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

Thank you for replying

dear Primefac, thank you for your reply, i suppose i did what you recommend me now and waiting the result. as i'm a beginner on this and need time to start understanding the process. meanwhile stay safe :)

JWB

Requesting JWB script rights. KMagz04 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KMagz04, please apply at WP:PERM/AWB. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Primefac: I applied at WP:PERM/AWB by now. I only joked posting a request here. KMagz04 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, good to hear. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piping

Hi Primefac — re this, the reason I introduced piping there was that it allowed the tooltip to display the spelled-out name of the acronym (which many readers may not know), whereas without it, the tooltip displays just the acronym itself. Is it okay if I undo your reversion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to avoid a shortcut link, then use the actual target. Don't put one redirect link and then pipe another. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Hi, it appears that PrimeBOT moves the short description to after hatnotes. Per MOS:ORDER, the short description should be first, before hatnotes. Please see this example. Thanks –hulmem (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known issue with AWB, as has been discussed here. Might be worth a bump there to see if any progress has been made. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, hard to believe it's been an issue for so long —hulmem (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page blank by PrimeBOT

On The Dr. Oz Show, PrimeBOT blanked the whole page, but the edit summary only said "Task 30 - updating infobox parameters in Template:infobox television + article genfixes". Can you fix that as soon as possible? Crazy Boy 826 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This happens occasionally if the servers are lagging or there's a "hiccup" in the system. Thanks for fixing the issue. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Heydt

Dear Primefac, I was wondering why you blocked a page I was trying to edit? How were the changes I was making perceived as not being constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeliaEnvoy (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CeliaEnvoy, I protected the page because of edits made by others. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expand Vani Bhojan Wikipedia's page

Hi... please expand Vani Bhojan Wikipedia page. including early life, career, personal life, reference. I hope you expand Vani Bhojan Wikipedia's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:20B:A63C:E4DA:B343:6D43:E344 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't have much interest in Indian actress articles. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please This one article you edit please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:20B:A63C:E4DA:B343:6D43:E344 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I said it's not really my cup of tea (or my wheelhouse, or whatever metaphor you'd like to use). Primefac (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cewbot

I would not recommend approving the bot until the issues are addressed. -- GreenC 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize it was as big as that. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the bot could do more to avoid error, not look beyond the first line that starts with a bold word, to mitigate the chance of incorrectly moving a template from the article body. Maybe it will miss some that way but better safe and leave the rest for manual cleanup. -- GreenC 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Muhammad Mokaev

Hi Primefac

In line with our IRC chats, i have added the 3 links of neutral reports to the article and also amended a few of the bare link to include more detail and fixed the IMMAF links.

Could you have another review to see if the article is now acceptable for Wiki. Thankyou for your time.

Rassmallai (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Been a little preoccupied but I'll take a look if I can. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Primefac, waiting with bated breath Rassmallai (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking a lot better. By my own personal rule I generally don't re-review drafts, so I'll let someone else "formally" review it. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for the suggestions. Admins like you, are the reason people signup to share their contribution on Wikipedia. Thank you again. Beritagsier (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At a certain point we all have to take a step back and realize we're all fixing the same ship :-) Primefac (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bug report for User:PrimeBOT/30

In Special:Diff/958660536 a ref tag with a pipe | symbol in its name got broken. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite the unusual bug. Thanks for letting me know. I found another one last night that I'm still debugging, so I'll add this to the list. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another one from Special:Diff/958826610. The bot replaces ' with plain apostrophes, breaking mark-up. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually an AWB genfix, and not something I have direct control over. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to pile on, but here's several more with the pipe issue mentioned above, in some of those edits it's wrecking the infobox as well. diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8– Isaidnoway (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate GIGO issues. Surprisingly, those are issues with AWB's own regex and not something I can easily fix. I will go back to the drawing board and see if I can change some of the code to ignore pipes where they "shouldn't be" (but for some reason are still "allowed" by MediaWiki software). At the end of the day, though, people are dumber than the code that was written for them, and will invariably find ways to break things... Thanks for the notes. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone coming here about this issue - I have disabled those genfixes and for the rest of the current run I am not doing any "infobox genfixes" (only the standard changes built in to AWB) and only running the deprecated parameter changes. Please feel free to fix the issues you're encountering, and let me know if there's something that is not covered above (i.e. I don't need to be told by fifty people that it messed up the pipes in an infobox, because it's now a known issue). Primefac (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bad edit, but the intentionally-visible HTML tag <wbr /> could have been coded better to begin with. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I do a bot run I'll make sure to turn off the unicode genfixes, since that seems to be an issue. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March edits

I've found a different problem with this task, in this edit where the previously-valid {{WikiProject United States |USSL=y |USSL-importance=}} got munged into {{WikiProject United States |USSL=y |USSL-LI=yes|LI-importance=}} - neither |USSL-LI=yes nor |LI-importance= are valid for {{WikiProject United States}}, but the second is valid for {{WikiProject New York (state)}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather odd. For the record, though, it's the same "BRFA task" but a completely different "edit run". There were some early regex issues that I thought I had gone back and fixed, but this one clearly slipped through the cracks. Thanks for fixing it. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeBOT 32 approved

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 32 has been approved. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Wikipedian Page Paswan

Hello. I am a new Wikipedian here on Wikipedia from March 2020. I wanted to say that I had edited the Wikipedian article Paswan page as it was written in the references available on that Wikipedian page itself. I had not edited as per as I wanted. I had edited as per as written in the references given on the page supporting edit on the page. But my edit was reverted/undone by this specific user Sunny313356u again and again who alleged me of vandalism. I would like you to check the article' references which itself says about the same. I have also cited why I have edited and removed some part from the article. Please check the reliability of the resources in the given article. What I have edited is wrong, then it should be immediately removed from the article page. ItWiki97 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97[reply]

Regarding Arindam Sharma

Hi there, I can see that the page Arindam Sharma is now protected from recreation. I have searched on google about the person and I have found six e-links including his interviews and other links. Therefore, would you kindly grant the page to be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omishx (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omishx, you should continue working on the draft at Draft:Arindam Sharma, and submit it for review when you think it is ready. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, surely I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omishx (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Primefac, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States

WP:NAVBOX says: "Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to articles highly relevant to a particular article. Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia which accounts for around half of readers." The links don't get more relevant than here. If you find a better solution then go ahead. There is a nomobile class but I don't know a nodesktop option, and I think it would be controversial when most editors are desktop. We shouldn't serve an alleged list [1] with no relevant content to the majority of readers. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2020 has 57% mobile viewers (change "Platform" at [2]), but leads nowhere for them. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2020 only has 4% mobile readers since they rarely find it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I do not like this family of templates, but I've sort of forgotten they existed. This might give me the impetus to recreate them in a way that is more suitable to the task it is attempting to accomplish. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until somebody implements a good solution, I think it's better to display the links in two ways to the desktop minority than to hide them completely from the mobile majority. A bulleted list with a link per line is the normal format for pages with links to lists, e.g. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. Maybe the main text of yearly pages like List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2020 should only display such a list. Then the desktop users could additionally get the navbox at the bottom, as usual for navboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just said I'd find a better solution. At least give me a few hours to actually figure out how to do it... Primefac (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I often feel something "might give me the impetus" to do something I never get around to so I merely gave an alternative. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, I've finished my work, and I'd genuinely like to hear your feedback on it (suggestions, comments, etc). I've moved the navbox to actually be a navbox at the bottom of the page, basically ignored the empty "year" pages, and linked to each month in a table on the primary "lists of..." page. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. Repeating full month names 10 times in a navbox seems a bit much. I suggest using {{MONTHABBREV}} for the display in {{List of killings by law enforcement officers in the US, month}}. Linking 2009 and 2011 on a blue background without a link in "List not separated by month" may be overlooked by some readers, and it looks odd when only a few years are linked. I suggest not linking the year and replacing the text with something like January–December. That doesn't work for List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States prior to 2009, but "List not separated by month" is also a bit iffy when it isn't even separated by year, decade or century. Maybe say 19th century – 2008. I like Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States#Lists of killings. It's OK if it uses other wording than the navbox for pre-2009, 2009, 2011. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The points you mention are some of the points I was sticking on last night; will have a think about improvements. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Wikipedia:Oversight

I am unsure what you mean by "no need for section - add an anchor?", can you expand on this? Naleksuh (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said "add section for easy linking". I reverted because we don't need an entirely separate section for that table since it directly pertains to the section it's currently in. If you want to link to the table, put an {{anchor}} right before it. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even need that; just give the table an id= attribute:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" style="text-align:center; margin: 1em auto 1em auto" id="Compasion table"

This spelling is as per the edit that added the undesirable section heading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeBOT

Hi. PrimeBOT seems to be changing |editor= to |editing= in refs that are within infobox film. See [3] and [4]. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The parameter replacement feature of AWB is built-in to the software, but I'll make sure to add a check next time I have similar runs to ensure citation templates aren't affected. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb

Hi Primefac. Now that the dust has settled on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Change to all our welcome templates I wonder if you would mind explaining why you think Sdkb should not be a template editor. I'm wondering if pulling that right might have been an overreaction, but keen to hear your view. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on that thread, I had written a rather lengthy decline of their request based on my own interactions with them in the past. I thought (and still do, to a certain extent) that they are overzealous in their interest with fixing the wording on seemingly every template that's ever had more than two sentences on it. As a positive trait, they look for consensus before making/requesting a change, but I saw that the number of proposals where they got shot down far outnumbered the proposals that were "approved", and my concern was that they'd just go ahead and start making changes like that without discussion. An additional (but minor) reason is that they don't necessarily show the technical skills that I would like to see in a TPE, though I know there are plenty of templates that don't strictly need Lua-levels of knowledge.

I extended the right temporarily because I felt I was being overly critical (and potentially INVOLVED); I think I saw the ANI thread as justification to my above concerns without really digging too much into the details.

That being said, I'm still not overly comfortable with giving them the right indefinitely, but I'm not super-proud of my reaction to the ANI; that's not to say I would grant it as some sort of apology, just that they've now been "burned" in a way and might be a little more cautious if given a second chance. I assume you're thinking of granting it to them? Primefac (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) After having followed some of that editor's edits, edit requests, and suggestions (just on my watchlist; I was not stalking them or looking at their contributions), I was surprised to see the TPE right granted and unsurprised when it went poorly. I think that the editor should have to demonstrate a pattern of good decisions related to template editing (or template edit requests) before begin granted the right again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please advise?

Hello! I noticed that you added rejection information to this page again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fengqi_You). Is the current version still does not meet Wiki's requirements? Many thanks for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago20092016 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the close when I copied it, didn't see it was a reject. You'll still need to submit it for review, however. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac, Thank you for helping out during the whole process. I can see User:Chicago20092016 along with original creator User:Coder196 has been blocked due to WP:SOCK and WP:MEATPUPPET. I was wondering what to do with Draft:Fengqi You, if we find again receive a submission/review request from a new user without any improvements and Wikipedia violations. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 14:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If no one takes it on, it will be deleted in six months. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devaagyh Dixit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaagyh_Dixit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojasharma20 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have deleted this page, without leaving any comment on my talk page? What was wrong in it, that kid is guinness world record holder. He holds several world records in his name, what part did you not understand. Or you guys here for bullying only?

This is sick mentality you just showed, Are you getting bored in this lockdown and just for fun started deleting wiki created by other users?

Jimfbleak I would really appreciate if you can please look into it. How can he delete a wiki without any warning or notification?

Poojasharma20 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poojasharma20, the draft was incredibly promotional; from reading the page it sounds like he's just the best at everything. In deference to your interest in writing the article I have restored it to the draft space, but I would strongly encourage you to submit it for review through the WP:AFC process by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring to draft space, can it not be moved to AFD instead. I am ok to contest. Poojasharma20 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]