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 Sergei Gutnikov (talk | contribs) at 13:37, 16 March 2018 (→Which criterion I do not meet?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Infobox school unsupported parameters

Hi Primefac, do you know if there is a bot that can remove the unsupported parameters from pages using Infobox school? There's over 6,000 in Category:Pages using infobox school with unsupported parameters. I've been doing it manually bit by bit, very boring and time-consuming but decided to do it as no one else seems to be cleaning it up. Just looks a mess, please let me know - thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh.... yes and no. Would it be trivial to remove the roughly 600 instances of |assistant_principal= now that it's been deprecated? Sure. Would it involve (and should it involve) removing everything that isn't on the list? Dunno. I can see someone misspelling |etsablished= - it shouldn't be removed, but fixed. Some of those "mistakes" could be fixed, such as Caption instead of caption, but I don't think one would be expected to fix every misspelling possibility.
If you can get me a list (other than |assistant_principal=) of the most commonly used improper names, I'd be happy to put in a BRFA. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some, I saw these in some of the infoboxes when removing the unsupported parameters manually, these need removing and some pages have these where they haven't been filled in. But if someone in future fills these in, it will flag up as an unsupported parameter. I can sort out the misspelling ones manually. Please could you have a look at these: |assistant_principal=, |assistant_principals=, |assistant principal=, |Vice Principal=, |vice principal=, |asst principal=, |campus_Bound=, |viceprincipal=, |viceprincipal_label=, |viceprincipal1=, |viceprincipal2=, |viceprincipal3=, |viceprincipal4=, |vision=. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Primefac, I hope the bot can be used and whatever is left in the unsupported parameter category should be just misspellings, which I'm happy to sort out manually. There may be other unsupported parameters, if there is, I'll let you know or you will probably know anyway. A lot will be cleaned up with these parameters removed Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Primefac, any update on the bot? Its been a while now since you completed the trial Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not up to me. Been busy lately so I haven't really thought about it much. You're welcome to flag down BAG with {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox request

I'm not sure how possible this is but can {{Infobox rugby league biography}} be amended such that as an alternative to parameters like goalsN and fieldgoalsN there can be a parameter that can be used as the sum of those two and displays across the two columns in the infobox?

The output would look something like this (first row is current output)

Years Team Pld T G FG P
year1start–year1end club1 appearances1 tries1 goals1 fieldgoals1 points1
year1start–year1end club1 appearances1 tries1 allgoals1 points1

The rationale is this - for a long period of the game's history all kicks were worth two points regardless of whether they were conversions (place kicked goal), penalties (place kicked goal) or fieldgoals/dropgoals therefore many of the records don't differentiate between the two parameters that we use. This leads to articles showing just a total in one column with then long winded explanations in the text or as footnotes. If the combined total can be centred then that need goes away more or less. I'm just glad there are so few goal from mark to be dealt with in biographies! Nthep (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the colspan could probably nested in there with an if statement. I've been meaning to clean up that template (if only to make it so it's a little more obvious what goes where) but I'll see what I can do in the meantime with this. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered this. Tagging so that I hopefully remember to look into it. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Contested RM

Talk Sarah Brown

I'm not married to using either the request dates or close dates; however, from what I've seen it seems customary to use request/nomination dates in the Old move and Old moves templates. Best of everything to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right. Will get on that sharpish. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Looks like someone beat me to it. But I'll remember that in the future. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 1#Template:USL_Premier_Development_League_Southwest_Division_stadiums

You recently relisted this tfd, and thank you for that. Could you go ahead and close the discussion as a merge? I just created the merged template and intend to place it in the relevant articles within the next 24 hours or so. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay eyem, if the consensus turns out to be that these individual templates are desired, then the individual templates will be kept and will continue to be used on the pages where they're currently located. If you want to try to convince the "keep" voters to change their opinions, you should ping them at the TFD itself. Just because you think it should be merged doesn't mean everyone will agree. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh ok, sorry to bother you geez. No need to emphasize the "you". Jay eyem (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for my help/opinion, and I was giving it to you. If you interpreted my comments as rude or condescending that was not my intention for them to be taken that way. I was merely stating that I feel that the discussion should run its full course, especially when new information like "there's a new/merged version to look at" comes out. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neutral_admin_needed

I have made a terrible mistake of starting the thread. I merely wanted to request a help. I didn't believe starting the thread like that is a topic-ban violation. Anyway, it was a bad idea. Could you close the thread? I'm just so terrified of the reactions there: as if my interest was to cause disruptions and apparently whatever I do is a mistake. -- Taku (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another dodgy draft

Hi Primefac, a couple of weeks back you deleted an article in draft space when I pointed out that it was the same as the original version of one that has been moved to mainspace and then deleted at AfD. I forget what the article was but there are a sock involved somewhere.

A similar situation now applies to another one. If you have time to go to the last two threads at User talk:Darrenmong, all should be made clear. Is this another CSD candidate? - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything's been deleted? Primefac (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, it is my fault because the talk page got longer after posting here! See Draft:The Living Legends of Mithila. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It's unsubmitted, it's in the draft space, and it will be G13'd in a couple of months. Unless there's an older master which I didn't see, it doesn't qualify for G5. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata template protection level

Hi, I noticed that you increased the protection level on {{Wikidata}} and {{WikidataOI}}, but that you didn't do the same with Module:Wd, Module:Wd/i18n and Module:Wd/aliasesP while the templates use these modules as a basis. I would suggest to increase the protection level on the modules too. Thayts ••• 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it doesn't make much sense to keep the templates template-protected considering that the module they call is only semi-protected, unless the module gets the same level of protection. Thayts ••• 08:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Greetings!

Here is the 5th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM
BAG
BRFAs

We currently have 6 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

While there were no large-scale bot-related discussion in the past few months, you can check WP:BOTN and WT:BOTPOL (and their corresponding archives) for smaller issues that came up.

New things
Upcoming

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 03:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFC submission declined template issue

Hi, I noticed you've done a a lot of the editing to the AFC submission templates so hopefuly you can find this issue, or point me to where I should raise it. Some of the decline notices are coming out weird. See Draft:Curve Fever Pro and User:Ashokgajjala1/sandbox for example. Its not happening for all decline reasons just some. I've been looking for the error so I could raise an edit request but have failed to find it yet. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: I went ahead and fixed the first one, but I think Enterprisey broke the script here. Primefac, we might want to roll those back in the mean time. Nihlus 18:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Thanks, I had just realised it was an issue with AFCH rather than the templates - thanks for locating the issue. KylieTastic (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I've rolled back. Will attempt to figure it out. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been back through my last reviews to fix up, but I guess a lot of other people will have got these off declines. I assume there is no easy way to fix apart from a manual trawl and fix? KylieTastic (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, manual is probably the only way. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a piece of advice

I still feel like whatever I do keep creating more drama: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Draft:Level_structure. What is the correct reaction? Ignore the attack? Is there a response that will be a violation of the topic ban? I'm quite dismayed that even reverting the wrong redirect is not possible. I'm not trying to fire up things and I keep being blamed for the disruption like in the thread. (The dispute like that in the thread seems to be leading to the eventual indef-ban; in fact, happening. Sad. I should have just stick to the content development.) -- Taku (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know what to tell you. I (and others) have given you a wealth of advice, the most important being "just walk away" and yet whether by their design or your own stubbornness you've walked right into a proposal for a community ban. I really do apologize, but there's nothing I can do to help you; I tried, and it didn't work. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for trying. I thought I was trying "walk-away"; e.g., interaction ban. Anyway, I failed. I thought I'm not the type of an editor who get banned and yet. I don't know what I have done wrong; I feel like I have to keep avoiding the traps set-up by them. And I finally got caught. (And apparently seeking advice counts as a ground for a ban...) -- Taku (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If preview

Considering that the module it calls is only semi-protected, it doesn't make much sense to template-protect {{if preview}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've matched the module protection. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor rights

I see you have protected a template to which I contribute. How do I get template editor rights ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although it seems to me that you probably wouldn't be granted such a right, given that as far as I can tell you have made no edit requests to protected templates at all, which is WP:TPEGRANT criterion 5. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Robertiki, I've reduced the protection level. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-) --Robertiki (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi Primefac,
Had I known about the whole attribution thing beforehand then I would've properly attributed it,
Anyway could the edit summary be un-revdelled providing I state state the diff as well as the article in that second comment ? .... My whole !vote is more or less centered around that comment and I feel like without it my entire !vote is pointless,
I can only ask but if "the damage has already been done" then you may want to revdel this too[1],
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you give proper attribution for the edit summary, yes, I will restore it (feel free to ping me when you do so). I have revdel'd TRM's post as well, so you might want to ping him as well. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Davey2010, you can make a null edit to cure the attribution. Since it is an edit summary, I would go with Edit summary for revision XXXXXX was text copied from [[Foo]], see that article's history for attribution TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both, Okie dokie If restored I'll then add "Edit summary for revision XXXXXX was text copied from Foo, see that article's history for attribution" and I'll also add the diff and article name to that comment too, Bear with me I'll find it all, –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac & TonyBallioni - Does this look okay ?, Just wanted to make sure before I copy it all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I assume it was okay so I've gone ahead and added it to VP/Proposals[2], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. I've restored your summary. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant thank you :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 14:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in science communication

Hello! The Wiki Education Foundation is developing a guide to help students write about all topics related to science communication, and I’m reaching out to a small number of experienced editors with interest in science topics on Wikipedia to see if they’d be interested in providing feedback. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that students consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. We’d appreciate any feedback on the draft by 3/12. Would you be interested in taking a look? —Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

' vs ’

Hi. Would you please take a look at special:diff/829223270, and share your thoughts which one is recommend by enwiki? Also pinging Cabayi. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

update: In the template it was already '
When I created the article it was still showing redlink in the template. I realised it was being caused cuz the article title has ’ instead of '
Which one is recommended by enwiki? Sorry for bringing up such silly point. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sort of solved. enwiki prefers the ones without curls, but not sure whats the take on article titles. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Straight quotes are recognized by pretty much every software, but curly quotes can't always be parsed. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes are straight, & toilet paper goes under. One of those has more community approval than the other. Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DC Breeze Page

You marked the logo I uploaded to this page for speedy deletion because I don't have proof that I have permission to use it. I could get the owner of the Breeze to email the permissions-en@wikimedia.org email but I was wondering if there is another way. Do bigger sports teams really have to get the owner of the team to email this person just to give them permission to use a logo? This seems like a little bit much in my opinion.

Also I know they are technically primary sources but why can't I just use the official website for the AUDL and DC Breeze as sources. The only things I'm citing are facts such as where they played, who coached them, and their score. There really aren't any sources besides these that have this information.Tylermachanic (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​The file you uploaded, with the permission you have released it under, are not acceptable. You can either have the owner(s) email permissions releasing the image, or you can upload a low-resolution version and change the release to a fair-use image similar to how you did for the jerseys.
As for primary sources - there's nothing wrong with using primary sources for things like records, stats, and the like, but they do absolutely nothing for demonstrating notability. The tag is on the page because there should be more independent sources, not that the existing sources necessarily need to be removed. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so if I get the owner to email the permissions email what should he say? I've been looking at bigger sports teams' pages like the Washington Nationals. They don't cite their scores and the citations for their stadium and coaches are just the MLB (their league) website. Why do they get to cite their league's website without getting the tags I did for doing the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylermachanic (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​It looks like someone has modified the permissions so that it is acceptable for use on the article.
As for the Washington Nationals - sure, they use primary sources for stats, but they've also got 75 references, the majority of which are not directly connected to the team. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for uncontroversial information such as statistics, but an article should not be supported only by primary sources. As a minor note, just because there might be a page (or pages) that don't adhere to Wikipedia's standards doesn't mean that we should create more sub-par pages. Every page should be judged on its own merits. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion for Adda52

Is there a way for me to find the previous deletion discussion? I was unaware that an article on this company was posted previously. Slipandslide (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adda52? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firnas Airways

Hi Primefac. Could you take a quick loko at the deleted version of Firnas Airways - does Draft:Firnas Airways qualify for G4? Deletion discussion here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking a draft should not be eligible for G4, since the entire purpose of drafification is to improve on a page that is insufficient for the article space. To answer your question though, the original was three lines of text, and while this one is four lines long, only the opening sentence is the same. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hanes Wikipedia Entry

Primfac, 

           First let me thank you for being helpful.  My first interaction with an editor has not been the same and it's really turning me off to Wikipedia.  "Conflict of Interest" Yes, this is obviously the first page I have worked on.  I was asked to edit this page by my employer, the widow of Mr. R.P. Hanes.  I did not know and never met Mr. Hanes.  His widow assigned the basic construction to a young man (with better computer skills) who utilized reference material as well as the bibliography from Mr. Hanes's published book.  Once complete, I using materials the gentleman did not have, began to edit the entry.  At no time has Mrs. Hanes been involved or directed the page in any way with the exception of providing a personal photo of Mr. Hanes (which is also now being questioned for copyright)

    I was initially pleased with the page.  I had discovered during my research that Mr. Hanes had committed nearly his entire life to the Arts and Conservation issues.  This had resulted in a dearth of awards and honors over a long lifetime. I edited this down while still attempting to show the span of this man's work. Even after editing I admit, it was lengthy but then I considered that this was a bio on Wikipedia and was meant to reflect the truth of the life being recorded so I edited the list in.  It was immediately completely removed by a Wiki-editor (GMG Go Means Go) who stated that "this was not a resume service".  I find this off-putting when we are talking about an individual who has been dead for nearly eight years and is in no need of employment.  I sent a message to GMG explaining that, being a novice, I was having trouble entering the references needed for the Awards verification and could he assist.  His response was nothing but rude and arrogant.  He offered no assistance whatsoever but again insisted this was not a resume service.  Primfac, I realize that you are concerned regarding content but as these Awards & Honors are verified and a part of the whole truth of a bio, what is too much? Who makes that decision? I want nothing but for the page to be complete and correct in recording this biography.  However, my first interaction with an editor had soured me on the process and for the first time made me seriously look at the content of Wikipedia articles.  Can you help?  Thank you for your timeTwilder43 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Twilder[reply]

What's gonna break things?

Hey! Primefac, you recently did something on my talk page with summary 'that's gonna break things'. I am not sure about what you did there and thus, I want to know the same. And I wanted to ask this random question: Why aren't you or Kudpung in the ArbCom? *just asking* Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dial911, Arbcom menbers are seleted by election once a year. It is every editor's personal choice whether or not they wish be considered for election. The committee members have a heavy work load. Many admins prefer to continue with content work, and normal admin task which c an also be time consuming.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, Okay. Dial911 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dial911, I removed an   from the end of your minthreadsleft. I'm pretty sure the bot can parse/trim out normal whitespace, but I'm not so sure it can avoid text-based HTML whitespace. Thus, I removed it. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, I get it now. Thanks! You are generally not this late in replying, is all good? Dial911 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You sent me a message at 1am. I was sleeping. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, waow! Haha Dial911 (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

request to merge TfD discussion

Can you merge discussions on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 9 since same reason, same voter and same nominator, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. While they are all in the same family, they do have slightly different rationales for deletion, and the nominator did merge a few of them so I'm going to assume they know what they're doing. It's not ideal, and depending on what happens in the next six days I might merge them upon relist, but at the moment there's no harm in having them as-is. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Nominator has merged those, but thanks a lot. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Connected contributor (paid)

Template:Connected contributor (paid) has been nominated for merging with Template:Connected contributor. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly delete this draft

Hi Primefac, trust you're great! Can you kindly help me delete this draft. I started the articles some days ago, but couldn't complete it in a go, so I said to draftify it till I have time to continue. Unfortunately/fotunately someone else created the article and I dont think my incomplete version is worth keeping anymore. Please is there also any mechanism put in place to prevent this from happening again. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it for you. You can add {{db-u1}} to any pages in your userspace that you would like deleted. That will place them in a category to be deleted. ~ GB fan 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GB fan! I've used that a couple of times too. My major concern was if there was a way to prevent these kind of thngs from happening (two editors working on the same article independently without knowning ). Regards, Mahveotm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahveotm (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mahveotm, the short answer is "not really". The long answer is that unless you search the article space, draft space, and user space for the subject that you want to write about, there isn't much of a guarantee you'll happen to stumble upon it. Now, often you can check the article Foo and it will say "there's a draft at Draft:Foo" but those are the obvious cases and I think you're referring to slightly more obscure stuff. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC over redirect

Hi, Primefac. I was going to accept Draft:Danielle Jonas but Danielle Jonas is a redirect. Can you wave your mop and either do it or delete the redirect so I can? Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, done. As for a histmerge - the article and draft are substantially different, but Danielle Deleasa should be redirected to Danielle Jonas. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metropolitan City of Turin

Hi, Primefac. I've just noticed that you protected a page some weeks ago that I'd like to edit: "Template:Metropolitan City of Turin". I just wanted to fix a link, that is the name of the Italian comune of "Cirié" which is currently spelled "Ciriè". English, Italian and all the other wikis have the correct name, and since this error is inside a template lots of pages are involved. Would you fix the link in my place, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.164.113 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.165.94 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi Primefac, would you mind taking a look at User:Ericisunknown21, and delete/revdel as you see fit? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, ta. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's done it again (third time now). I have issued a stern warning and will push for a block if it happens again, but in the meantime could you revdel this revision please (which is a c&p of this). Thanks, Nzd (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Definitely headed for an IDHT or CIR block. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Zawadzki

Eish - sorry about that. Normally I'm better with checking for copyvio. Thanks for fixing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. For some reason I thought I had checked it over as well and didn't see anything. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock

Hi Primefac, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Account_creator#User:Danidamiobi. — xaosflux Talk 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ECP protection

Not to criticize your ECP protection of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, which I think will be helpful in the long run; I am under the impression that pre-emptive protections are generally not exactly the best practice. I have just a couple minor concerns: 1) Perhaps I am just unaware, but was the AfC criteria of "must" ever discussed before? Because the wording, although long-standing, seems contradictory to the consensus in WP:PERM, in which criteria are meant to serve as guidelines and granting of permissions are meant to be discretionary. I assume this is because mandatory requirements in principle is probably against the open nature of Wikipedia, so if the AfC project continues to grow at the current pace, there should probably be more minimal non-existent oversight like PERM currently enjoys. 2) If the precedent of ECP protection is going to be set for a page like AFCP, shouldn't a discussion take place somewhere, since this is a page that may concern all administrators? If consensus emerges, perhaps we can go ahead and protect pages like WP:PERM/NPR as well, although I think it is highly unlikely. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your concerns: first, we had two discussions (one of which being an RFC) that AFCP should be fully protected because we kept getting unqualified users adding themselves. Second, we are not a PERM, we are a WikiProject. Third, part of the RFC determined that we should not be a PERM (yet). Fourth, I am not setting any precedent, I am attempting to prevent people who do not meet our criteria from applying. I would not (and do not) expect any other project to be mirroring itself off us. Fifth, Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"; it does not say who can edit where or when, and if you're going to get after me for protecting a Wikipedia-space page because it's a "barrier for entry" then you might as well get rid of all page protection. Sixth (and to slightly beat the horse when it's down) we're a WikiProject so it does not "concern all administrators." Seventh, because AFCP is not a PERM, we do not have to extend the logic that "if we protect AFCP we must protect PERM".
Unfortunately I have run out of time to give a longer explanation (work work work) but I am also am finding myself preemptively redacting snarky comments which are inappropriate for civil discourse, so I hope that you can see where I'm coming from in what little I've written. Primefac (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above being said, we've been miraculously free of garbage access requests recently, so I will mull over your concerns after I go do something more enjoyable. Primefac (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-daten

You closed a TFD for this template as a convert to subst only. I'm pretty sure there is a template that usually goes on the template's main page to indicate that result. Do you know what that is? --Izno (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of {{subst only}}? Primefac (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, though I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a "this template needs to be converted". If you don't know of one... :^) --Izno (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be listed at WP:TFD#To merge? --Izno (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, it for whatever reason never got tagged with {{being deleted}}. And yes, since it hasn't been actually merged yet, I'd say it should be listed at the Holding Cell. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you do the honors? --Izno (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello Primefac, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do if an administrator tampers with my talkpage?

Hey! Primefac, DGG deleted the contents of my talkpage. I don't know why would he do that. Also, I can't undone his action. Though I am not very fond of the content my talk page has lost, yet I am concerned about this action of his. Would you know if this is permissible on Wikipedia? Can users deliberately alter the talk pages of another users? See this link and current version of my talk page. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dial911&oldid=830398442#Speedy_deletion_declined:_Jamie_langton[reply]

Never mind, DGG replied on my talk page. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion I do not meet?

Dear Primefac, you rejected my application for a reviewer status. Could you please kindly clarify which of these criteria I do not meet?

  • a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old.
  • a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles.
  • thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions.
  • a demonstrated understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability categories.
  • a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews.

Thank you, Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&oldid=830706498"