".

I have therefore undone your edit and fixed the error in the Infobox. Now, could you please explain what is "unhelpful" about any of the following changes I made:

  • Fixed the nonsense English at the end of the lead: "is situated in a three-towns corroboration act[clarification needed]"
  • routine addition of {{use dmy dates}}
  • replaced the "Irish Election box" templates, which look silly for a Scottish election
  • switched to column-width formatting for the reflist, per the MOS
  • made the wikitext of the Infobox much easier to read and edit
  • made the structure of the cite templates within the Infobox much clearer (reduces the risk of future editing errors)
  • made the cite templates much easier to read and edit (vastly improves the flow and readability of the wikitext)
  • corrected the silly redirect for Kenneth Campbell, VC (ridiculous to have him as a "soldier" when he's an airman)
  • several other routine formatting improvements

I appreciate the change in style of the cite templates might be a surprise, even though the new format is explicitly designed to be easier to read and edit ("easy to visually parse", or ETVP). There is already a partial explanation on my talk page of ETVP, which I've been meaning to expand for some time now, but haven't got round to yet. I recommend you read it.

If the change in cite formatting really (and to me, inexplicably) upsets you that much, then the correct action to have taken would have been to post a note on the talk page, with a ping to me so that it can be properly discussed, rather than just a lazy revert.

--NSH001 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NSH001, what you've done above largely amounts to cosmetic editing. There was no reason to expand the citations (and I see you have not gained any sort of consensus for that, even on your talk page). I reverted your changes because I saw nothing helpful (though I clearly missed the actual changes through all of the cosmetic ones). The edits were unhelpful, in my mind, and with no obvious content changes there was no reason to start a talk page discussion about it. You say that my edit summary was unhelpful, but your edit summary was just as cryptic, which was another reason for the revert.
The article has also experienced a fair amount of vandalism, so I apologize for reverting what was on the whole fairly innocuous edits; I guess I just got a little trigger happy when I didn't see anything actually being changed. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Your apology is appreciated. Important points to note:
  • My aim, as noted on my talk page, is a long-term one, namely to completely and totally get rid of LHTs (long horizontal templates) from the body of all wiki articles. Edit-warring on individual articles won't help to achieve this goal.
  • Articles full of LHTs are impossible to edit, except for trivial changes such as spelling corrections, or edits that can be done via a script. Even spelling corrections are made difficult, time-consuming and very unpleasant indeed by LHT clutter.
  • I therefore take the problem of LHT clutter very seriously indeed. If I can't edit articles, then I will leave Wikipedia. There simply isn't any other choice.
  • You seem to have missed the point of the notes on my talk page, where I did not, have not, and am not seeking any consensus (yet). The notes are intended to be a work in progress to enable me to deal with objections, and to form a basis to document (eventually) my script or scripts that I am using to get rid of LHTs, and eventually for others to use to do the same.
  • As noted on my talk page, in-line ETVP templates are only one way, out of about four or five possible choices, of getting rid of LHTs. In-line ETVP templates are probably the least likely to be used in practice, but still have a role IMO. Bear in mind that anything at all is better than LHTs, even manual citations!
  • There is nothing wrong with cosmetic editing when done manually, or using a script provided the diff is carefully reviewed (one reason why I make heavy use of the preview and show changes keys T156141). (But cosmetic edits by a bot are a different matter; I suspect that consideration may be overly influencing you here.) To say that you can't make wikitext cleaner and easier to view and edit is silly in my view. And in my case it's vital, as otherwise I will leave Wikipedia.
  • There's no substitute for looking at examples. For a good example of how articles can be written without using LHTs, see the series of several hundred articles on Aboriginal Australians that I'm currently working on with Nishidani.
--NSH001 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) NSH001, some people view changing the format of cite templates from "all on one line" (horizontal) to "on many lines" (vertical) as a violation of WP:CITEVAR. This is not the venue for discussing whether those people are bananas, but you should not be surprised if you encounter resistance to changes of that type without prior discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, I've been aware of that for a very, very long time, one reason I make this type of edit so rarely. More will be added to my talk page about the best strategy for getting rid of LHTs. BTW, you make two important errors: I'm talking about ETVP, not "vertical", and the supposedly "all on one line" version is on one line only in the sense of occupying one line in the wikitext; in the edit window (which is what matters) it also occupies many lines. The difference is that its display is arbitrary and unpredictable, while "vertical" is at least predictable and ETVP is explicitly designed to be easy to read. --NSH001 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For the avoidance of doubt ("bananas"), my use of "bizarre" refers to the mass revert of many useful changes, not to the (almost) predictable resistance to change in citation style. -NSH001 (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I use the syntax highlighter and do not have much trouble following prose with citations in it. I find prose interrupted by the vertical citation style more difficult to follow. Again, though, this is not the venue for that discussion; WP:CITEVAR probably is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for being a useful guide to how some things work on here. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Sorry about this, my mental maths has never been that good, would probably have been apt to check with a tool or something. DrStrauss talk 19:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Thanks for your willingness to help, but I found it. Wikidata. McKay (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox deleted

methinks copyright infridgement nonappilcable. i am the owner of contents kickstarter, account just deleted, blog is kept alive by kickstarters. same content is on wordpress, indiagogo, amazon.com. truly sorry to have broken wiki rules. newbie will behave. Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, thanks for attending over there: I didn't particularly want to comment on the issue itself, not having been involved, so thought I would just address the multi-messaging. Cheers, — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, thanks for that. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copiright letter was sent to emails you have provided. thank you.Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Research help

Hey Primefac, thoughts on marking this as {{historical}} rather than deleting it? I imagine that it might be useful to refer to in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17, I'm not overly inclined to do so, given that a) it was only used in a pilot program (widely, but briefly), and b) it's literally one wikilink with an image. There just doesn't seem to be anything "historical" about the template itself. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I totally see where you're coming from, but I suspect people are going to want to refer to the template in the future and see how it was implemented (either to argue for or against something similar). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poggio

Why is he calling himself a newbie? He's been a SPA on Fomenko and New Chronology pages for years and has made at least one edit summary saying that my comments on dendrochronology were just pov, so he's not entirely ignorant of our policies. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's an 8 year gap in their editing history (2009-2017) there's a good chance they've forgotten/missed a bunch of rules/guidelines. Copyright infringement should be a no-brainer, but who knows. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikilivres}}

I rolled back your edit because you said it's being deleted. The conversation ended but the consensus was explicitly to not delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if that would happen. Technically I closed it as "keep" but I guess when the script added it to the holding cell it put {{being deleted}} on it. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:07:09, 6 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonathan629



Jonathan629 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxRequesting for Reviewing and Publishingxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello Primefac,

Previously, You have reviewed "Draft:Gokul Shrinivas" where i'm currently working on and left a comment "Need of Reliable sources"

So on that, I have two more sources - The Hindu Newspaper & Times of India Newspaper. I have snapshotted both the newspaper where Gokul Shrinivas's name is mentioned. You can find those in these links https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3Ifg9NqQswtWjBDVFFpcFBfQ2c - The Hindu dated December 15, 2016. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ifg9NqQswtX0hsVDNBajk1X0E/view?usp=sharing - Times of India dated February 17, 2016.

This is my first article I'm writing in Wikipedia, So please guide me and help me to finish it off successfully. Thanks,

Jonathan629 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)jonathan629[reply]

08:57:39, 8 March 2017 review of submission by Logistics.topics


Hello reviewer. As per your suggestion I have added more sources outside the field of automotive logistics and linked to a German source already dealing with the topic of Fourth party logistics (4PL). Please review my latest submission. With thanks, Logistics Topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logistics.topics (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rugby union biography

Hi there, After your recent updates to the above template, there is now a big misalignment of information, caused by team names wrapping to the next line, but apps/points not shifting down. Can you please insert a {{nowrap}} around all fields? Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I was working on that problem yesterday when I lost power. Thanks for the motivation to get it finished! Primefac (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nagging helps! Thanks a lot for the quick fix! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, there is still a problem with the very first team wrapping; you seemed to have inserted the nowrap for teams 2 onwards. Can you please do this for the first team too? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Television articles

Well I guess we're in store for some AfD. See User:Timothyjosephwood/Year in Israeli Television. Feedback welcome, or alternatives if you have them. I don't. TimothyJosephWood 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By my count there are 24 such "List of years in <country> television" master pages, so... 24 AFDs? Even by deletionist standards that seems like a bit much. I think we could probably cram together a few of the less populated ones (Jordan, Turkey, Georgia, etc) which would cut down the overall total. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no real opposition then we can probably clean up a dozen or more with a mass-mass-AfD, i.e., "the last four were unanimous, so here are the remaining 20". I mean you never know, there could be a frenzy that turns these into worthwhile articles. Only one way to find out. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm torn on the order. If we do the more-populated lists like Belgium or Brazil and they say "keep", then we'll not be able to use precedent to delete the truly empty lists. However, if we do the above empties and say "see, we can delete them all" then someone might accuse us of trying to slip Belgium and Brazil through. I think it's a good idea, though (doing a small number first). Maybe 50/50? Two empty lists, two full lists? Primefac (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may be talking across purposes a bit. By "empty" what I mean is the content of the articles, but I suspect that by "full" you mean how many redlinks and bluelinks are in the overarching category. At least to me, the sheer number of empty articles is inconsequential, so long as the all have basically no content, and only enough to squeak by A3. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct; I'm talking about the bluelinks on the list articles. Now that I try and write a response, I realize that it's a rather silly thing to get caught up on. So yes, let's put forth three or four AFDs, see what happens, and then crack out the rest. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular improvement you would suggest to the version in my sandbox? For the record, I generally dislike mass AfDs, have never nominated one, and rarely if ever participate. TimothyJosephWood 17:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything major that needs changing, though I removed the "750 in total" bit since it's mostly irrelevant to that particular set of pages. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Israeli television TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sher Aziz

Hi there, I need your help this account User:Sher Aziz is blocked this user can't unblock request because ip is blocked please unblock this account or user talkpage(Proxoris (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

Closing TfDs - !votes lost

Hi, why are you removing !votes when you close a TfD, as with this one? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, thanks for the heads up. Clearly it's a script issue - why would I remove valid discussion? Will close manually and alert script creator. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Pimonov draft

Hello.

There is a chapter "Volodja" in "Searching for Bobby Fischer" by Fred Waitzkin. It describes in detail the life and work as well as chess activities of Vladimir (Volodja) Pimonov in the Soviet Union. It is the SAME Vladimir Pimonov as in in the draft. The Russian name Volodja or Volodya is a synonym or nickname for Vladimir, as in English Bill is a nickname for William. If you read a story of Pimonov's life and work on Pundit Wire written by an American diplomat and professor Dan Whitman (see ref. 1) entitled "Vladimir" you will discover, that Whitman calls him both "Vladimir" and "Volodja"'and actually refers to "Searching for Bobby Fischer" confirming it is the SAME person. Please check up ref. 58 describing Pimonovs human rights activities before he left USSR and emigrated to Denmark. Again - it is the SAME Vladimir (Volodja) Pimonov as in the draft.

Regarding Russian name Volodya alias Vladimir: https://www.behindthename.com/name/volodya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.48.205 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pimonov as a chess master. There are references only to 2 games in the modern chess base as he stopped playing chess in the 1980's But there are references to tournaments: the USSR quarter final in 1972 and USSR junior championships. For sure he had played hundreds of games in his life.

Regards, Thomsen 80.161.48.205 (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)thomsen[reply]


Regarding Citekill. Some reviewers demand multiple sources in different languages to show significant coverage. That is why the sources provided are multiple in different languages - English, Danish, Russian. Kind regards. Thomsen 80.161.48.205 (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Primefac,

I have just re-edited the draft trying to resolve the issues pointed out by you in your review and comments.

1. At your request the draft is now split up into separate units (early life and education, career, activism, chess).

2. To resolve CITEKILL I've trimmed down a number of references and sources - now again at your request - there are max. 3 references for a given statement. I have also deleted some references to the articles on banks in Iceland - an internationally covered story (criminal investigation in Iceland is not fully completed and dozens of bankers have been convicted and still in prison) and left only 2 sources referring specifically to Vladimir Pimonov (the same Vladimir Pimonov!) who (working with colleagues at the Danish daily Ekstra Bladet) broke the story in 2006.

3. Regarding "Volodja" Pimonov in "Searching for Bobby Fischer" by Fred Waitzkin.

In his essay on Pundit Wire about Vladimir Pimonov (essay called "Vladimir" - please, see ref. 1) Dan Whitman, a ret. Senior Foreign Service officer at US Department of State and Foreign Policy professor at American University in Washington, writes that Vladimir Pimonov "appears in 1988 book, "Searching for Bobby Fischer", by Fred Waitzkin".

This confirms that it is the same Vladimir (Volodja/Volodya) Pimonov in the essay by Whitman and in the 1988 book by Waitzkin. Whitman calls Pimonov both "Vladimir" (in the title) and "Volodya" (in the text). In both sources (essay and book) Pimonov is described as a journalist, Shakespeare scholar and chess master (who left the Soviet Union and settled in Denmark).

4. Chess master. Neither computers, nor internet existed when Vladimir (Volodya/Volodja) Pimonov was an active chess master in 1970's and the games were not electronically saved in any archive. Many games were lost as they only were registered on paper. Modern computer chess base does not include all games from 1970's - just some games played in very important tournaments. E.g. Pimonov's chess game with Dzindzichashvili, R. (see reference in the Chess base) cited in the draft, was played in the USSR quarter-final tournament in 1972. Pimonov's opponent in the game was the same Roman Dzindzichashvili, who later moved from USSR to USA and led the US Olympiad Team and was US Chess Champion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dzindzichashvili

5. Some linguistics: Vladimir Pimonov and Volodja / Volodja Pimonov. It is the SAME NAME. In the Russian language the name "Volodja" or "Volodya" (depending on spelling tradition in English - British or American) is a derivative or diminutive (a short name) of "Vladimir" which is a full official name registered in the birth certificate. Apart from "Volodya/Volodja" there are diminutives of "Vladimir" like "Vova", "Vovka" (usually used by kids).

http://learnrussian.rt.com/speak-russian/russian-baby-names

Other examples in Russian: Sasha is a diminutive of Alexander, Masha is a diminutive of Maria, Tanya is a diminutive of Tatyana. The same phenomenon found in English: Bob is a diminutive of Robert, Bill is a diminutive of William, Al - diminutive of Albert etc.

I hope I have resolved the issues and the draft can be accepted.

Kind regards. LWHVLWHV (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:RollerCoaster Tycoon (video game)

Could you do a WP:HISTMERGE of the deleted revisions here? There shouldn't be any substantial overlap (parallel histories). --Izno (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos and coffee

Kudos on closing the fabergé egg RM (and the wise choice of a followup RfC). I had noticed it in the backlog for a while and was pleased to see it closed :). Enjoy some coffee! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

revised draft

Hello

I've revised this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lachlan_Philpott according to your and various other editors and the notes on secondary sources.

I've revised the section under main concern to expand all references, quoting from the transcript of the program and then also from various other peers of the playwright who spoke to publications of record. I've also expanded the next section in the same way, and included a new paragraph that also contains more substantial text.

How is it looking now?

Would you mind taking a fresh look at the submission and letting me know if it's on track for approval? I really do appreciate your help.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.151.9 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello P. I am working away on removing the rmv per Template:Fox NFL Sunday from the pages it is transcluded to. One of the ones listed is User:Pppery/noinclude list but it is not there as the template. I am guessing that one of the links P has there include it. Is there anything that needs to be done or will the removal of it from other pages eventually cause it to disappear there. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Looks like it is gone now. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's basically just a TFD tracking category. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know P. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ....

closing the RfC at WT:COI. I'm sure that one was not easy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taito franchise template

Hi there, I seen that you declined the speedy deletion. I just wanted to let you know that the template was created by NamcoKid47. This user was aware that all Taito franchises are stored under

Matter of fact, the Square Enix franchise template was around longer than the Taito Franchises template. I've investigated this Taito franchise template, and a lot of entries are not even franchises. They're standalone games. This template is not necessary and acts as a duplicate. I will be placing another speedy deletion because there is no value in keeping a duplicate template. All Taito franchises are already on the Square Enix franchise template. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slight glitch

Hello again P. Your edit here has caused that redirect to be thrown into the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I am pretty sure that all you have to do it add {{pp-protect|small=yes|expiry=indef}} to it. Now, I have not dealt with this specific situation before so if I'm wrong we might need Redrose64's expertise. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, it was actually the redirect template {{r fully protected}}, which should have (and now is) {{R template-protected}}. Thanks for letting me know! Primefac (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Please don't use {{pp-protect}} and related templates on redirects. Instead, there is a family of templates intended specifically for redirs, these include {{R template-protected}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Redrose64. I am glad that you both got to the correct template. I apologize for leading you astray P and thanks for fixing things. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI close

Hi Primefac, your close of "milieu 3" (outcome 1) contradicts this RFC from a few months ago where the idea of a special committee was rejected (four supports, 21 opposes). Also, "milieu 3" wasn't accurate in its wording: "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF". That isn't true. People deal with COI privacy issues all the time, in lots of ways, almost never involving the ArbCom or WMF.

I think you would need to hold a dedicated RfC about "outcome 1", widely advertised, including on CENT. SarahSV (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, what are your thoughts regarding this new information? Primefac (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a proposal to create a secret mailing list for Arbcom officials. This was a proposal to create a task force appointed by the community that will be able to deliberate in private. At first glance the two don't appear all that similar to me.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, the two proposals were the same. This recent COI RfC made no mention of a "task force"; that aspect of the close seems to be a supervote.
The Aug-Sept 2016 RfC asked to set up a dedicated functionaries mailing list to handle COI-related privacy issues, and the response was no. This recent one was posted with no knowledge of the previous one, and it proposed the same thing: "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF, but other bodies could be considered if there is consensus for this."
An additional problem is that "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF" is false. It wasn't a well-formed RfC, and it's not a good close, because (a) the close ignores that the RfC was poorly formed; and (b) the close ignores that the RfC paid no heed to another recent RfC on the same point that delivered the opposite result. SarahSV (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13 expressed concern a few weeks ago that the RfC was poorly formed, so I'm pinging him in case he wants to comment. SarahSV (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (already was commenting) I fully agree on the supervote aspect. Fleshing out such a committee would need an RfC of its own. We've found consensus for M3, which states that the community approves of a "gatekeeper" of sorts handling private information. It doesn't say what that gatekeeper looks like or even requires such a gatekeeper to differ from what already exists. Fleshing out all of the specifics of this group requires community input, not an executive decision by two admins. The establishment of a task force with all the details provided by the closers is clearly not something approved by the RfC. ~ Rob13Talk 22:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) SlimVirgin, I've been chatting with him off-wiki. I've reverted the close (sorry S Marshall), there are just a few too many things I'm not comfortable with now that I've taken a third look at it. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC) re-ping. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&oldid=770683593"