Jump to content

User talk:Primefac

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DelaneyG (talk | contribs) at 22:57, 26 April 2017 (→‎Why are you the way you are?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

14:02:27, 28 March 2017 review of submission by Dansmo


Your first comment was that you don't see our building as historically significant. We didn't mean to imply that it is, rather it is part of the historically significant Emanuel Congregation. The submission is for Emanuel Congregation A Chicago Reform Synagogue who's historical significance dates back to 1880. The building is a piece of our history, but certainly not the focus. Perhaps that is how the page is written in your view, should we perhaps reorder what it included in the page? In the wikipedia page we list every Rabbi who has ever served since 1880 including Rabbi Felix Levy and Rabbi Herman Schaalman, who collectively served from 1907-1986, both were significant leaders in Chicago's Jewish history. The page describes our Czech Torah that was recovered from Nazi Germany, the Arc that houses our Torah's that was commissioned by a now famous Designer, our historical impact on OSRUI the summer camp. Chicago has a long history of Jewish culture and Emanuel continues to be part of it. We have not sought much media attention, but I would think nearly 140 of existence in itself provides some credibility as to our relevant place in history. We have studied many other Wikipedia pages for Jewish Synagogues and we attempted to provide color and historical significance of our organizations . Can you please provide some additional feedback on what you are looking for. --Dansmo (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dansmo, my apologies for the long delay. I have looked back over your draft in light of your comments, but I still find the Congregation to be non-notable. In looking through your references, only one (Edgeville Buzz) actually talks about the Congregation. The other references only mention rabbis that worked there, or are from the Congregation itself (which as PRIMARY sources are discouraged). You need to find more sources that talk specifically about Emanuel Congregation. Hopefully this helps. I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REVISION OF ARTICLE: 13:47:17, 2 April 2017 review of submission by 217.92.118.193


Dear Reviewer,

I refer to the recent rejection of my article entitled "Scoxit". I would like to assure you the article is not a hoax and I have provided three external links to mainstream news articles to prove that this is indeed a current issue in European politics. I have also made minor changes to my article so that it better reflects this.

I believe you will find that this article shall be of interest to readers of articles about European politics and is a useful complement to the existing articles which are on Wikipedia on this topic.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.118.193 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

I declined as NOTCRYSTAL, not as a hoax. Scottish independence is not guaranteed, and it is definitely not guaranteed to be called "Scoxit". As I said on the draft itself, it would be better to be included as a paragraph on the existing independence article until such time that there is enough information (and certainty) to actually fork it out. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:25:45, 4 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by P markov


Hello, I understand the concept of referencing a particular subject with a particular web page of a web site, but sometimes when you try to explain a new term - like dynamic shooting for instance, it is more useful to quote the entire website, so that anyone can get an idea about the whole sport and not the specifics. Also, more of those websites related with shooting disciplines are not very complicated sites, with tons of info. So, there aren't many sections within the sites themselves to be quoted specifically.

On the second reason for the decline: there are many differences between F-Class and T-Class, which are explained in the article. The most important one is that F-Class is a stationary sport for shooting at fixed distances, while T-Class is dynamic shooting sport with known and unknown shooting distances. I agree with the conclusion that it could be a section of the article about long-range shooting, but so is the Precision Rifle Competitions section of the same article. It is described in the article and nevertheless a whole other article about Precision Rifle Series exists. That is the reason for which I decided to describe T-Class as a new article. According to your logic - every shooting discipline should be just a section of one gigantic article, which will be difficult to read and comprehend by anyone.

P markov (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had a chance to look at this. Will do so soon. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

On my talk page when you responded to the couple of posts the other day you described it well regarding notability. I was wondering if you could explain it in these two threads? (thread #1 and thread #2) As always, thank you for your time & help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've got things sorted. Sorry for not responding, was away for a few days. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and I was just coming here to let you know that it was all sorted as I had forgotten to at the time. Thanks again for all your help and for answering those questions on my talk page that time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request #2

Hi there Primefac, a user just put a message on my talk page stating that they are annoyed with the behaviour of reviewers (declining their draft) with no question or anything and I was wondering how I should proceed with this comment on my talk page. I was wondering if you could possibly weigh in? Thanks for your time --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, kind of depends on why they're posting. In this particular instance, I can understand their frustration - four declines with almost no helpful comments regarding what actually needs fixing. If they're bitching that their sources are perfect and "how can you be so oblivious" (I think you had a thread like that recently...) you just have to explain to them exactly why their sources aren't great. I sometimes end up listing ref-by-ref why their sources aren't usable.
Of course, if they're just spouting total nonsense, it's perfectly justified to ignore them, or request that they actually ask a question. Basically, take it case by case. This definitely won't be the last time, so you'll get some practice! Primefac (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and I am sure it won't be the last time as well I get messages like that haha :D I used to get maybe a message every few days to a week - now I get notifications & messages every day, I don't mind haha --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the wonderful world of AFC reviewing ;) Always happy to help out, since it gets the user's questions answered and gives you an example of how it's done. A win for everyone. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all your help and catching the mistakes I have made in starting out as an AFC reviewer. Thank you! :D TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Be careful with users barring gifts :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabergé eggs

Greetings! I've just closed the RfC discussion at Talk:Fabergé egg#RFC on egg naming convention with the result "Adopt Proposal 3" - it appears that this may create some rather fiddly work for you & I'd like to offer any help you need (as in an additional pair of hands, I'm not saying you can't do it!) with carrying out moves or tweaking leads etc. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing that Exemplo347! I think I managed to get everything sorted, but if you see something I missed feel free to fix it! Primefac (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem at all. If I spot something on my usual travels I'll give it a whack! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Greetings!

The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

Arbcom

Magioladitis ARBCOM case has closed. The remedies of the case include:

  • Community encouraged to review common fixes
  • Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits
  • Developers encouraged to improve AWB interface
  • Bot approvals group encouraged to carefully review BRFA scope
  • Reminders/Restrictions specific to Magioladitis
BRFAs

We currently have 27 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

There are multiple ongoing discussions surrounding bot-related matters. In particular:

New things

Several new things are around:

Wikimania

Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know!

Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)

Behnam Tabrizi

Hi Primefac

Sorry to bug you, but I am wondering if you can explain in more detail why the changes I've made to Behnam Tabrizi's page don't work? His work was the subject of articles in a handful of leading blogs, which I linked to. Is it that the work needs to be included in a leading publication, like the Post or the Times? But I did include a piece where he is quoted as an expert by the Financial Times?

I'm struggling to understand -- partly because I don't have much choice but to do so -- and it is a pretty big deal in the applied business world to have your work endorsed by the Google CEO and your work published by the Harvard Business Review.

I tried sending an earlier message via Talk, but don't see a record of it, so I'm trying again.

Thanks in advance and I appreciate your work on Wikipedia, which I use often as a journalist.

Elizabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editoremacb (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space assistance

Hi there, could you please take a look at the few entries in Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space and see if they should either be in the draft space or have the templates removed? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you work on the Egg articles

A quick note to thank you for handling of the Fabergé egg renaming discussion and the subsequent renaming of the articles which then had to be done. I think we reached a good outcome on this, and am grateful to you for doing the legwork to carry out the decision. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto

Hello Primefac,

I asked for protection for the article linked above, and after it was protected again, a productive IP editor who edits the article occasionally issued to me that the protection was unjustified. Could you check to see if that's the case or not, and send the IP a message about it? Thanks. -- 1989 10:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989, it's always hard to tell if semi-protection is working (or merited) because the period where it's employed doesn't have any vandal edits ;) It looks like from 9 March to 13 April there were a few vandals, but I think PC1 was probably acceptable in order to keep the page at a "good" status. I'll restore to PC1, and if there are any further issues let me know. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you Primefac!! Rockyrowdy (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey Primefac,

This IP editor 122.60.13.6 keeps adding original research to multiple articles after being warned. -- 1989 20:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989, blocked. Might be worth taking it to WP:AIV next time, in case I'm not around. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User-multi

do we need a new discussion for Template:User-multi/api, Template:User-multi/ca, Template:User-multi/ct, Template:User-multi/del, Template:User-multi/e, Template:User-multi/efl, Template:User-multi/es, Template:User-multi/lu, Template:User-multi/ren, Template:User-multi/rfa, Template:User-multi/rl, Template:User-multi/sul, Template:User-multi/tl, or can we delete these per the related discussion? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to do so, but some of them are (apparently) still in use. Jo-Jo Eumerus, is that the reason why only some of them were nominated? Primefac (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
which ones are still in use? see this database report for evidence of non-use for a long time. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. I am 100% positive when I went to check the transclusions there were pages that were using them. Aside from the /doc, /sandbox, and /testcases subpages, {{User-multi/link}} and {{User-multi/template}} are still being used, so I'll leave them. I'll delete the rest. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
two of them (t and c) were either being used by a blocked user, User:Little green rosetta, or left on a couple talk pages due to incomplete substitution. I unsubstituted those, which removed the transclusions of "t" "c". but most of the others are in the database report, so I don't know why those were showing transclusions. by the way, since you deleted "old" you can delete the "void redirect" Template:User-multi/ as well. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why only some were nominated is because I was scouting Special:ProtectedPages for templates that no longer need full protection, not the "user-multi" templates in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, it's not an unreasonable stretch to extend the results of the TFD. If someone complains, I'll refund. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Because you're always around at AfC and BOTREQ. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2017 Metfone C-League

In declining the speedy deletion of this page, you said "we don't A10 drafts". May I ask why not? I don't really the point of retaining a duplicate copy of an article that already exists in the mainspace. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik, if you want to get really pedantic, it's because A10 is only valid for Articles (and not Drafts). As for practical reasons - sometimes new users don't realize that they can just edit the article directly, and feel they have to "draft" out their updates before replacing the existing version (I've stopped wondering why people think how they do at this point). When they do this, there's often usable material that could actually be incorporated into the existing article. By declining as a duplicate, we not only let the user know why their submission wasn't acceptable, but also leave the draft so that they haven't lost any work. Some admins might IAR and delete the draft anyway, but as a long-time AFC reviewer I tend to err on the side of making other's lives easier. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense, even if it isn't really applicable here. The whole reason the draft exists is that the editor who created it can't edit the mainspace version. The page is currently semi-protected due to sockpuppetry from this editor. (It's not the first time they've duplicated it to by-pass protection.) I guess I'll renominate it per WP:G5 once SPI manages to clear their backlog. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if it's a sock situation, then by all means G5. If you put the master in the nomination, I'll take care of the blocking part. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Though I'm not sure blocking the IP will actually accomplish anything due to IP hoping. I've asked for a range block in the SPI case, but I'm not sure if that's actually feasible. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's better than nothing, and at the very least leaves a trail of past history that can be used to find future socks/ducks. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Chawla (Entrepreneur)

Had created an article with some notable links which has been deleted by you under speedy deletion criteria (G4, G5). May I know why? Because I can understand earlier it was created and removed because of not notable links. Also G4, I can still understand as it is of Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. But G5 is for Creations by banned or blocked users and doesn't anyhow apply over my account. Vinay089 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet investigation has been opened into your account due to the continued pushing of "Ayaan Chawla". Your behavior is potentially in line with the socks and based on the prior technical evidence, it's worthy of a second look. This is why you were tagged as G5 as well. -- Dane talk 23:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a very old user, not as much as you are but still raised number of articles for deletion, done edits, etc. I don't understand this situation at all, does Wikipedia mean that once article is deleted due to non-notable links the same person's article cannot be created again? Can't that person/company/band, etc. rise in the meanwhile? Vinay089 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vinay089, I honestly have no thoughts regarding the G5 nomination. However, it was pretty similar to the deleted version, which is why I went with G4. Using Twinkle, it auto-fills the deletion summary based on what tags are placed, and I didn't think to remove the G5. If you're interested in writing about Chawla, I highly suggest using the Draft space, because it will allow you to get it reviewed in the context of the previous deletion discussion without worry of it being G4'd. Primefac (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Thanks for your concern. So you mean if I work in Sandbox and ask for review that would be a good practice, right? Who & how anybody will review it, kindly assist. Because this article have many notable links. What you think? Vinay089 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vinay089, if you use the Article Wizard, when you create the draft it will have a template that you can use to submit the page when it's ready. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, Thanks for your suggestion will give it a try. But as a user who deleted the article, may I know what were the concerns that I can rectify? Because this article have many notable links. Vinay089 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vinay089, the AFD is here. In order for you to improve the page from its current most recent incarnation (which looked to have a couple of good refs) I've undeleted it and moved it to Draft:Ayaan Chawla. Feel free to continue working on it, and submit when you think it's ready. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, Thanks for sorting this out. From my side I'd created this article with information which is precise & notable. Do you think it's the right time to submit for approval or need to work on something? Looking for your advice, as you're here from much longer time period and handle such content. Vinay089 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vinay089, I would replace or remove the Facebook and YouTube references, because they are not reliable sources. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, As per your suggestion I've removed Facebook link and replaced it with company's official blog. Is that right way? But regarding YouTube link, what can be done because the award video is reference that who that person is. Looking for your suggestions. Sorry for disturbing you constantly. Vinay089 (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay089, blogs (even official ones) aren't considered to be reliable sources, and I also noticed YourStory, which is not reliable either. Otherwise, you're welcome to submit if you feel it is ready. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I think now I'm getting this. The article require some more notable references, can we use other references in other language or only English? I'll try to gather some more references, and might disturb you again :) Vinay089 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English sources are fine. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well....

I guess that's that then. TimothyJosephWood 00:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means we can't do them all in one batch, but I think there are some groups that could merit deletion. It just might take a bit longer. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll defer to you for the next go at it. Shar the lood. TimothyJosephWood 01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to go with a slightly easier target. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I missed this AfD. I had actually been anticipating it after seeing it at ANI a while back. Commenting on the new one. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Edaakoodam

Dear friend, why you redirected Edaakoodam to some Burr puzzle How you measured the information to merit . Of the article? What happened to the style in Malayalam langauge? And we never heard of this Burr puzzle? Why are you not notified me before a complete deletion of information and a redirect ? And the Talk page of Edaakoodam is still empty. Please suggest what I want to If I want the page back ?

The page saying that this Burr Puzzle was first found on 1698. I can give enough reliable source of Edaakoodam before this 1698.

--Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Edaakoodam. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tropic talk

Expound your view on this promo piece 120.147.37.23 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your BRFA

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 14, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 22:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup redirect

You recently deleted Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource instead per TfD.

However, Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource redirects to the above and it should also be deleted. It was discussed here with a procedural close on the basis that it would be deleted if the main template was deleted. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they really wanted to make sure it was deleted! Explains why I didn't see it a a redirect, though. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schools RfC

Hi, I see you were one of the closers of the recent schools RfC. I think I may be misunderstanding something and certainly Necrothesp seems to think that I am. Can you or one of your fellow closers clarify in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mother's International School, Upleta, please? I don't want you to !vote as that would be canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this issue seems to be happening in a few places, eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar. The "keep" argument is that there is longstanding consensus and precedent that high schools are notable. That, to me, seems like an invocation of SCHOOLOUTCOMES in all but name. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I'll keep an eye on the AFD, but I ec'd with another editor who basically said the same thing I was going to. I think it will take a while for the idea that "long-standing precedent" (which technically is SCHOOLOUTCOMES) is no longer a valid argument to make, and undoubtedly there will be some people who never accept it. But such is life, and this is why we go on consensus and not just pure vote counting. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably me and my fumbling incomplete thoughts, based on the comment here. Maybe you can take the Kokrajhar article instead? :) --Izno (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks to both of you. I was seriously thinking that I had completely misinterpreted things. It is going to be an issue if the same few people keep popping up to use the same outmoded rationale because, if school AfDs are anything like caste AfDs, participation rates tend to be low and dominated by a few people. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Busan International Foreign School is another. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just happened to spot this+1 Sitush----Almost oin every school-AfD, the same set of few people and esp. Necrothesp dish out the same keep rationale--as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus which essentially strikes me ass something which directly contravenes this RFC .What I want to know is that how admin-folks who close such discussions weigh such arguments when placed without any associated evidence of notability.Winged Blades Godric 16:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The concern that I might express is that the user is an administrator (from 2004). --Izno (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, Izno, they seem more interested in !voting than closing discussions. That means they're no different than any other user. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And "fortunately" neither are you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the personal attacks out of the discussion, shall we? As an admin I am still allowed an opinion as to how such a confused close should be interpreted. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy, an oligarchy or a dictatorship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: A personal attack it was not. I noted a fact. As an admin, you are allowed to keep any opinion you wish. You may not, in the context of a community process regarding a topic's suitability on Wikipedia, espouse that opinion: the expectation is that you follow, or reference, or both, guideline and policy. As an administrator, you are expected to lead by example. The existing guideline and policy on schools is "Meet the terms of WP:NORG or meet the terms of the WP:GNG".

As it happens, you are also mischaracterizing the close as precisely what it was not, and when pointed out to you, you doubled down on saying "no, no, my !vote is exactly what the close says". I expect, after Primefac's comment here, that you will no longer make that kind of !vote. Will you do so? If so, I will beat Sitush to the punch below and bring your behavior up, either at ANI or AN. --Izno (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight. You appear to be telling me that I have no right to an opinion on AfDs and that as an admin I am obliged to only follow the "company line" (which, of course, doesn't actually exist, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy)? And that if I do not you will "report" me? Despite the fact that if you actually read it you will discover I have not broken any of the rules of administrator conduct which you yourself cite (have I been discourteous or uncivil? No. Have I contravened any policies? No. What exactly do you think I have done to deserve your threats?). Well, frankly, words fail me and I won't even dignify your completely inappropriate comment with a further answer. Other than to say that it's attitudes like yours that make me wonder why I bother to continue contributing my time to this project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Winged Blades of Godric, while I haven't personally closed any school AFDs, I would treat a SCHOOLOUTCOMES/"precedent" argument with relatively low weight, akin to an ILIKEIT or OTHERSTUFF argument. If no one else can find evidence of notability, then the page is deleted as not notable. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification.Thus, the relists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar was probably good.Winged Blades Godric 17:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) But that is only useful if the closer sees an opposing argument pointing out that Necrothesp is completely misrepresenting the RfC outcome. Such an argument is not guaranteed to be placed and the closer cannot take into account arguments that are not presented. I'm sorry but if Necrothesp - and one or two other similarly-minded people - keeps on with this charade then something will have to be done. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, if a user voted "We should keep this because it's a great article" it would be discounted. By now (based on AN, ANI, RFC, and the number of fights I've had to break up) I would be extremely surprised if an admin didn't know about the OUTCOMES RFC. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac and others did a great job of closing the RfC, but what we are seeing now that wasn't written in the close is that if we had to sum up the in two words the entire outcome of that RfC it would have been no consensus. WP:OUTCOMESBASED exists, but it is also just an essay like WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so now you have two competing essays, and people are basically going to have to explain why they are !voting the way they do on a case by case basis. Godric, I think the relists were good, but I also think it was a bit too close to a super vote to reference the RfC in the relist: people are going to fight it out, and everyone is aware of the RfC by this point. My prediction is that at some point we're going to come to another essay-based compromise and move on. Its just too much time to have secondary school be this big of a fight. Anyway, my 2¢. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni:--The essays hardly compete.Whilst one is a trend of AfDs conducted over the years, the other one is meant as a supplementary guide to deletion.Winged Blades Godric 17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am confused again. If the RfC was "no consensus", why did the closers not say that? The points that they made had to be based on their interpretation of consensus in the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, the question asked was "are schools that exists automatically notable", to which there was no consensus. In that light, it means that schools are not inherently notable (i.e. status quo). The rest of the close was simply observations based on the points discussed and clarifications on the ramifications of said "no consensus" result. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry if my wording wasn't helpful. As someone who helped draft the RfC this is my take on it: The RfC was meant to see if there actually was a consensus that all schools were to be presumed notable. That consensus didn't exist, which I accept. The RfC did have some practical results beyond just the question asked: WP:OUTCOMESBASED was established and editors were told to avoid circular logic, which I think people who tend to be pro-keep should do (I've adjusted my arguments personally.) It also told us to consider systemic bias and basically repeated WP:NPOSSIBLE without citing it. What it did not do was establish whether or not the community had a consensus on how to deal with secondary schools.

The result is that there is now some confusion, and I take part of the blame for that in that we just asked a simple question rather than have a full proposal when we started the RfC. Now what we have is people arguing what the totality of WP:N (not just GNG) would have us do with schools, which I do not think we have a consensus for. If we did, we wouldn't have all of these contentious school AfDs currently ongoing. My comment above was by no means a critique of Primefac or the other closers, just noting that we are seeing in practice what we saw in the discussion: the community doesn't know what to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore the best option is to continue as we did before. It worked, it was sensible and it was generally accepted (except by a few whose main aim seems to be to get as much of Wikipedia as possible deleted - odd for people who have presumably come here to help build the same project as I have). All the RfC and its confused close has done is muddy the waters of a consensus that was already clear-cut and opened the way for the deletionists to nominate even more articles for deletion, which was, if I remember correctly, actually advised against in the close (note that most secondary school articles AfDed since the RfC have continued to be kept). I really fail to see what has been achieved here other than to confuse things and give the deletionists some sort of hope that their weird ideas on how to build (or, rather, shrink) a global encyclopaedia have been somehow accepted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sorry but if Necrothesp - and one or two other similarly-minded people - keeps on with this charade then something will have to be done." My God, but that's an arrogant statement. AfDs are about opinions. They are not about rules. If notability was governed by unbending, monolithic rules then we wouldn't bother to have AfD discussions at all. Maybe it's time that some editors took that fact on board and stopped trying to turn Wikipedia into a bureaucracy. Editors can express any opinion they like in an AfD discussion. It's up to the closer to consider all opinions (and not just dismiss them because they don't follow some non-existent "rule", incidentally) and close appropriately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An admin misrepresenting the conclusions of an RfC is not A Good Thing. I'll take you to AN if I must. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that most editors seem to be confused about the conclusions of the RfC. You are yourself confused about the conclusions of the RfC. You seem to be on a rather high horse here and I would suggest you get off it. We are all entitled to our opinions. I am misrepresenting nothing. I am stating an opinion. As are you. As we are both entitled to do. Threats are neither productive nor in the spirit of discussion and I can't see why you (or indeed Izno) feel the need to make them. The claim that I have misrepresented anything is, frankly, insulting, since it suggests a lack of integrity on the part of a very experienced and productive editor, which I can assure you is most certainly not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually going to side with Necrothesp on this one. Having an opinion is not an ANI-worthy offense. This whole discussion makes me think of a few AN discussions regarding RFA - there are two or three serial "opposers", and it was determined that they are welcome to make the same arguments on every RFA, and the strength of those arguments would be judged accordingly. If the consensus on a particular AFD is that a page should be kept, it will be kept. If the consensus is to delete, we don't immediately chastise the keep !voters for being idiots. Obviously I can't stop you from taking Necrothesp to ANI, but I would strongly advise against it, as it won't go anywhere and just cause more drama. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And that's exactly my point. It is up to the closer to determine consensus on an individual AfD. A contributor can express any opinion they like so long as it's a civil one. And to accuse an editor of misrepresentation just because you don't agree with them is not civil. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we don't immediately chastise the keep !voters for being idiots is a red herring. We haven't called nor even thought that he's an idiot. We're calling him out for having an opinion, at AFD, which does not match what the community consensus is regarding the kind of !votes he is making on a sustained basis. That's the same reason editors have been walked over to ANI (or WT:RFA or BN or wherever) when other editors have continued to make un-supported-by-policy-or-guideline assertions about the suitability of some thing (whether an article, an RFA, or otherwise). We expect better of long-time users, whether documented in PAG or not, and we expect better of admins (and that's documented in policy).

The second problem with comparing this to RFA is that those generally get into the 100 count, and so those serial opposers are trivially lost in the noise, if even they aren't actively discounted. When the typical AFD gets 2-5 editors, multiple of which are !voting to keep articles not meeting our standards for inclusion, that's a concern (though not a serious one, of course, since it can and will be corrected at some point--but not if the behavior is not stopped [voluntarily or by force] or you somehow convince people familiar with such standards to start commenting on those AFDs). While I trust our bureaucrats to see through the bullshit at RFA, should I trust an administrator-acting-as-normal-longtime-editor at AFD? That's really concerning--his opinions get repeated by well-meaning new and newer editors who believe that really is the state of things (whether he is an admin or not), and then we have issues later (and ultimately lose more editors than the half-baked "return threat" above would suggest we would).

This issue was a consensus you sought to evaluate and close. The administrator in question is directly-making !votes in contravention of that close. Even if I back off on suggesting that he's wrong to hold an opinion (whether I'm right or wrong), it's trivial to verify with one of the closing editors what was intended by the close in question and accordingly move along in the same spirit as community consensus would have us do. But, sure, I'll drop it, and start watching schools-related AFDs closely. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually do think I'm wrong to have an opinion! And you do think I should be prevented from expressing it "by force"! And you even seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't contribute to AfDs (or that's how I read your third paragraph). How utterly bizarre. I am, as we say here, gobsmacked! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should re-read everything I wrote, because I said none of that. But if that's the kind of reading you'll do in any further discussion, I am most-definitely not responding to you here again. Cheers! --Izno (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's exactly what you said. "We're calling him out for having an opinion, at AFD, which does not match what the community consensus is..." (i.e. I shouldn't have an opinion; because opinion is just that, opinion; if you say someone should have a particular opinion, then it's not really an opinion, is it?). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, I do think you lack integrity on this issue. That's an opinion. So sue me. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! And completely uncalled for. But, par for the course really. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Par for what course? Another pointless snipe from you, then. It isn't that you hold an opinion, it's that you misrepresent the consensus. As such, you are a liability if ever you perform an admin action. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's enough. I'm fine with my talk page being used to discuss what (in fairness) is a valid point of contention between editors. I am not fine with insults and veiled threats being bandied about. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed, so it might be best if we all just walk away from this one for a bit. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC not gathering comments

Hello, I have started an RFC as you required, but it doesn't seem to get much traction. What do you recommend? Please reply here, I'm on a dynamic IP. Thanks. 2A02:C7D:DA0A:DB00:21B4:FACE:4FE4:7235 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You started the RFC what, 24 hours ago? Most folk probably haven't even notice it's been posted. RFCs run for a minimum of 30 days so that it can receive the most exposure. If you want to increase the number of people who will be notified about the RFC, you are welcome to make a post (using neutral language of course) at places like WT:WPT or WP:VPT. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, I was just being impatient then. Thanks. 2A02:C7D:DA0A:DB00:FDF9:7737:C3B5:AD7A (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About abou el fotouh

The reason the page does not seem to have enough information is because any more information will have 0 sources to backup, other than that, alot of zamalek sc's players have wiki pages which just say that they play in zamalek sc, without mentioning anything else.

And to answer your question, Abou el foutouh plays in the main squad, you can look for yourself in the wiki zamalek sc page. He plays as a left back and has played numerous times.

About the name, I would change it, just that the name in english has diffrent spelling.

If i fix the draft now, will it be accepted? I don't want to waste someone else's time reviewing it, so if possible, can you tell me all the things to fix? Teky500 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see now. I've accepted it. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac Thanks for accepting it. Just one question, if the article becomes better, will it get a better grade? or are you stuck with the first grade you got when you made the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teky500 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Teky500, if you're talking about the article assessment, that's just a measure of how "complete" an article is. An article with only a bare minimum of information is a stub, whereas a full-and-complete article will be ranked as a "Featured Article". All articles generally start around the stub/start level and as they are improved their assessment is adjusted accordingly. For more info, see Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFF arguement

Where I have used the OTHERSTUFF argument on my talk page, I have done so correctly, right? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed any issues with it. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just checking. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle sock puppet report function giving error

I am attempting to report a possible sock puppet however twinkle will not allow me to.

Here is the report of User:Rex Judaeorum

Possible sock puppet of User:Rex Iudaeorum due to the text on their user page being "See User:Rex Iudaeorum" and the similarities in the username (a 'J' instead of an 'I' but otherwise identical).

TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that bad? I just don't want anyone else having the one with the J Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rex Iudaeorum Given that they've linked the two accounts, and that Judaeorum hasn't made any other edits, I think this is a case of VALIDALT, and per SOCK#NOTIFY is allowed. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was not sure and wanted to bring it to the attention of administrators in case it was an issue. I wonder why twinkle was giving me an error. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why Twinkle gave you an error, but it's always a good idea to ask questions if you're unsure! Primefac (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made another account actually maybe that's the problem. User:Rex Iudorum sorry that was a spelling mistake I don't want it Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Iudaeorum, as long as you disclose your alternate accounts, you've not done anything wrong. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit worth deleting?

Does this count as an edit worth deleting from edit history of this user's talk page? Hahafakeha has made a lot of edits like this (and is continuing to do so) to the page and has been reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not serious, I don't see any reason for revdel. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just checking. I see that you blocked them. Just out of curiosity, what would constitute revdel?--TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the full list of criteria. Basically it needs to be extremely harmful, dangerous, or derogatory. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, when in doubt, better to ask for revdel and be declined (as long as you're not always wrong) than have something that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link and this is the only time I have asked about revdel within this context (last time was asking about trying to disassociate my account with a page that I did not 'create' - the user removed a speedy delete tag on a redirect and started a whole new draft/article that I am now credited as creator of) so I don't think I have anything to worry about there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like numbers 2 and 3 to me. "Loser", f*** a-h*** and what seems to be "get lost you son of a bitch" in Malayalam. Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why they're blocked, but it's not bad enough to merit a full revision deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incred Finance

Not that I'm fond of articles created by socks, but your deletion of the article per WP:CSD#G5 was incorrect. Initially, the accounts were blocked on March 27, after the article was created. There were no previous blocked socks. I'm not going to restore the article; that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, you're absolutely right. I misread the timeline. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TFD - rugby biography

Thanks for starting the discussion, hopefully it will kick start some discussions in the two projects about contents. Nthep (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20K Tie

You and Drewmutt tied. ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edit-summary; I thought you'd spent 20 grand on a tie :D — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving 2 Kendrick Lamar song pages

I want to move "Element (Kendrick Lamar song) → Element (song) along with Duckworth (Kendrick Lamar song) → Duckworth (song) but both these new articles exist and are redirects to Damn (album). I want to move these because there is no other song titled "Element" and "Duckworth" so having "Kendrick Lamar" in the title is unneeded. But because the new pages exist and are redirects, I don't have the authority to move them. Could you help me out with moving them please? I ask because I saw you moved Draft:Loyalty (Kendrick Lamar song) → Loyalty (Kendrick Lamar song) (thanks very much for that). – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeatlesLedTV, it's done. Primefac (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet thanks very much. I appreciate it – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you the way you are?

I attempted to benefit my school's wikipedia page and you had the audacity to call, arguably the largest social phenomena on campus, a minor piece of trivia. Feel free to go and fix you r statements, thanks. DelaneyG

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&oldid=777396300"