User talk:Primefac

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

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

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

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Your redirect to "Live From Here"

I think it may be cause why article cannot be accessed directly. I do not understand why this was done.1archie99 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC) 1archie99 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Hi. I'm rather tied up at the moment. Could you please take a moment to review the work of user:Ernestchuajiasheng. Cheers, and happy holidays and all the best for 2018. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, out of about 20 pages I checked there were maybe one or two questionable declines (with one exception, see below), but on the whole they seem to be doing all right.

They declined Draft:Brenda A. Allen as "not notable" when it should have been "ilc" and/or "advert", because I think she passes the PROF test, but there is way too little in the way of proper sourcing (and a bit too much of a promotional tone) to turn it loose without significant trimming/fixing. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should have been declined as a copyvio. The entire Career section, which makes up most of the article, is a direct copy of her college web page http://www.lincoln.edu/faculty-and-staff/directory/brenda-allen-phd . The rest of it is presumably a copyvio from related pages on the site and her CV. Earwig's copyright detector gives 90%, and that's without searcing her cv. This is not " a bit too much of a promotional tone" but a straight press release. The first thing to look for in a promotional page is copyvio. In fact , the first thing to look for for any bio of the head of anything is copyvio, because about 2/3 of the submitted ones are.

There are other hints, even without looking for the source page. Any academic bio that start with the previously held job instead of going in chronological order is a press release and almost certain copyvio. Any bio contributed without linking the obvious things such as the university name is either a copyvio by someone unfamiliar with WP, or a very naive attempt at an article (just as one with an excess of links is usually someone with coi, generally a paid editor)

So it would seem all the editor's other afcs must be rechecked for copyvio DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I'm... honestly surprised I forgot to check cv on that. I will leave them a note on their talk page to check for copyvios in the future. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Large category request

I believe I've rid the first 25,000 pages in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL of most of the unnecessary |access-dates= when a permanent identifier is present (my last preparse of the first 25k pages only yielded ~3% as easily fixable, and undoubtedly others have creeped in since). But I'm unable to retrieve the remaining ~20k, which I recall requires administrative permissions. Using AWB I'm able to retrieve from ...Ready for It? to ~Mercer Mall. Can you help by retrieving the bottom 21k (so that there is some overlap)? If so, feel free to either drop it in my userspace or yours as a subpage, or email, or ping someone who can if you're unable. Thanks in advance & happy holidays :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this as soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been taken care of! TY still :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. Sorry for being busy! Primefac (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new AFC propsal

Hello Primefac, I have come up with an idea with how we can be more friendly and positive with new AFC contributors. It is quite simple really. When I see a new AFC draft written by an editor who is new and still has a red link talk page, I take the the time to welcome them. Then I go to the bottom of the history of their draft and thank them for creating the draft. At least this way the first contact with an AFC participant editor will not be negative as in a draft decline. What do you think? Maybe we could come up with a better welcome template geared exactly to AFC, explaining how we want to help them get the drafts they created published! Maybe this could make for a more positive experiences for all the AFC participants. Please let me know if this might help the AFC atmosphere in general. Thanks for your time. Lacypaperclip (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacypaperclip, I think that's a great idea. I think the best way to implement that sort of change would be to draft up a template (or at the very least, the wording) in a sandbox, and then post at the AFC page for further input/tweaking before making it a "live" template. I look forward to the results! Primefac (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Will you take a look at this move from a redirect, please? I stumbled across Northern Han Chinese at NPP, and it appears to have been a reverted redirect that was moved from Biefangren to Northern Han Chinese. Not sure if the rights were ever granted...and well, their TP appears...shall I say...“busy”? Could be nothing at all, but just in case I thought it might be worth a look. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, not quite sure what I'm looking at. The user reverted the creation of a redirect (three years after the fact, but that's not overly relevant) and moved it to what they apparently felt was a better title. They didn't need (nor do they have) any permissions to make such a decision. If the page is not worth keeping, then an AFD might be necessary to revert it in a more permanent manner to a redirect. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the editor's move log and it seemed really busy. I thought page mover was a user right granted only by admins, but if it's ok for any editor to move pages, then you answered that part of my question. I'll review the article again and see if an AfD is the best option. Thank you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more specifically, any editor may move pages. The page mover right permits allows users to move pages without leaving behind a redirect and to quickly move subpages when moving parent pages. (To move a page over an existing page, such as moving an accepted draft in place of an existing redirect, requires the admin right.) DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Page movers can do a round robin move which has the same effect. GMG ^talk 17:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider indefinite block of 197.210.0.0/16?

Is an indefinite block on 64K IP addresses justified in this case? Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/197.210.0.0/16 I only see a few isolated incidents. Is there a lot more that I am not seeing? Was some temporary block tried at some point?

Context: I am collaborating with someone via a github issue and I was surprised to learn that the Help:Editing policy, "... anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately for all readers. You do not need to register to do this." actually has exceptions. Perhaps I / we should note the Wikipedia:Blocking_policy there. DanConnolly (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trampton will be likely of immense interest to you.And, any idea as to the after-effects in AFC?!

Also, wishing you and your loved ones a heavily belated Merry Christmas and wishes for a pleasant and prosperous 208.Regards:) Winged Blades^Godric 06:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There will likely be very little in the way of disruption at AFC. I was already looking at the numbers yesterday and his contributions have been relatively minor. With the influx of long-term high-edit editors in the last 36 hours I'm not concerned in the least.

And a Happy New Year to you! Primefac (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year, Primefac- and thanks for everything you've done this year as well. Now quick question- since the AfC graph tool seems to be a bit borked, are you getting review counts off quarry or something- just for motivation, you know? jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the counts straight from the cats themselves. The tool counts the pages (and subpages) of Category:Pending AfC submissions, whereas all of the enwiki templates are adding together the page counts of all the by-day subcats. I'm not sure why the counts differ by about 200 pages (because there aren't that many non-draft pages in those cats) but the overall trends are still accurate (ish). Primefac (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Ejembi John Onah

Thanks for your contribution: I respect the fact that you wrote linkedin cannot be used. I read wiki policy on self publishing as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, " Acceptable: The website for a company to support claims about itself or its employees”. Since Germany as a result of law do not publish names of recipient of prestigious awards, can I use the website http://fonai.org/uploads/Ejembi_Onah_Resume.pdf of the subject being an expert in his field as a reference source as in wiki policy? Your usual prompt attention will be appreciated.

Ejembi12 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no. The issue here is that there is just no independent evidence of such an award being presented. If what you say is true, you could claim to have won any number of awards from German companies; since they don't publish their award winners there would be no way for us to verify that information.

The use of primary sources to verify claims should only be used for minor things like "how many people work here" or "where is their headquarters", not "a list of prestigious awards won". If it's a prestigious award, even if the award-givers do not report it someone will have. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks so much; I will remove that and adjust accordingly from the article; once more thanks for your usual prompt attention. Ejembi12 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted photos

A user has been adding photos that violate copyright. Special:Contributions/Apurbo Rahman. He was previously told regarding copyrights. A few minutes ago, I CSD'ed one photo, two photos are still out there. Would you please take a look at them? I would have contacted Clpo13 for something like that, but he hasn't edited in a while. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, will delete the images as necessary. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no links where the statement of the owner can be found clarifying "This is a free work! but I bet, this picture holds no Copyright. Yeah... these need to be deleted. GMG ^talk 18:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hey Tim :) I hope you dont mind if I call you Timmy, or Tim. I wonder what Primefac's human name is. Btw, can admins see the deleted images? I was wondering about this. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can. It's not a terribly exciting image, just a well-endowed woman wearing red lingerie. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are those that call me.... Tim. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Don't bother me none. Anybody who's been around long enough to "get it" already knows anyway. As to the image, you can probably do much better with a google search... I guess if you're into that sort of thing. Don't look too much if you happen to be at work or in class. Just FYI. GMG ^talk 18:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Would you please send me a link to the image? Pretty please?
Wait, people call you Tim?
Thanks Tim. Well, I am sort of into that thing. I have those articles watchlisted. What else you can expect from a 29yo guy who hasnt done it yet?

—usernamekiran(talk) 18:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got nuthin. It was so obviously copyrighted that I didn't even look to see exactly where online it was copied from. GMG ^talk 19:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor allusion to Monty Python and the Holy Grail Primefac (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not denying that you may be a gloriously mustachioed Spaniard named Carlos? GMG ^talk 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could deny that if I wanted. I could deny anything if I wanted. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —Paleo Neonate – 21:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Ali-A article hijacking

Thanks for the revert on Ali-A. Article hijacking is something that I have seen & combated in the past. It is alarming and done slowly enough that the average passing editor may just miss it in Huggle etc. Good eye. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy.

I think you'll fine that edit you made reverted. I don't contribute to that article, but you may want to watch "that" space. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Laursen about Scott Merrill Siegler article

Hi Primefac. Thanks for your help thus far. In early December I submitted and article about Scott Merrill Siegler, an important player in the media (former protege of Brandon Tartikoff, etc.) At first, another member decided it wasn't publishable, but you felt they were in error and you re-submitted it. I just got bak from the holidays and discovered that the article still awaits posting. Can you give me any insight, or advice about what to do next?

Thanks, Byron Byron Laursen (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Laursen, you have good timing, about ten minutes after you posted this question your draft was reviewed and accepted. Congrats! Primefac (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to use AFCH Script

Greetings Primefac. I just changed my username from ernestchuajiasheng to heliosxeros. You approved my request to be an AfC reviewer on 11:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC). With my new name, I am not listed on the AfC participants name list, so I can't use the script. May you add me in the list? Thank you. EROS ^message 11:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC) 11:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comment on my Talk page re Defiant Titles. I've spent the last few hours pulling diffs together and preparing a case to WP:ANI if the user wished to go there (I felt both their actions and mine should be under equal scrutiny). However, my draft reply was going to say that I'm always willing to apologise if I make an unfounded or unreasonable accusation, so I'll reword my response to post tomorrow, and think it only fair if I were to remove the final warning I placed on their talk page. I have tried to act as reasonably and fair-mindedly in this matter as I could, so would appreciate any guidance if you think I've not done so, or could have handled it better. I did feel the timings and the manner of the responses were very much those of one user, but if there's no proven linkage it would be unfair for warnings to remain. I appreciate you asking a CU.

A question for you: If I or another editor ever receives a single attack of such extreme abuse again, is the best course of action still to go to WP:AIV (despite the 4 warning series not having been given), or is WP:ANI the first port of call in such a situation? (I won't be seeking a block of the IP as I did promise if I received an apology I'd only formally warn them). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

(talk page stalker)Nick Moyes, ANI would be the best for anything involving personal attacks. Such things are not really vandalism, and ANI is better equipped to handle them. At ANI there could be more discussion, and the possibility of a warning or a block on other grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TonyBallioni. I'll bear that in mind should this ever happen to me again. Nick Moyes (talk)

Oversighters

Hi, could you ping/email the oversighters regarding the section you (quite rightly) deleted from AN?

I've already deleted the revisions, but can't oversight them, and the oversight team has shut off their Wikipedia email. (I can't email them directly myself for some technical/privacy reasons at the moment.) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TenOfAllTrades, you've probably seen my undo by now but apparently the link between the person and the account has been published in the NY Times, which means it's not actually an outing situation.

As for the OS - last I checked the email was still working, it's oversight

wikimedia.org. If you need something a bit faster, though, you can always shoot me an email and I'll forward it on (but the temporary revdel is more than sufficient in cases like these). Primefac (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know the oversight email address, but I wanted to go through the Special:Emailuser interface rather than log into my email account from an insecure location. (And WP:OVERSIGHT shouldn't list that contact method if they're going to leave it disabled.)

If the information has been published in the NYT then I'm not going to sweat it, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I'm still not totally familiar with the backend of our email system so I'll ask around and see what's up. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt request

Please unlock this title Greater Talent Network. I'm unable to fulfill the RM request. sami ^talk 21:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, it wasn't move protected, but I've gone ahead and moved the page. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got this message while moving

You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

You cannot move a page to this location because the new title has been protected from creation -- sami ^talk 21:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I guess they fixed the bug. For a while we had a big issue with people creating a page at one location then moving it to a salted page over the protection. Learn something new every day. Primefac (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand this stratagem. sami ^talk 21:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting Boyle's privacy

This is currently being discussed by the OSers. Will unhat when discussions are complete

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You wrote: "...but unless Boyle has a major issue with the case there's really nothing more to do."

If you googled Boyle, he was arrested on New Years Day, and is currently in custody, so, obviously, he is not in a position to be aware someone is trying to identify which wiki-ID he used, let alone communicate his objections.

As to why I called the NYTimes reporting "speculation" -- they don't report a source for the information that Boyle used that particular wiki-ID. If I am not mistaken, while Ian Austen is now a NYTimes reporter on the Canada beat -- they have half a dozen of them -- he spent years reporting on security and terrorism and counter-terrorism topics for a Canadian news outlet. So, I am sure his reporting is based on reading wikipedia articles for himself, and that this is his personal conclusion, not based on a third party source. So, for what it is worth, I stand by calling the NYTimes reporting "speculation".

Boyle's is a fast moving story, so the longer attempts to identify him, against his will, remain unoversighted, the more damaging it is to him. Geo Swan (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're welcome to track down Ian Austen and ask him about his speculating. I'm not sure what's "fast-moving" about this issue, since really the only question seems to be whether or not Boyle has been editing his own pages. His connection to Wikipedia doesn't really seem to have entered into it otherwise. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You think the only question is "whether or not Boyle has been editing his own pages"? WP:BLP says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered..." Boyle has not publicly identified which wiki-ID he used. He has already been the target of years of mean-spirited coverage, which unfairly implied or explicitly stated that his marraige to the sister of a Guantanamo captive made him a "terrorist sympathizer". Many people, including some wikipedia contributors, conflate neutral coverage of topics related to terrorism to being a "terrorist sympathizer".

Bad reporters, bad columnists, yellow journalists, will cherry-pick comments that can be twisted to damage individuals, even when, in context, those comments are perfectly reasonable and defensible. Consider the years of mockery Al Gore got for the distortion that he claimed to have invented the internet. What he actually said was (paraphrasing from memory), that he:

"created the initiative for the internet"

What Gore should have said was:

"created the legislative initiative for the internet"

Vint Cerf and the other computer scientists who sat on the committee that created Internet Protocol, the guys who actually invented the internet, knew exactly what Gore meant. They knew that he did play a key central role drafting the legislation that funded the work that allowed them to invent the internet. They knew he had been their go to guy in Congress, for decades. They had no problem with his comment.

I read the bragging from the tech journalist who got the mockery rolling. He was a right-wing tech journalist, and in his bragging he tacitly acknowledged that he too recognized he understood what Gore actually meant, and that he too recognized the key, central role Gore played. Nevertheless he realized he could start an unstoppable juggernaut of unfair mockery, by cherry-picking this comment.

Boyle's comments may put him at risk of the same kind of unstoppable juggernaut of unfair mockery.

I have suggested, a couple of times, that Austen's unsourced speculation would not be allowed in article space. Talk pages may allow speculation that we would not allow in article space, but shouldn't their content nevertheless be required to, broadly, be part of improving the wikipedia? How does violating the privacy of a wikipedia contributor's privacy benefit the wikipedia? I have suggested this a couple of times, but you have not addressed this. Geo Swan (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got the email. I am frankly surprised that you chose to personally address my request, since I requested oversight of edits you yourself made. Perhaps you could have that second oversighter email me themselves? Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paging Fox. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm of the opinion that the editor's identity is public enough (it's in the New York Times) to surpass the limits needed for oversight.~~ I'm happy to take this to other oversighters for their opinions as well if you'd like. — fox 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, that after discussions spanning so many venues, Streisand effect may be a factor to weigh in:)Winged Blades^Godric 02:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Feeling like I need to strike my comment above; on second thought I don't think I feel that way.) — fox 02:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Morley page

Hello

I see you have removed the work that I have done on Grace McCann Moreley's page. I am an employee of SFMOMA, the institution she founded, and used only valid well researched sources to update a bio which, in our opinion, does not in its current state give her nearly the credit she deserves. She is an early feminist hero, often erased by the men around her and thus I am deeply bothered by the reverting of her page. If I did not follow instructions to edit properly please let me know, as it is crucial that her legacy be well explained and preserved.

-juststella

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Morley&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juststella (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)