User talk:Primefac

re: Deletion of Inhyeon wanghu jeon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You did not ping me back in [1], so I never realized you replied (please ECHO me back if you reply here, or leave me a {{talkback}} in the future, if you could). Anyway, I am afraid I don't understand your question. What is 'a physical book'? The deleted article, yes, was an article about an actual novel. I don't see what it has to do with the issue discussed, i.e. my argument that it was incorrectly labelled as a copyvio? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I generally assume that people asking me questions will be either watching or pop back in to see a reply, but I'll do my best to remember next time to ping you if necessary. By "physical book" I mean, simply, that it's a real book that it exists. The website/URL itself was not a copyright violation, but the report from the user who G12'd it implied that the content of the book itself was being copied onto the article, which is why I deleted it as a G12; the URL simply gave a link to the source material (even if the content was contained on the website itself). Primefac (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for the ping! Since I do many things on wiki, I often forget about some of the messages I sent, so without a ping/talkback things can get delayed. Anyway, thanks for the ping again. As for the article, can we restore it? I didn't see any copyvio in it, and I don't think it has any extensive quotations. So unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't think this is a copyvio issue? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

​ Fair enough. As much as I dislike decentralized discussion, I'll ping Pldx1 (who nominated the article) as they can likely do a better job of explaining why they nominated it. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please, restore also the talk page, since this talk page is surely the best place to discuss the issue. Pldx1 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

민병국 올림니다 행복하세요 민병국 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Um... thanks? Primefac (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Park View Medical College

I don't want to just revert your deletion, but I do not see that the material in this page which you marked as copyvio is present in the source cited. Of course, it may be present in some related more up to date site DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

DGG, check this report, which is the body of the article (and yes, I'll be reverting and RD'ing after you've seen this). All but one sentence were copied, so it's very much a G12 in my mind. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

OK DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for checking though! Primefac (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That's why I (sometimes) ask first. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad reviews/reviewers

I've been patrolling User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon and submitting promising drafts that never received a review. I've been getting some unexpected results from reviewers. I've been winging my way through these with talk page discussions, resubmitting and resubmitting and accepting on my own behalf. Do we have a process for dealing with bad reviews or bad reviewers? Do you consider this one of your responsibilities? ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no formal process for bad reviews or bad reviewers; every time I've tried to set up a formal process there has been substantial pushback, mainly of the "we'll deal with it when it happens" variety. If discussing it on their talk page is not working, and you are seeing the same issues from them repeatedly, then start a threat at WT:AFC with your concerns, and that you have attempted to work with them to no avail. They'll either be admonished, put on probation, or removed from the project. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Talk page discussions are working 50% of the time and it hasn't gotten hostile. I don't see the same issues repeatedly from the same reviewer because I'm only submitting a few drafts per week. But the overall impression I get from our most discerning reviewers is that drafts need to be up to C-class before they are acceptable. Declines are doled out for lack of footnotes or formatting issues or for not being sourced to BLP standards on non-biographical articles. ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm always willing to roll back garbage declines. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. ~Kvng (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, There does seem to be an issue with AfC reviewers having too high of standards, its something I have had troubles with, and think that AfC needs a culture shift in terms of reviewing. There is no incentive to accept drafts, and in fact many reviewers get yelled at for accepting bad drafts, but rarely are folks held accountable for declining drafts. I think reviewers need to be much more willing to accept marginal drafts and have them go to a deletion discussion, but am unsure of how to achieve that cultural change. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We've been trying for the better part of five years. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you think there is a solution? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've discussed with a few other reviewers before off-wiki, and the easiest thing would be to have a radical simplification of the reviewing instructions. Rather than have folks trying to look at every article and try to guarantee it would be successful, just have them check for speedies (G12, G11, and the like), that there are RS with significant coverage, and that it's neutrally written. If those three boxes are checked as being acceptable, the draft should be accepted. If we really want to "lower" our standards (still to acceptable levels, of course), the reviewers need to stop nitpicking into the intricacies of WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE to see if the person meets all of the esoteric criteria. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, the most egregious problem I see are reviewers who think they are doing a WP:PR or some article quality assessment. Next is reviewers on a mission to block anything they see as promotional or COI. Nitpicking notability policy is down the list of problems I've been seeing. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that's kind of what I mean, though. Reviewers should be seeing if it's a flagrant issue (either CSD-worthy, nor sourced, or not neutral) and that's it. They shouldn't necessarily be nitpicking SNGs, nor should they be doing "peer reviews" or anything similar. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, you've nailed it. The incentives for reviewers are tilted towards decline. This has to be addressed before any culture shift can happen. ~Kvng (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I definitely come across bad AfC declines fairly often (sometimes after the author comes appealing to the Teahouse). The AfC instructions are pretty simple: check only whether it'd survive AfD, and if it would, accept. That many of the most prolific AfC reviewers flagrantly ignore those instructions is a big problem. To be fair, though, there is some truly awful junk that comes through AfC that still meets GNG. I would feel bad accepting a page that has zero MOS compliance (e.g. ELs in the body, typos everywhere, no headings) that just barely rises above WP:TNT level. Perhaps AfCers should accept those and just throw the work onto the NPPs, but the NPPs would probably draftify anyways. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've said it before, but if it "looks ugly" that's a (maybe) five-minute job for a reviewer, and an HOURS long process for someone who doesn't understand. Fixing headers, removing bold, etc are piss easy, probably the most onerous thing is removing or converting ELs in the body. If a page looks like garbage, I don't even review it until I've cleaned it up. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sdkb in terms of an issue and with Primefac in terms of my approach (though I do work NPP more than AfC). I am skeptical that the 3 question approach Primefac sketched out above would help. I think rather than leading more articles that should be accepted to be accepted, it would lead reviewers to be more justified in the current approach of declining them. As it stands now, if something is notable but doesn't have RS with sigcov AfD is going to keep it. Maybe not 100% of the time but a very high percent of the time. If something notable isn't neutrally written but doesn't qualify for G11, I suspect that too gets kept a bunch. Ultimately AfD is, in my experience as an AfD closer, pretty focused on that question of notability and there are a substantial segment of AfD participants who dislike attempts ot use AfD for cleanup (see the well known Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). I think there's definitely some wiggle room for AfC on this, for instance to not accept an uncited BLP that is notable (BLPPROD exists for a reason) but I don't think moving to those three questions is the right way to change AfC culture. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd be open to tweaking it a little, but on the whole I think we all here agree that getting too nitpicky is one of the flaws of the process right now. How we change our guidelines about reviewing will always be up for debate. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. And based on the conversations I've had with Eek about this to date, it's the hard question to answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, it doesn't matter too much what the guidelines say if the incentives and consequences for reviewers still tilt them toward declining as the safe option. ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Valentinian dynasty

Exactly where and by who was the decision to delete Template:Valentinian dynasty made? As the creator, and the editor who has been maintaining this template I was appalled to see the notice that a decision had been made. I have been participating in the discussion ever since someone proposed deletion. In my humble opinion it would be madness to do so, without it it is almost impossible to make sense of the page Valentinianic dynasty for which it was originally constructed, and which is being actively upgraded with a view to promotion. For the life of me, I can't see any consensus for deleting it. Could this be an error? --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm a little at a loss as to how to reply to this post, because you seem to have answered all of your questions. You participated in the discussion with at least six other editors, five of which advocated for either deleting or converting it to a navbox (i.e. the "who" and "why"). I simply read through the discussion and determined the consensus was to convert it to a navbox, something which I did based on years of experience at TFD. I've now re-read the discussion again and do not believe I made an error in my close. If you still think I have made an error, you are welcome to bring the matter to WP:DRV. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible reformatted template: Template:Valentinian dynasty/sandbox. Needs proofing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is what is a consensus. It was relisted for further discussion - which has not happened. Obviously I am defending it, and I am not impressed by the arguments for deletion, particularly since I modified it in the light of comments. Furthermore it does not seem logical to delete this template and have identical templates on the other roman dynasties. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

While I am grateful for the suggestion placed in the sandbox, my argument throughout is that horizontal and vertical templates simply do not have the same function or utility. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I listed it on WP:PRV --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Confusion

Primefac and Curbon7 Greetings! Kindly help me regarding Draft:Sardar Gulab Singh Rathore which is the revised version of Draft:Gulab Singh Rathore. Right now both drafts are waiting for review. Kindly help me to go ahead with Draft:Sardar Gulab Singh Rathore only. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't really do reviews by request. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Primefac Sir, I am not requesting a review, two drafts with same matter is the problem. Thanks anyway. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I have redirected the one to the other, so there is only one draft now. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou so much and best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tlx template error

Hi. It seems that this edit has caused {{tlx}} to now display "}}" at the end. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

So it has! Thanks, nested brackets like that are sometimes hard to see. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome... and tell me about it. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for One Day the Only Butterflies Left Will Be in Your Chest as You March Towards Your Death

An editor has asked for a deletion review of One Day the Only Butterflies Left Will Be in Your Chest as You March Towards Your Death. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

AfC probationer concerns

Hi Primefac,

I'm concerned that F5pillar (currently a noping) should have their probationary afc status withdrawn.

They're making fairly major sourcing failures in multiple AfC submissions of their own, and I don't feel that anyone with that quality of source review on their own can reliably handle difficult calls in other reviews.

Happy if we want to talk to them first or just pull it (I realise I could just pull it myself, but as the granting member thought it best to bring to you) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I've had my eye on this editor for similar reasons. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They also seem to have tried publishing their own draft, a decision that was reversed by Praxidicae. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the draft that's under consideration. For what it's worth, that isn't what I'm primarily concerned about (no issue with moving your own draft to article space if you think it's suitable), it's the two declines before and after that move (and subsequent reversal). Primefac (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Kindly Requesting Article Cross checking before moving it to wiki

kindly help look at the just recreated and properly put together an article in my User edits on Limoblaze before I move it to become a valid article on Wikipedia. I would like you to help check that the article follows the proper guideline for creating a Wikipedia page. I have double-checked for copyright and all other guidelines and I love you help do a final check Thanks as I appreciate your prompt response MasterOliverTwist (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It's rather promotional (e.g. He has likewise made some amazing collaborations...). If the sources are good (I haven't looked) then that's the only major issue I can see. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yorkton Film Festival award pages

Primefac, Thank you for your updates on the various Yorkton Film Festival awards pages! :-) Best, LorriBrown (talk)

Not a problem! Primefac (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox award warns on preview

In this edit to Template:Infobox award, you put the description into label3 and data3. Those are later used for "Sponsored by", so when previewing a page that uses Infobox award (such as Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Actor), editors get a pair of warnings about more than one value for label3 and data3. It may be okay for the reader, since the last value (sponsored by) is the one used, and it appears you were deprecating description, but the edit warning is undesirable. Can you come up with a cleaner solution, perhaps put description into unused label13 and data13, or renumber? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's weird; I most definitely updated the numbering when I split the two params... thanks for the note, though I see someone else has fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your block on User:RedWarn

Hey PrimeFac, I noticed your block on User:RedWarn. The RedWarn team and I would like to use the account for abuse report management and for continuous integration. I've also asked CrazyBoy826, but my fellow developers inform me that they have attempted to contact him before to no avail. If CrazyBoy826 does not reply, do you mind resetting the account and sending a temporary password to incoming+redwarn-redwarn-web-19374445-issue-@incoming.gitlab.com? This way all the developers who have been approved by Ed will have access to the email. Thanks! cc @Ed6767, Chlod, and Prompt0259: ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 08:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to get the account usurped, which given the proclivities of the editor who created it shouldn't be an issue. Primefac (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

However, an account used by several members of a team would usually not be allowed, see WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Don't know whether in the specific case an exception would be applicable, but I suppose then such exception would need to be granted, meaning it is not a given from beforehand that such permission can be acquired. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on a parallel discussion it sounds like the account isn't actually "shared", but will be used to maintain the on-wiki script automatically. Primefac (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I was unaware of this discussion as I've only just woken up, but I'll probably use an old account I haven't edited on like Edx0 (talk · contribs) and request usurpation with that making myself the sole account owner. The idea of taking control of the account was mainly to swap the email for the RedWarn issues mail to make it easier for users to email in issues without needing a GitLab account. As for automatically updating script, I'd prefer to just host RedWarn on our existing Cloud VPS or Toolforge instances, and/or use those to update the script on-wiki if people still want to see a diff view. While Chlod will sort that, I will ensure the RedWarn account remains in my control and my control only and that I still review every code change as I have done for the past several months. Sorry for any confusion, Ed talk! 11:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

November

November

Thank you for being ready to serve on arbcom, - good luck! - I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge infobox Bach composition / musical composition: Is it right that it was merged without someone (or some bot) going over the Bach compositions to add the composer? I'm doing that now, because I find it horrible otherwise, but believe it should have been done before a merge, and not by me (who has two articles desperately waiting to be fixed for DYK, and a recent death waiting to be taken care of). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't even realize that would be an issue, to be honest. I've added in a switch to add Bach if |bwv= is also included (for example, at Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131). Primefac (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I noticed that suddenly by miracle things were alright again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, almost: J. S. Bach please, mind the space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In case you want to look at a an article related to "my question": L'ange de Nisida, - mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Figured it was like a prod

My bad. Though you could have let me know and I would have undone it myself. Still feel like redirection is a better alternative is what I meant then a speedy delete. Also User:BOZ (an admin) seemed to contest that idea too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Jhenderson777, I suppose I could have; honestly I was only going to undo the edit, but then realized that my summary wasn't as indicative of my motivations as I would have liked, which is why I added in a supplement on your talk page. If you think the page should be redirected instead of deleted, that would be something you're more than welcome to do even as a non-admin. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel that makes more sense really. That or if the revision is a bit different just maybe let it stay. Just was concerned that it was going to be speedy deleted if the tag stays there.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is the point of a speedy deletion tag (deletion, that is). Of course, G4 like every other tag is dependent on the patrolling administrator agreeing with the nominator, so it very well could be overturned. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the new content compared to what was previously deleted, and it was a complete rewrite - vastly different, and with much better sourcing. I don't believe that an admin with experience would delete it at speedy, so I will trust that to be handled correctly. It could be subject to AFD again, but we will see. BOZ (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was leaning that direction but also enough on the fence that I figured I'd let someone else review. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry for missing that Comparative dictionary of Catherine the Great was created by a sockpuppet. It skipped my mind to check when I saw that the topic was notable. I'm glad that you noticed. SL93 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I don't even remember how I came across that, and it's not always obvious a page was created by a sock (they're not all terrible pages!). Primefac (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Election

Good luck in the Arb election. You are a prime candidate and will make a great addition to the team. I have no doubt at all that you will get elected - oops, now I've jinked it ;-). SilkTork (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeez! Thanks :-) Primefac (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting references

User:PrimeBOT seems to be deleting reference definitions for references that are still in use in articles.

In this edit and this edit it removed about 10 reference definitions each, leaving each article littered with red errors reading "Cite error: The named reference {name} was invoked but never defined" in the references section.

Why is it doing this? Are humans meant to come in after this bot and clean up? I looked at the link in the edit summary the bot left and it's a jumble of different conversations ... but I couldn't find anything that suggested concensus about deleting large numbers of references from articles, and leaving them in a bad satate. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Side effect of the task, unfortunately. Based on a quick check those were the only two pages affected, though. For the record, there is a bot that fixes such orphaned refs. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So the idea is to have one bot that destroys references, and another bot that comes by and cleans up those problems? When do you expect the cleanup bot to come by and repair those articles? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that the idea was to destroy references, but there shouldn't have been any references in those tables, so their removal was entirely unexpected. The bot usually fixes such errors every few hours, but with only two pages to fix I can handle it. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should tables not contain references? (Or maybe you mean those two specific tables ... but I'd have the same question.)

Meanwhile, the bot has removed another in-use reference definition with this edit . Is there a way that it can be fixed to avoid causing referencing problems? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

To answer the first question, no, there shouldn't have been references in those comparison tables; they were just listing stats. To reply to the second, AWB does not match up removed named references with any potential left-over orphans, so if a reference is removed as part of an otherwise valid removal, it needs to be re-added either manually or by the bot. Until now, it would appear AnomieBOT has managed to keep up with mine, as I think you're the first person who has expressed concern about orphaned references. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Restoring edit at List of scientific misconduct incidents

One of my edits to that page (19:21, 10 October 2020) seems to have been included in your (correct) deletion/purge of BLP violations by another user. Please restore it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The only issue is that your diff actually removed content. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

My mistake - I incorrectly assumed that removing a removal would result in the content being restored. I of course should have checked the article prior to writing the above note. Sorry. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries :-) Primefac (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:TOS_Welcome

Im a bit confused why you deleted my template. The reason you provided was "(G6: Deleted to fix cut-and-paste page move)" I'm not sure how that applies here. Can you help me understand why you deleted my WIP template? Nithin^talk 03:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It was a direct copy of another template without attribution. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Good Article template merge question

Primefac, you closed the following Good Article-related templates on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_9 as merge to Template:User Good Articles earlier today: Template:User GA log and Template:User GAw. The problem with this merge is that back on November 16, Template:User Good Articles, itself one of the many related templates under consideration, was closed as merge to Template:User Good Articles2, so the merge target you gave is a template that's already merging with another.

Can you please go back to your close of these two and make the merge destination Template:User Good Articles2. It will make more sense, and will reflect the ultimate template that the two will end up using. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, though for what it's worth if all of these templates are being merged to a single location, that final location should be the "root" template (i.e. {{User Good Articles}}). Primefac (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for my slowness

I have only a phone at the moment. I was going to notify them after the fact. Or am i missing an easier way fo do it outside of just just pinging. I have nothing but the utmost respect for you as an admin and i didn't mean to do another "you should know better" incident with you. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that; I didn't really think about how long it might take someone on mobile to type out a message (though {{subst:AN notice}} is a quick and easy way to notify someone). Primefac (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I now know why so many comments are similar. Will try the template on Haleth now.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Eddy Hall Of Fame

Thank You Very Much. Changes make it a bit easier. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it :-) Primefac (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban question

Hi Primefac, you recently reverted an edit I made on the AfD page for the article Grounding (earthing) culture. I apologise as I did not realise it was included in the topic ban area i.e. I thought it counted as being an AfD page as opposed to a pseudoscience page. Looking at the topic ban page there are different types such as article space, discussion space, and a complete topic ban. Do you know what type of ban I have? The ban statement says any 'page' but I am not sure entirely what this means. It is an important question for me because I need to know whether I can use the Talk page for the article or communicate with other editors about it via personal Talk pages. I would ask the admin who administered the ban but I am currently appealing it and do not want to contact him directly while the appeal is in process. Thank you for your time. RickyBennison (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

RickyBennison, the short answer to your question is that according to WP:TBAN (final bullet point), an AFD about the prohibited topic is still part of the topic ban. In other words, going forward if the page involves pseudoscience etc you shouldn't be editing or commenting on that page/section/etc. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thank you for the information.RickyBennison (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Birds tasks

Hi Primefac: Back in August, you put a lock on {{Template:Birds task}} so that only template editors can modify it. This means that no "regular" member of WP:BIRD can update the list of tasks — which is a major pain in the butt. Did someone request this change because of persistent vandalism? Because I don't us remember ever having any issues with that. Any chance we can get you to downgrade the protection? Or do we all have to apply to be template editors? (Kinda surprised I'm not one, since I've created a number of them.) MeegsC (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest, not sure why I bumped it to tprot, given that in 2018 I downgraded at your request. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! We don't update it as often as we should, but it's good to be able to... ;) MeegsC (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

My sandbox page

Hi, I'm currently making a sandbox page with my own list of largest stars, and I want to add a column with type (RSG or AGB etc.), but I'm not sure how to accomplish this with the list of largest stars template you made. Could you make a custom template for me with that column (it should come after the radius column and before the method column) or add a feature where you can add extra columns to the template? Nussun05 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You could always create a new version in the template's sandbox and use that. The template itself is pretty simple, as it's just the standard template formatting on a single page. You should try it yourself, see if you can manage! Of course, happy to help if you're struggling. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding how the code works. Nussun05 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If you ignore the #switch functions, you can see that there are basically five lines

|-
| star name
| #switch for radius/radii calculations
| #switch for calculation type
| notes

If you wanted to add another column to the template, you would add a new line starting with a pipe on the line before the calculation type #switch; something along the lines of

|-
| star name
| #switch for radius/radii calculations
| type
| #switch for calculation type
| notes

You'll note that all of the | for the #switch statements are indented; I did this specifically so it was easier to see where the "blocks" of code lined up. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Primefac, I have redirected Template:Did you know nominations/King Ludwig → Template:Did you know nominations/King Ludwig Oak, because of incomplete/wrong naming caused due to an error while creating via DYK-helper yesterday. But, I find now {{Did you know nominations/King Ludwig Oak}} seems to redirect to Template:Did you know nominations/King Ludwig when clicked Review or comment link in the template. It should be redirected to Template:Did you know nominations/King Ludwig Oak. Please help to fix this. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 12:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Fixed. For future reference, you also need to update |nompage= of {{DYK nompage links}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Thanks a lot — Amkgp 💬 13:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This is only the 11th edit I've made in the past 4 1/2 years

and I'm doing so because I wanted to say that people like you are 100 percent of the reason I lost interest in this site and eventually left. I don't know why you feel the need, on a site loaded with pages on pages of useless trivia pertaining to momentarily-popular cultural properties that will be totally forgotten in a couple of decades at best, you decided to, unilaterally and with no discussion whatsoever, remove 1500 MB of information about solar eclipses both past and future that have been there quietly for over a decade and have sparked the creation of at least 100 articles about individual eclipses and other related information. Not to mention a small amount of personal insult over the amount of time it took noob-level programmer past me to write the software that translated NASA's tables into valid readable wikitext, but I digress. To be fair I kind of sucked at programming back then but whatever. In the past I would probably have gone ahead and undone your good work, despite its obvious and clear merits, but after years of experiencing actually horrible things in real life, I find that I just don't give enough of a crap anymore to argue with people like you, beyond this small message that I will freely acknowledge is incredibly petty. Anyway, just wanted to say keep fighting the good fight randomly removing marginally usable information from the internet and leaving all the useless trivia intact.

Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)