Jump to content

User talk:Primefac/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Task 30 request: Infobox television channel parameter renames

After a month and the conclusion of my RfC to redesign {{Infobox television channel}}, I have put the new version in template space to go live. I'd like to ask for a PrimeBOT run to change all these parameter names and remove the last 3 at the end. This will likely affect nearly every transclusion of this infobox.

Note that [#] means a number, 1 to 30 (the new infobox supports only as high as 10, but in the case of satellite the old one had as many as 30 satellite fields).

Before After
logofile logo
logosize logo_size
logoalt logo_alt
logocaption logo_caption
logo2 image
broadcast area area
picture format picture_format
timeshift names timeshift_service
key people key_people
sister names sister_channels
launch launch_date
launched launch_date
replaced names replaced
closed date closed_date
replaced by names replaced_by
former names former_names
availability note availability_note
terr serv [#] terr_serv_[#]
cable serv [#] cable_serv_[#]
sat serv [#] sat_serv_[#]
sat radio serv [#] satradio_serv_[#]
iptv serv [#] iptv_serv_[#]
online serv [#] online_serv_[#]
web website
share
share as of
share source

Please ping me when this is done as I have cleaner code I'd really like to place into template space instead of the one supporting dozens of legacy parameters to be renamed. Raymie (t • c) 03:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll try to get to this in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Raymie, I'm starting to run things, and I assume that all of the X chan # are going to be changed to X_chan_# similar the serv params. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Yes. The whole point is to remove parameter names with spaces. Raymie (t • c) 17:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Error in the bot run: the parameter is not |sat_radio_serv_1= but |satradio_serv_1= (notice one fewer underscore). Raymie (t • c) 21:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Misread the list above; fixed in my code. Primefac (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be done. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Template Barnstar
Thank you for assisting (with PrimeBOT) in the cleaning up of so many radio and TV infoboxes in the last several months. This has been a very large project touching some 30,000 pages and would not be possible without you! Raymie (t • c) 18:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Always happy to help when I can. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Primefac,

Thank you for restoring my mistaken deletions. I tried out batch deletion for the first time after all of these years and I clearly didn't do it correctly. I've been backtracking, correcting any errors I made and found you fixed some of them. Thanks for being so quick. Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I seem to be a magnet for finding (or being the target of) misclicks these days! Primefac (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That blocked user in Meitei article

Looks like Venmtlucha is a sock of User:Luwanglinux, whom you blocked yesterday. This new user restored the highly unreliable "puya" mythological source again. Also notice the similar tone of writing here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup. Thanks for restoring that article to the last stable version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Email

Hey—thanks so much for protecting the Email article. It, like several others, seems to attract a lot of mischief, and keeping it clean wastes a lot of time. We appreciate it! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 19:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
that reminds me, I sent an email to you a few minutes ago :p —usernamekiran (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry we missed you!

We tried to deliver your order of database reports, but you weren't home. Your package is available for pickup at https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/48632 and https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/48634. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Items and delivery as described, would purchase again. A+. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

OTRS

I guess you're an OTRS volunteer and can help me with some images that I have uploaded on the Commons. The issue is that I'm the owner of images and having their rights but they're clicked/captured by a friend of mine and have been uploaded as "own work". Any help about how can I confirm that I'm the one having the rights? All these images are being used at Meta:Dehalvi Wikimedia User Group/Meetups/Urdu Wikipedia workshop in collaboration with Wikipedia SWASTHA Regards. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If your friend took the pictures, they hold the copyright unless they specifically signed it over to you. They are the ones that will need to send in an OTRS release form. Primefac (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, I get it. So my friend will need to mail the OTRS and cc me there as well saying that the rights have been signed over to me? ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
If they are the one that uploaded the image, then it is their own work, and all they will need to do is amend their uploaded page to say that they took the photograph and signed it over to you after releasing it under CC. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, That's where I get into the problem because I uploaded all these image "as my own work". How can these be amended? ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, misread the upload info. In that case, they will need to send in a release for it, and you'll need to amend the image's info to say that they took it but you have the copyrights. Primefac (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted page Tunde Odunlade (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)

Hello Primefac The page in question was created using my own words and paraphrasing for the article. I do not know why the entire article was deleted but you could have least mention the issue on the page's discussion page. Jesu-loba (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jesu-loba, while your intention may have been to write the text in your own words, quite simply you did not; if I remove the text that is nearly word-for-word copied from other sources, one is left with the lead sentence, one unsourced sentence, and his list of exhibitions; at that point there's just no reason to keep the article. I am willing to restore a trimmed version of the page to the Draft space so that you can still have the references and formatting should you choose to continue developing the page. Primefac (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, I believe i sourced information mainly from the artist's profile and not the stated website but you can restore the trimmed version so as to develop it further. Thanks! -Jesu-loba (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC))
Done, page moved to Draft:Tunde Odunlade. Regardless of where you get your information, please make sure it is in your own words. One way I have found that helps with this issue is to make a bulleted list of relevant facts, which can then be expanded without directly looking at and being unduly influenced by the sources and potentially copying them. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Primefac,This was what i did before adding more information to the page, I also noticed that the biography and the full name of the artist was taken out. These details were researched by me and not copied, his name, place of birth and origin.- Jesu-loba (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There is no prohibition on re-adding the content, just make sure it's not directly copied from elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Daedalus Lift & Access Equipments

Mind salting this page? By my count it's been speedied twice and AfDed once recently. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it can't hurt. They can take it to AFC if they really want. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Portugal national under-15 football team

Hi. Sorry but I don't understand why you deleted the page "Portugal national under-15 football team", when I just copied the intro from "Portugal national under-17 football team" and adapted its starting paragraph for the "under-15" page. Instead of deleting "under-15", I could have easily rewritten the copyrighted phrase. Shouldn't the "under-17" page be deleted too then? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that it was reverse copyvio. I've restored the page. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks :). I wish you a nice day. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Moshé Zwarts new page

Hi Primefac, I want to create a page about the Dutch architect Moshé Zwarts. When i was in the process of creating the page, it said that a page with the same title ('Moshé Zwarts') has been made before and was deleted by you. Why was it deleted and is there anything in particular that i should take into consideration when publishing the new page? I've tried to write an article with many different independent references, but I haven't uploaded it yet because it said i should contact you first (because you deleted the previous page). I'm relatively new to writing wikipedia pages... Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelier Orlando (talk • contribs) 14:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The page was deleted because it contained material copied directly from previously-published online sources. When writing a page everything should be in your own words. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Archives template

Hello, I noticed that you updated the Archives template to add the banner style by just adding a large if statement around the template and choosing between the two styles. As you described it as “smash ‘em together”. I was just wondering if instead of doing that use |large= to get the same effect. Since I proposed what you did there and that was suggested. I have attempted such on the sandbox and that can be seen on the testcases at the bottom with an overview of the changes here. I was just wondering on your opinion, thanks. Terasail II[Talk] 01:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not see your work on the merger - if your solution is more elegant and you have support for it, then by all means get it implemented. I would suggest, however, that since |banner= has been implemented, you'll want to change your sandboxing from |large=. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Page Moving

I have one of those situations... Hurricane Delta (2020) should be at Hurricane Delta as it is the only hurricane-force incarnation of the name. This is how it was done for Hurricane Beryl despite the numerous usages of Tropical Storm Beryl. I would appreciate it if you could delete the redirect and move the page. NoahTalk 01:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, appears someone else did this as I was typing up my comment here. NoahTalk 01:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Restoring the Nickelodeon co-productions template

Can you please recreate the Nickelodeon co-productions template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8904:EA50:813C:A109:A7B1:4BA4 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do you feel that it should be undeleted? There was unanimous consensus to delete back in January. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My Userpage

Did I not just see you destroy my userpage? You literally ruined the userboxes. If I want to put that stuff, I can, now please don't edit it like that again. Talk ↔️ Contribs 15:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not see the | in the code; I have re-added it. I would, however, think about what I removed, and why I might have removed it, before re-adding it. Again, apologies for messing up your formatting. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: All good, I just heed that sometimes as vandalism but as I took a clsoer look into what you were trying to fix/remove I saw the reason why. I still have a question, why can't I put my age? Talk ↔️ Contribs 15:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It's mostly a matter of keeping certain private information, well, private. Just like you wouldn't go putting your full name and address on some random website (because who knows what people could do with that), there are things you should mainly keep to yourself. It's a safety thing, mostly, and we (the Oversight team) tend to remove such information first because often folks don't understand the implications of what they're doing. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks, when I read the article you put on for helping younger wiki users, I understand why you deleted some of my profile's userboxes. You were just simply enforcing rules, and I respect that. Not just that, you were so civil explaining yourself! We need more people like you! :) Toad62 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Inhyeon wanghu jeon might not have been a copyvio

Also pinging User:Pldx1 who accepted the draft. I think that the article at [1] is a copy of our Wikipedia article. That page is sadly not in Internet Archive, so I can't show concrete proof, but formatting (reference section at the bottom) is Wiki style. Further, that draft is from a series created by a SPA that also created Draft:Seo Joon-hwan that in turn has been replicated at the same website: [2]. And here it is clear this is a copy from us, since they copied our formatting style etc. So if they copied one article, I think it stands to reason they copied the other one too. Most likely, the (unfortunately inactive) editor who submitted those articles 'gave' them at the same time to us and this Korean project, maybe it was a project of that https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/ page (organization behind it) in the first place (where they published some articles on English Wikipedia and then mirrored them on their own pages). (If you reply here, please Echo me, TIA). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that a physical book? I'm not seeing any text on that page, nor any way to view it. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Doesn't this need to be salted after deletion? * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, but if it does it'll pop on my watchlist and I will salt. Primefac (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Agriculture

Perfect Anelisiwe sibonda (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox settlement wrappers

I read your closing statement at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_21#Template:Infobox_Israel_municipality, where you wrote that there's consensus against wrappers of {{infobox settlement}}. Well, yes – there certainly is that sort of consensus among the small group of editors who dedicate much of their wiki time to infobox consolidation and !voting in TfDs. But if you compare this group with the set of Canadian editors who have opposed the merging of the Canadian wrappers + the Australian editors who are against the merge of the Australian wrappers + the British..., etc, you'll get a group of editors, at least an order of magnitude larger, where the consensus is of a rather different kind. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I've commented on/clarified my close; while you are correct that there are many opposed to these actions (in some small part, that includes me) there are a very small number of templates that haven't been deleted, indicating that there is a fairly clear consensus against it (even if it just means "a consensus among editors who comment at TFD about infobox wrappers"). Thus, the recommendation to open the discussion up further and move the venue away from the somewhat-insular TFD. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Most IS wrappers are scrapped, especially low volume ones. The close reflects that reality. The British one isn't a wrapper, and it has a reason to stay, because it's wildly incompatible with IS at present. It was nominated once in the last decade, and it wasn't even close. The Australian one however is a joke, and completely inconsistent with infobox guidance; it should be promptly deleted. Its continued existence is not based on any technical or visual merits, but a result of procedural craft.
I do feel this wrapper shouldn't have been scrapped yet, but consensus is what it is. A regular problem I feel at TfD is that valuable expert input is required on some templates to achieve 'the correct result'. But the editors who would have useful comments sometimes refrain from making them (perhaps due to lack of confidence in their comments, lack of time to fully vet, or just not wanting to get involved in controversy). Instead, editors who don't spend the time vetting do comment. The result is that TfD results sometimes don't represent what is best for the community. Instead either vocal meritless votes, or no quorums due to complexity. This is visible in a couple of active TfDs right now. This issue is in both directions, keep and delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
No kidding; a lot of these discussions hinge on the "well it's difficult so we shouldn't do it because it will be hard" argument, which is nonsense. Hell, I'm getting hammered on a TFD nomination right now where I spent a day making sure everything could be demonstrated as working perfectly, and there is still opposition.
I do realize there are flaws in the process, which is unfortunate, but there's only so far a closer can go to stretch the weight of arguments; I can relist a unanimous-delete discussion where the previous one was a unanimous keep because they contradict each other and need further input, or keep the Canada template because of a heavy consensus in that particular discussion (despite going against the precedent of a dozen similar wrappers), but I can't always go against the consensus just because the template target isn't ideal; if we had to wait for every target to be perfect, we'd never close any TFDs. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that there have often been silly arguments on both sides of the debate. I also do agree with the benefits of some sort of infobox consolidation for places (though not necessarily the one that is being done here). My own perspective is that of a user who sometime edits articles about settlements. I don't see the current system as fit for purpose: {{infobox settlement}} is a wonderful metatemplate, but using it directly in articles results in bloated code (which makes it more difficult to create new instances of an infobox or to edit existing ones), and shifts a lot of formatting and linking decisions onto individual instances of the template (which leads to inconsistent layout between articles, and sub-optimal linking, both of which are now impossible to correct because of the scale involved). I believe that a lot of long-term problems in the India-Pakistan area could be solved if we had a tailored instance of the infobox template (whether as a wrapper or something else), but I would never put in the effort into that, because it's almost guaranteed that the new infobox would get picked up by the regulars, sent to TfD and unanimously voted into deletion because "all other countries in Asia use infobox settlement". – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Right. This is why I suggested a discussion outside of the TFD space; as demonstrated by the Canada folks, they are very much on top of updates and maintenance of their wrapper, but if they hadn't been notified or noticed the TFD their infobox would likely have been deleted as well.
As I have said elsewhere, wrappers can be extremely useful, and I'm finding more and more as I do these settlement wrapper substs that certain ones really should be kept as wrappers. There is definitely a dichotomy between TFD regulars and "editors at large", so one would need to break that dynamic to affect real change. In other words, if a deletion discussion participant can point to a CENT-advertised RFC saying "these sorts of wrappers should be kept", it has much stronger weight than just "we should consolidate wrappers" (and this, basically, is what saved Canada, because they did have a heavily-attended discussion to point to). Primefac (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't help but laugh at your plight, at this point, sorry! It was a mixture of confusing/unfortunate, but it's heading towards slightly amusing now. Heck, even I feel gaslighted reading the discussion, and I don't even have anything to do with the nomination. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
If anything it's keeping the creative juices flowing, because copy/pasting "have you read the nomination?" a dozen times would get tedious, and I'm pretty sure vociferous swearing wouldn't help my cause... so instead I find creative ways to ask people if they really are that blind.
I will say, I'm glad I've turned a few opinions with my replies. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox person is filling up again

Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters has 14k pages in it. I've moved out the home_town stuff, but it's still way too big. Some of this is previous hard deprecations (residence, weight, salary, etc), some common misspellings of a real param, and others just totally made up params ([3]). I'm wondering if the general authorisation for IP on task 29, or 30, might allow you to clean up some of the clearer cases to make the cat manageable again? I can also split out the deprecated params into separate tracking cats (as I've done for home_town), and I think that would also do the trick, if there's a concern some of the information should still be retained (even though it doesn't show), I guess in case consensus changes or something. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can look into it. No guarantees if the bulk is garbage, but if there are any major trends for deprecated or just misused params, I can deal with those. Primefac (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The vast majority, about 10,000 of the 14,000, appear to be |residence=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
So it looks like the following are problematic, based on the TemplateData linked above:
  • residence (~12000)
  • label_name (~500)
  • criminal_charge (~500)
  • salary (~400)
  • number_of_films (~300)
  • nickname (~250)
  • domesticpartner (~200)
  • office (~200)
  • language (~175)
  • organization (~85)
  • Spouse (~50) → spouse
  • genre (~50)
  • Children (~50) → children
  • Name (~50) → name
  • Residence (~40)
  • Nationality (~35)
  • Origin (~30)
  • nocat_wdimage (~25)
  • Height (~25) → height
  • other_name (~25)
  • house (~20)
  • field (~20)
  • Occupation (~20)
  • Religion (~20)
  • label (~20)
There are a bunch with <20 hits, but at that point I'm at diminishing returns because there are more parameters than reasonable (there are ~40 params with 10-20 uses). I've marked the ones above that need just a name change, though I don't know the template very well so I might have missed some. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks good - thanks both. Note on |criminal_charge=: it is actually recognised by the template (as an alias of |criminal_charges=). I have added it to the TemplateData. Re residence, do we want to scrap it with bot, or just move it out into a separate tracking category? I think it may depend on if there's salvageable information in that param that should perhaps be moved into the article body (if not already there), but at the same time not sure it matters. Don't mind either way, just raising the point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess it depends on why it was removed - if it was "too vague" and it was split into multiple parameters, then yes, just chuck it into its own category. If the intent was to remove that information entirely (much like religion, nationality, and ethnicity) then it can just be removed. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also note that |weight= is also hard deprecated and removed (1,055 usages) 1 year ago. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to check the deprecated params. Listed below:
  • home_town (~5300)
  • child (~1000)
  • weight (~1000)
Majority of the |child= calls are "yes", which I assume means they're mistaking it for |embed=? Or would it be because they're saying "yes, they have at least one child"? Primefac (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems both |child= and |embed= are supported aliases. Both are deprecated, I presume in the sense of "you probably shouldn't be using this". In that literal sense of deprecated I think there's maybe nothing bot needs to do currently, but the question is still an interesting one. Since the param is liable to misuse with |children=, I think it may be a neat idea to either remove the alias in favour of just |embed=, or setup a tracking cat where the value isn't "yes", to at least catch some cases. FWIW, I think a bot could make sense of valid usages (if it's not actually nested within another template, it's not really an 'embed', hence the usage is likely the 2nd meaning you list). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on the TemplateData report there are about 20 uses that aren't |child=yes, so it's easy enough to go through manually and change those. Afterwards, if child is deprecated it might as well be removed to avoid any further confusion. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as |child= goes, I'm not going to deal with it without a clear consensus (since it is a valid param, and is listed in the param check as such). I'll hit up the rest of these soonish. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Jordan

I was about to add ARBPIA and noticed I'm prohibited from adding it. The recent edits were mainly ARBPIA violations and the post-Independence section is full of relevant stuff, and the foreign relations section is also. Maybe I need to go to ARCA. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Doug, I'm going to need a lot more context here if you're asking me anything specifically; I have no idea what you're talking about. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't add any links. Talk:Jordan has the Arbitration decision. Here are recent edits[4] with several recent ones which are ARBPIA violations.
This bit of the foreign relations is relevant:" Jordan views an independent Palestinian state with the 1967 borders, as part of the two-state solution and of supreme national interest.[157] The ruling Hashemite dynasty has had custodianship over holy sites in Jerusalem since 1924, a position re-inforced in the Israel–Jordan peace treaty. Turmoil in Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque between Israelis and Palestinians created tensions between Jordan and Israel concerning the former's role in protecting the Muslim and Christian sites in Jerusalem." And at least half of the section on its post-independence history. I hope that helps. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I think ARCA is a good idea. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Vaynol cattle

I'm confused about why you keep deleting my edit concerning horns on female vaynol cattle? I'm new to this so not sure what is the most appropriate way to contact you to discuss further. Female Vayno cattle do naturally grow horns - they are often removed. The RBST website does not say females have horns as I think you suggested. There is a picture of a female with horns suckling it's calf on the RBST website. Could you give me what you feel is a reference stating female Vaynol cattle don't have horns? I have a long experience of cattle in North Wales and it was seeing this error about female Vaynol cattle that prompted me to register to make the edit. It is not correct to state that female Vaynol Cattle don't have horns. Carrog897 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Carrog897, the issue is that we have a source that claims females do not have horns. We would need a reliable source that says both male and females have horns in order to start a discussion about which one is correct. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Could you point me to the reference that says Vaynol females do have horns as I guarantee there will be a problem with it and we can discuss that when Ivve checked the source? Have you had a chance to look at the RBST website and their Vaynol Cattle page? Clearly they do NOT suggest females don't have horns and you will be able to see the picture I have mentioned before showing a Vaynol Female with very large horns and her calf drinking milk from her udder. Clearly they have horns. I am very keen for you to actually show me the source that says Vaynol Cattle females don't have horns.

Best wishes Carrog Carrog897 (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's reference #6. I had originally conflated it with ref #4, and I'm not sure it's all that reliable. I've removed the reference and the statement as being unsourced (the absence of info etc). Primefac (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Review

Hello! Thank you so much for your time in reviewing the draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kim_Myung_Jun. We already edited it again and replaced the sources as per your comment. When you have time, just wondering if you can review it again please? Thank you so much again. Aichris (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks a lot better! I tend to not re-review drafts (mainly to avoid bias) and let a different reviewer take a look at it, but good luck! Primefac (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I see. Thank you so much. I hope it can reviewed by another reviewer soon. Have a great day! Aichris (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about TFD

Why could Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Template:Catalan name NOT be relisted? -St3095 (?) 15:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not that it cannot or should not be relisted, but as a participant in the discussion you should not be performing any "administrative"-type actions (per WP:INVOLVED). Primefac (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: How can I relist another discussions? -St3095 (?) 15:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If you're thinking about getting involved in XFD, I would suggest installing the WP:XFDcloser gadget, which automates a large amount of the process (and saves you having to learn all of the rules for the different venues). I would also definitely recommend reading through WP:NAC, as it has some pretty good advice about when (and when not) to close a discussion as a non-admin. My talk page is always open if you have questions about any of the steps/processes. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: I've installed the gadget by ticking XFDcloser on Special:Preferences § Gadgets. -St3095 (?) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Great. You still shouldn't be relisting discussions in which you've participated. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thanks. -St3095 (?) 10:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello Primefac. This is Tryme99. How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TryMe99 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks for asking. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT infobox issue

For Aloysio de Andrade Faria, the bot changed the networth field from "US$1.7" to "US .7" billion. Have fixed it, but it is reasonable to suppose that this is not the only article affected. Edwardx (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell. This is an AWB error that was supposed to be fixed by now. I will go through the edit log for this run and see if there are any others that need fixing. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Same problem with Allan Gray (investor), so it is widespread. Edwardx (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Not really widespread, I'm only seeing about 10 potential cases. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: I've fixed the affected pages and worked out a patch for the issue. Thanks again for the note. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt attention. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT Task 30

Hello, there appears to be a problem with performing Task 30 in this edit. A $1 is added to the start of a reference date field. Keith D (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

A GIGO issue, but I've built in a workaround. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot is also removing ref tags, diffs - Samuel J. Palmisano, Matthew Gravelle, Mary Connealy, Janae Kroc, William D. Cohan (which wrecks the infobox formatting), and removing list-defined references without removing the corresponding ref in the references section, diffs - Godfrey Cambridge, Antonio Frasconi, Dave Hughes (producer), Antonio Frasconi, plus a few others I've fixed. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as the first issue, the last time it happened I was told (upon asking those more knowledgeable than I) that this was an unsolvable GIGO issue. I think I might have to find a way to prove them wrong since it keeps happening. As far as the second issue, AWB has (as far as I'm aware) no way of telling if a removed named reference was the only instance thus causing an error. Will look into that further.
For both instances, though, as soon as I'm back at my main machine later today I will look through the changelog from the bot run and find/fix the broken pages. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with disruptive IP

Hey, can you help me out? User talk:73.251.23.37 has been going around and changing the cast order on many comic related season articles. They don't use edit summaries, don't use the talk page and don't seem to care. Cleaning after them is very time consuming. --Gonnym (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --Gonnym (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your work with G12 deletions! Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 21:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Name of the infobox

Hello. Thanks for merging the templates I submitted. I think the infobox should be called "Infobox papal document" instead of "papal proclamation", like in the French and Italian WP ("Document pontifical", "Documento papale"). Also, I advise that you add a "type" parameter, so that one can type the type of document (motu proprio, Apostolic constitution, etc.). Veverve (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you add "Motu proprio" to the types? it is a type of document, see also Motu proprio. Veverve (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure. You're welcome to continue making changes and improvements as you see fit. I would also suggest updating the /doc, in particular the TemplateData, to reflect recent changes to the template. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
My coding skills are very much below average, so I cannot fix complicated issues. Therefore, I am reporting to you that there is a problem with {{{signature hour}}}, e.g. see the value at "Signature date" at Evangelii gaudium. Veverve (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough! Always happy to help out when asked. I'll note that the signature hour issue seems to have fixed itself (likely a cache issue). Primefac (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the template as well as the documentation. However, the language of the title along with its translation does not display anymore. Could you help once again? Veverve (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the only thing you changed in the template itself was the TemplateData (which should be in the /doc subpage). What are you trying to change in the template itself? Primefac (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to add the aliases in the Template data. It appears the new parameters I used (to put the unclear ones as aliases) do not display. I believe the template data needs to be on the template page, as otherwise the parameters marked as suggested or required are not displayed once the template is inserted using the WP editor interface. Veverve (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The aliases, based on Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial, are not documented in a separate parameter object. Basically, this means that while the TemplateData recognizes them as valid parameters, they won't show up on the parameter list. This kinda makes sense, if you think about it; you really only want one "main" parameter, with the alternates being for things like alternate spellings (color/colour) or old/deprecated uses (like removing "title" in favour of "name"). Primefac (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
To make it clear: I wanted some parameters to show up directly when inserted, e.g. the Infobox film has "Image file", etc. presented directly to the user as soon as "add template" is pressed. This is what I wanted for some parameters of the Papal document infobox. Apparently, I just needed to wait if I put the TemplateData on the doc page, and those parameters would show up the way I want. Sorry.
As for the bug, I decided to use cleared names for the parameters, while keeping the former parameters as aliases in order not to break the infoboxes. All the new parameters seem to work well apart from the ones for the laguage of the title and its translation. I have been trying to find where the error in the code is, but to no avail: instead of displaying "[language] for '[translation of the title]' ", it shows nothing. Veverve (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Which page(s) are you seeing this on? Primefac (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
At Template:Infobox papal document/doc in the infobox used as an example (Spe salvi). A "Latin for 'Saved in Hope' " should be displayed, e.g. like in the infobox here which still uses the "translation" and "language" parameters instead of the new "title language" and "translation of title". Veverve (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The /doc is using |title language=, but the template takes either |language= or |language of title=. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, that is why... sorry for bothering you for such a simple fix! Veverve (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
No worries, better a simple fix than something irreparable! Primefac (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I am no expert, but is it normal that the bug I told you about ({{{signature hour}}} being there) still persists on some pages, e.g. here, here? Veverve (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's likely a cache issue on your end; I don't see it. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

RfA closure

Hi - just a heads-up, my watchlist still has the 'there is an RfA going on' banner at the top. I don't know what triggers that, just wondered if you'd forgotten to tick a box when you closed JFW's one. Ignore me if this is something a bot sorts out in its own good time, just hadn't noticed that happening before. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a bot thing. If it doesn't clear up in a few hours I'll switch things out manually. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

your default bad-faith assumptions

Re your is there a demonstrated issue or concern (other than the hypothetical "but what ifs") being posted over at User talk:Kanashimi.

Drop the bad-faith attitude, Primefac. I'm getting tired of having to ask you to treat other editors with the respect they deserve. You are downplaying and dismissing the concern presented here for no good reason. How about instead assuming an editor takes the time for a good reason, huh? CapnZapp (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp, I am a member of the Bot Approvals Group. A concern was raised about a long-running bot task, and I was responding in that capacity. There are always concerns about bot tasks like this, and one of the things that BAG members need to do is determine which concerns are valid and which are "worst case" or (as I said in the above quote) hypothetical. If the sorts of issues you raised were happening on a regular (i.e. weekly or even monthly) basis, then there would be a reasonable call to reevaluate some of the parameters. Until that is determined, though, the concern is still purely philosophical in nature.
As a minor point, both Michael Bednarek and I asked the same question, may I ask why he isn't receiving a similar message to this one? Primefac (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. Let me first answer with a partial solution. Can you perceive any difference in tone and attitude between CapnZapp: Can you point to an example of the situation you describe? and is there a demonstrated issue or concern (other than the hypothetical "but what ifs") being posted? I'm going to assume "no" and will then explain fully, but feel free to surprise me. CapnZapp (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Your reply indicates that you've already made up your mind, which means my answer is irrelevant, so I shall await your explanation. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

RFCN close question

Hi Primefac, your comment/close at WP:RFCN about big bold letters saying not to post inactive accounts has me puzzled. Where does it state that? I see no bold lettering stating such a thing on that page & your close is the first on the page to mention the word "active". I checked the edit notice and page source comments as well without success. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The first bolded line is Do NOT post here if:, which says users shouldn't be listed if they haven't made any recent edits. I actually didn't notice this until I went to double-check the closing instructions and saw that one of the reasons for a close is The user in question has no recent edits.... I've added in that first quote to my close as an addendum. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 01:12:53, 26 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Brownypaul87



Hi, just trying to find validation for changing a citation that was made prior to a secondary source who changed mine after it was published. My intention is not to self-promote, but to update pages with relevant, new information as it comes into us, usually hours before anyone else. This other site is doing the exact same thing and they're allowed to because the publisher has a different username, yet they're still the writer of said article, which in turn is self-promoting and erasing other submissions which were up long before theirs? It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair if the information was already supplied hours before theirs!

Brownypaul87 (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Brownypaul87, I'll be honest, I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to, or how you think I can help. The page you mention was deleted in mid-2018, and I don't really remember any of the details about it. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Page removal request

Dear Primefac,

I have coordinated with the original owner of the page User:Mray and she would now like it deleted. Recall the previous interaction from [[5]]. However, she no longer has access to her account information. Please let me know how to proceed. I can pass along a way to get in touch with her if needed.

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilde (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If she can find some way of emailing me from an account that would indicate it is her, then please have her do so. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
What is an email address where she can reach you? If desired, you can reach me at mwilde@gmail.com Mwilde (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
My gmail is primefacwiki. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with promotionalism and advertising in the draft

Hi Primefac,

This is regarding the Draft:Varija_Bajaj. Need your help to identify the factors that are indicating promotionalism and advertising in the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mngulati (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Right now, there aren't any, because I removed them, but there were a bunch of phrases like "loves to break away from the mundane" and "...is a social revolt against "the discrimination"..." were not neutral. As I said in my decline, I think there's enough in the references to demonstrate notability, but the text mainly needs to be re-added without the flowery language and editorializing. For example, I would have written that second example sentence something along the lines of Her "Vrindavan" collection premiered at India Runway Week in <year>. It was designed to counter the stigmas attached to widows. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

AFC & username change

Hi and sorry to bother you here. I had my username changed and WP doesn't recognize me on AFC. My former username was Elie plus. Can you help with this? Thanks ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

May I ask what happened to 99% of the content on this page? I understand there was some unnecessary data there, but almost everything is gone. I just don't want the page getting deleted because someone said I didn't put enough content on it or something. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Our WP:BLP policy says that unsourced content about an individual should be removed. While Facebook can be used for uncontroversial information about a subject, the links have to actually provide verification of the information (for example, the DOB is not actually in the FB reference provided for verification). IMDb is not a reliable source that can be used. Thus, after removing the FB sources that were either not supporting the content or being used for non-personal information, I removed anything that didn't have a reference. You are of course welcome to add back in content, though I would highly suggest using something other than her personal Facebook page.
As far as notability and potential deletion goes, even with dozens of Facebook references notability would not be established; our notability guidelines state that a person needs to have multiple, non-trivial sources that talk about the subject in detail. If you add more sources of this nature, of course, then notability might be better established and the chances of deletion decrease. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding album genre

Hi Primefac, hope all is well. So I added in a genre (hip hop) on Paris which was backed up by a source that also reviewed the album but another user is claiming it’s wrong. They opened a discussion on the albums page and I have since them provided three more sources that backs up the claim but they aren’t fully understanding that. Who knows I may be wrong. But is there any way you can look and review the source I provided and read through the discussion and share your thoughts? It would be greatly appreciated since we are the only once’s bickering back and forth about the genre.

Thank you’ Pillowdelight (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It looks like an RFC to settle the matter has been started in the intervening time, but here is what I probably would have written:
If you are in a dispute with another editor and neither can convince the other that they are "right", then either asking for a third opinion or posting at the dispute resolution noticeboard would be the way(s) to go - it will get uninvolved editor(s) to comment on the issue and hopefully break the deadlock. Of course, an RFC as done by the other editor is also a valid (if somewhat lengthy/unnecessary) way of also getting those uninvolved editors to weigh in on the issue. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Al Imran Niloy this article still reviewing

Hi, i created a article and you unsubmit my Article and say's edit it properly and i edit and add more biography with reference. Can you review my Article? And thst my hardest work. Thank you Warmthain (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to not review drafts on request. However, you still need to add more reliable sources that talk about Niloy in detail - right now you've only got Humtalk's own page and two pages about Humtalk, which only briefly discuss Niloy. Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand i will edit more no problems thanks for your support Warmthain (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why did you merge the eclipse lists?

This was effectively a mass deletion yet I can't find any discussion on the topic. If there was, I would like to know. Thanks. Serendipodous 20:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It did nothing more than duplicate the information on NASA's website. It makes much more sense to provide a summary of such information in a way that allows a reader to compare it to other centuries. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC) (note: original message was regarding List of 22nd-century lunar eclipses, which was changed during an edit conflict)
Primefac Well then, should we not include links to the complete lists? Serendipodous 20:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Quantum operator

Hi Primefac, I saw that you speedily deleted the page Quantum operator as a "implausible redirect" and was wondering why. I want to redirect the page to Operator (physics)#Operators in quantum mechanics as quantum operator is a term and is less awkward than the other terms at our disposal. Is that what it redirected to before? If so, can I know why that is not a good redirect? Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a user who created hundreds of pointless/useless redirects, and it was decided that any created with zero incoming links would be deleted, along with many other pages created by them. I wouldn't treat its recreation as problematic; merely erasing the edits of a single user. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this promotionalism?

I would like your opinion regarding WP:PROMOTION on recent edits at Amy Shark (see also the discussion of those edits at its talkpage). Two users are adding material citing a website, Wall of Sound, which is owned, edited and written by Paul "Browny" Brown.

@Brownypaul87: has acknowledged their connection to Wall of Sound both on their user page and at Amy Shark's talkpage. They have not indicated whether they are paid contributors. I see from Brownypaul87's talkpage and your own talkpage, above, that the user attempted to create a wp article about Paul "Browny" Brown but it was declined back in 2017, by you, and the draft lapsed in the following year. I noticed that almost all of the users edits at wp are adding a reference from Wall of Sound which gives its author as brownypaul. I believe this is using wp to promote their website, the discussion at Amy Shark's talkpage verifies this.

@106.71.249.83: has also edited Amy Shark and returned material originally written by the first user after I had deleted it. Now that second user is adding new material, but again using Wall of Sound and identifying brownypaul as the author at that website.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are very busy. I'll try another way.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in replying, been a busy few days. I'll be honest, I don't do much work in the field of COI or PAID editing, so you might want to try WP:COIN or WP:BLPN if you have concerns about a COI editor or a questionable source (respectively). Primefac (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
No need to apologise. I certainly understand. I've asked someone else for a second opinion before deciding whether to take it further. Thanks for you reply here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My Snark

Hi there. I was annoyed when I tried to do good and was blocked by bureaucracy. I didn't have time to search the archives as to why the use of the script is linked to active participants, but I just found your own questioning of it here. Other than User:Kudpung not wanting to be lulled into a false sense of security of too many reviewers, I really still don't see the point of it. I can understand removing editors who haven't edited at all for 6 months, but active editors who just haven't been in this one particular part of Wikipedia shouldn't be blocked when they do want to help. So, I'm sort of apologising for the snark, but sort of still annoyed by it. If you have scripts or other methods of seeing who is active or not, surely they could instead be used to do a count of active reviewers without blocking those busy elsewhere. Thanks for reinstating me. I'm now blocked by a salted name for moving the draft article. Nothing is ever easy. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I can imagine such a situation to be rather annoying. To be honest, I'm not really sure why you ended up on the inactive list, since it doesn't look like you recently hit any of the inactivity requirements (and you're on the oldest version of said list). As far as restricting access, that's to make sure the folks moving pages actually have some idea of how to do a review, what they're looking for, etc; otherwise, we'd end up with every ESL/CIR editor randomly moving garbage pages simply because they "want to help out".
As far as the salted page goes, I think I dropped the protection on the right page - looks like a serial sock was creating the page under just about every alias they could find. If you do have troubles like that in the future, feel free to drop a note here, WT:AFC, or WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Coming out of retirement to comment because I was pinged: FWIW, The-Pope, New Page Patrol has the same problem but much, much worse. When I rekindled the system 4 years ago there was an initial spurt of interest, a vibrant community of reviewers developed at the talk page and a backlog of 17,000 pages was brought down to just 300 pages. However, it now hovers around 10,000 and from about 800 rights holders very, very few are doing anything much, if at all, and the majority of the work seems to be done recently by just one reviewer who has apparently returned to help out after a long Wikibreak. For some reason they have stopped sending out their 2-monthly newsletter, so only the handful of regulars at their talk page know what's going on. The AfC could do with a newsletter being sent occasionally, but AFAIK, apart from Primefac who still keeps an eye on things, AfC doesn't even have any de facto coordinators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with another disruptive IP

The talk page of User talk:69.126.57.216 is full of user warnings. Look at the kind of edits he's been doing at The Voice (American season 16), which he reverts back to when attempting to fix. --Gonnym (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they stopped about two hours ago, but I'll keep an eye on 'em until I go to bed and take action if necessary. Will also check back in the AM to see if they need a block. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I came across Category:Pages using ISBN magic links and saw that PrimeBot is mentioned as working on clearing that category. Is that task still working? --Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Could I still run it? Yes. I haven't run it since '17, though. I vaguely recall that we were only going to remove the magic links in the article space. I guess I could spin it up again if necessary. Is MLB not operating any more? Primefac (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems it is. Didn't check if all the links were not in mainspace, but probably most are not I guess which. --Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Enrolment ref enquiry

Hey Primefac, hope you're well, been a while. I can see you added enrolment_ref, students_ref and pupils_ref. Are these needed? I'm going to propose at some point in removing the as_of parameters as they just add the year in brackets when it is easer to add it manually next to the enrolment data, rather than use a separate parameter to do this which is a bit redundant. Also because some articles use as_of and some don't. Please let me know, thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I added it because I was cleaning up here and noticed that if you use "...as_of" it messes with the referencing, so I thought I'd add it in (I've also seen similar templates where it's <thing><thing_as_of><thing_ref>). Happy to be reverted if the long-term plan is to just remove the _as_of entirely (which actually does make a bit of sense). Primefac (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh I see, yeah I've noticed it adds the reference inside the brackets which doesn't look right. I think it might be a good idea if you remove it for now or maybe keep it? If I see as_of being used, I remove this and move the year to the enrolment parameter. I've also noticed other editors just add the year next to enrolment instead of using the as_of parameters. Having checked the parameter usage report, the as_of parameters is being used on around 4,000 articles compared to 26,000 for the enrolment only parameters.
The overall aim is to reduce the number of parameters in the infobox, there's too many and lots of redundancy where most are listed on the template talk page. Actually this reminds of something else I've been wanting to ask you — the parameters for removal, merge and alias consolidation have been listed on the talk page since 2018/2019, there is support by a user and I did post on multiple users talk pages inviting them to take part in the discussion and on the WikiProject Schools talk page (now in archive, dated 15 January 2019), no one seems to have opposed to it. Do you think I'd be able to go ahead with this, I've been waiting for so long to simplify this template (remember when I was asking you about doing another bot run, it was for this haha). There is a few more parameters to add such as the as of ones, maybe I could list these, write a note again on WikiProject Schools talk page inviting users, and if no one comments to object, can this been deemed consensus to go ahead? Just thinking, as the as_of is still being used on 4,000 articles, perhaps the removal of this one can be done in an entirely separate discussion after the cleanup one is done and out of the way? As it would require moving the enrolment year next to the enrolment data with the brackets added manually unless a bot can do this? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll self-revert (only one article uses it anyway).
As for the rest - I find a lot of the time that no one will comment on a discussion until after a change is made, so I would say to just go ahead and do it. Happy to set my bot on the task of updating params etc when it's done (and after people have bitched about it). Primefac (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I see, the other problem is how long can you wait but it's been too long here in this case haha. I have some ideas on new country-specific parameters to add, but don't want to start this discussion until the infobox is cleaned up and consolidated — it's too big and messy in its current state. I think I will go ahead and carve out the 'Merge' and 'Other' sections as Infobox cleanup 2 or something, leaving Infobox cleanup section with 'Rename and delete' and 'Delete completely' which can be done with a bot straight away. When I'm done, can I let you know? What you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good; you're always pretty excellent at giving very clear directions for param updates :-) Primefac (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac, always appreciate your help and bot :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey Primefac, still working on it but have a question for you: The Infobox school has both colors/colours (interchangeable, total use 20,000+) and school_colors/school_colours (interchangeable, total use 1,364). These parameters are for the same thing, only difference is the title: "Color(s)"/"Colour(s)" vs. "School color(s)"/"School colour(s)" — there is a small discussion on the talk to merge these parameters, having "school" is redundant as the article is about the school anyway and because of its far low use. If we renamed school_colors to colors and school_colours to colours, this will work but there will be some duplicate template arguments within that 1,364 total use, and I am happy to sort out the duplicates which will appear in the tracking category and of course other editors will help too. For example this school has school_colours filled in and school_colors underneath not filled in, no colors/colours parameters are there. I checked through random ones using school_colors/school_colours, and they don't have the colors/colours listed. I don't think I've come across one that has all four or one of both types. What would be your solution for this? At the moment I've moved the merge discussion to a separate section which won't be done for now, but maybe it can be done in the rename now, I'm not sure. What you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the four variants come about because of various merges. The obvious one is the colours/colors, which I agree should both be kept. As you say, it doesn't make much sense to keep the other two (since they likely came from a merger in the past) and you could probably get away with lumping them all together (temporarily, until the bot run) without any discussion. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you're right and what do you mean by lumping them all together? You mean like make school_colors and school_colours an alias of color/colours in the template code? The only issue with this is that we'll end up with more aliases, best to get rid of the school_colors/school_colours and stick with colors/colours. Yeah I'm confused haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Set them as aliases now, and when it comes time to clean up duplicate/alternate/unnecessary parameters, they can be removed. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you do that in the template code for me please, I can't edit the template, don't have the user right Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, please can you remove the "School" which you added to the display name, so that it's the same Colors/Colours as before (high use name) Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, just checked and there's no duplicate template warning at the top Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC) There's a warning at the top of an article if you use colors and colours and if you use school_colors and school_colours. But if you use colors and school_colors there's no warning and the same for other mixed variations Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes, didn't see the tracking for clobbered params. Updated. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep that did it, thank you - it's populating the tracking category, albeit very slowly, maybe it'll take some time, sorted around 10 so far. But I'm thinking of maybe going through the 1,300 odd using school_colors/colours and changing them to colors/colours manually so this parameter can then be added for removal, just thinking if it would be worth doing that or not.
There is another same parameter issue in the template: medium_of_language (has terrible aliases of medium, mediums and medium of language) and language — this too has a small discussion on the talk to merge these. Another editor has said the "medium of language" does not make sense, I also agree with this, have noted on there that this name issue was expressed back in 2017 and Wikipedia has a dedicated article titled Medium of instruction.
Checked the parameter usage report, language has 3,680 uses and medium_of_language has 1,213 — I think it would be best to have medium_of_instruction as the new combined successor parameter to replace these and for consistency with article title. I have a feeling there may be a lot of articles that will have both language and medium_of_language with one filled and one blank instance, so I'm thinking maybe you could add medium_of_instruction as a new alias of language, language display name changed to Medium of instruction and the bot will rename language to medium_of_instruction. The medium_of_language will stay separate but its aliases will go as they will all be renamed to medium_of_language, then I will go through the 1,213 and change them to medium_of_instruction, then a future bot run can remove all blank instances of medium_of_language and its aliases. What you think? The other way would be to put them all together as aliases and sort from tracking category but I have a feeling there will be a lot more? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I find tracking categories to be extremely useful for sussing out things like this, because it makes sorting the pages into "piles" a lot easier than writing fifteen different replacement rules and hoping that you didn't miss anything. As far as parameter names go, I see it as a question of length vs "obviousness of name"; as we discussed with the colour issue, "school_colours" is rather redundant since it's in "infobox school" and there's not much else "colours" could mean. When I see "medium_of_language" I'm not entirely sure what that means; "language" might be a little vague, but while "medium_of_instruction" (or better yet, "language_of_instruction") is more specific it's a little lengthy. I do suppose "language" may be specific enough; I know a student who is in a Spanish immersion program, and if I saw |language=Spanish in a location where English is the primary language, it would tell me right away that this was a school designed to teach in Spanish. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
That's true, would you be able put them all as aliases now and I can sort these out in the tracking category? Ultimately there does need to be a name or one chosen from the aliases that will replace all these aliases, but this can be done after the duplicates are sorted out, what you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
If I get a chance I'll get it done later today. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, a fair amount of duplicate parameters appeared in the category, all been sorted. There is another parameter discussed on the talk for merging — that's the school_roll/roll parameters to be merged with the enrolment/enrollment/students/pupils variation parameters. Please could you make this as an alias and I can sort out any duplicates in the category? Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, not sure if you managed to see this, is this something you would be able to do? This parameter won’t be deleted as it is used mainly for the enrolment data of New Zealand schools, but does need to be made an alias Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't; will take a look. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, maybe I'm just overtired, but am I reading right that you basically want {{{school_roll}}} and {{{roll}}} put into the {{{enrollment}}} set of parameters? Primefac (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep that's right haha :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I had a look at the diff, in the Check for clobbered parameters part, school_roll and roll is duplicated further down, I think you forgot to remove this haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome and that is 3/4 parameters listed for merging on the talk page done and all duplicates have been dealt with. The last one is homepage, url, and website to become aliases – I have a feeling there will be a lot of duplicates for this one and I remember last time we wanted to change homepage and url to website (which is the aim as part of consolidating parameters in the code), we came across duplicate issues. Can you merge these and I will sort out the duplicates, please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Please ignore the above, they are already aliases of each other and produce a warning. The established, opened and founded parameters need to be made as aliases as they mean the same thing but the title needs to be same for each parameter, so established will display as Established and opened as Opened. I had a look at the check for clobbered parameters, there is "pupils; number_of_pupils; number of pupils" which needs to be removed as pupils is already there with the other enrolment parameters, and number_of_pupils and number of pupils is not in the template. Please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, really appreciate everything you are doing :) - I'm glad this one was done last as there is a lot — I'm not sure why these parameters were never put together, I've been going through the duplicates but still more to go. I will let you know of the next steps when I'm finished, hope this is ok with you. I will be starting a discussion after mapframe maps has been implemented (requested another editor if they would be interested to add it and agreed which is awesome) on the removal of pushpin maps altogether, if there is consensus, these too will be parameters for removal in the bot run. My aim is to do as much as possible in one go so this will be a mega Optimus Prime bot task - hope you're still up for it :D Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Not a problem, just let me know. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac, I've noticed the roll parameter is displaying the same title as the pupils parameter "Number of pupils", it should be "School roll". Could it be because this parameter has two aliases: roll and school_roll? The school_roll alias is going anyway after the bot run so it's not a big deal Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
No, it's because when I merged them I didn't change the label #if statements. Currently it's
| label81 = {{#if: {{{enrollment|}}} | Enrollment |<!--
                -->{{#if: {{{enrolment|}}} | Enrolment |<!--
                       -->{{#if: {{{students|}}} | Number of students |<!--
                              -->Number of pupils}}}}}}
If you want school_roll to change the label, I'll need to add in another #if. Should I do that for |school_roll= and |roll=? Primefac (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh I see, yes please do that as this name is used mainly for schools in New Zealand Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this Primfac — The years parameter which I added for removal in favour of grades and grades_label has been contested (being discussed atm) and there is a suggestion about making it a synonym. grades_label is already being used for "Years", but is it possible to make years an alias of grades that displays as "Years" while still being able to use grades_label to override the default label "Grades"? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a weird few days, brain is much. Will try to get some sleep and comment more fully on this (tomorrow?). Primefac (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey, take good rest and whenever you are ready, no rush :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The short answer to your question is "yes". You can have multiple parameters trigger multiple display outputs, but at that point one has to wonder if having two parameters just makes more sense. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Subst-able wrapper

Hey. So re TfD I've created User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox3 (a substable wrapper) for the template Template:Infobox GB station. It's quite the wrapper, so I wanted to grab your advice on if that's all setup right and ensure there's no problems there? You can see a sample subst at Special:Permalink/986414949 (diff) Special:Permalink/987123351 (diff) of Manchester Piccadilly station. Main thing standing out to me currently is why some of those "| interchange = "s are being added (when the ifnotempty for that should be passing) - it's not added for the first one. (got it :/)

To actually perform the merge, on top of the subst two things need to be modified:

  1. Those categories at the bottom of the subst wrapper should be added to the bottom of the page (ie removed from the wrapper, I've just left them in for now so I don't forget).
  2. In the value for {{{coordinates}}}, the {{coords}} should add in "region:GB" if not already present. In the Manchester example it is, but eg {{coord|52.47777|-1.89885}} -> {{coord|52.47777|-1.89885|region:GB}}. If the 3rd unnamed param already has a value, it needs to prefix with an underscore (eg type:railwaystation_region:GB). At the same time, since type:railwaystation is actually kinda redundant (the target template does this automatically) perhaps that should just be stripped.
    Improved coordinate handling in {{Infobox station}} -- this part won't be required anymore, just #1. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Would a PrimeBOT merge be able to do these two things, or will I need to make a bot to implement this merge? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that there is not yet consensus to subst this wrapper in its current form. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you're talking about, but this isn't a run request yet. However, functionally, assuming I've set it up correctly, it is the same as the wrapper in {{Infobox GB station}} currently, so this is really a purely technical matter. There's one or two extra things I'd like to improve first before making a run request, like {{Rail pass box}} having a yearonly default so I can scrap the |yearonly= from the substGreen tickY. This section was just to ask for Primefac's feedback on the template code and two (now one) merge technicalities, to make sure I have it right. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my bot can handle it, as I have approval to implement TFD closes. Once a consensus about proceeding has been reached, I can implement it. Primefac (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Question (2)

Hi, just wondering why you keep removing this content...? Thanks - wolf 16:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Lists like that should not contain redlinks. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't relaize that. Is that new? Can you point me to the policy on that for future reference? Thanks - wolf 19:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It's been the convention since I joined Wikipedia. Can't find the exact location but WP:SOURCELIST is probably the best place to start. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:CSC is probably the most interesting. --Izno (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, I gave them both a read. I note they are guidelines, not policies, and even then, there doesn't appear to be any specific sections that support the removal of this content. I did note the requirement for sourcing, which this content has, and even the suggestion that content be discussed on the talk page if needed, which this content was, at length, a couple years ago when it was first added. (For some reason, it was removed by random IP user without explanation, so when you saw me add it a last week, I was actually re-adding it.) But anyway, I'm still not seeing a reason for the removal of that entry. Are there any other P&G you can cite? Thanks again, I appreciate any info you can provide. - wolf 08:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a guideline or policy about every aspect of Wikipedia, that would be ridiculous, and why WP:CON exists. As I said in my initial reply, I have for years seen the convention upheld that lists like these should only contain bluelinks. You are of course welcome to start a new discussion about including the company, but it might be more practical to write an article (even if it's no more than a stub) about the group first and then there will be no opposition to including it. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I see your CON and raise you an IAR...lol. But seriously, this seems to have come down to preferences and really, I don't see the point in starting another discussion about this content when there already was one back just after it was added the first time. How about this, we re-add the content for now, with the intention of having an article created, which afterall is the purpose of redlinks. If an article is not forthcoming in a certain time frame, then remove it. What would you feel is a reasonable amount of time? - wolf 03:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm not sure if you missed this of not, but it's been two days and you have been quite active in that time. Since I'm not looking to draw this out any further, I'll just propose this: 30 days. The entry will be re-added, and if in 30 days it hasn't been created as an article, then you can remove it with no objection from me. That seems like a reasonable compromise. Thank you for all the feedback and information. Cheers - wolf 14:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this an automated list?

Hi, Primefac Please have a look at Draft:List of WikiProject India/Research institutions that is submitted for review. It says This list is automatically generated from data in Wikidata and is periodically updated by Listeriabot. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 07:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The bot only has approval for non-article space. Either way, it's not a good page, so I've moved it to the WikiProject's subpage as the name implies. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Question (DYK)

With regard to my current DYK restrictions, I would like to ask a question about it. Would be able to nominate a Christmas album to run on DYK at Christmas? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be acceptable, since it's related to the holiday itself and not necessarily to the religious aspects of it. Primefac (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I was a little unsure given the album does contain Christmas carols on it but I am glad that you have confirmed its OK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help with the papal documents infobox

Could you edit the infobox so that when a title in "after" or "before" has a certain lenght, it has a breaking space (<br>). The problem can be found here; after "Apostolic Letter for 1700th anniversary", there should be a breaking space so that "of the Baptism of the Armenian People" appears below "Apostolic Letter for 1700th anniversary". Veverve (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and done. It turns out the "below" material was being put in a nowrap. Removed that and the links split like you'd expect them to. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

About IRC templates

I am a Chinese Wiki user. Hope modify the template to this version. The reason is here (The original link has expired.) , It should be correct after sandbox testing, thank you.--Z7504 (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Are you saying that something isn't working and you'd like me to troubleshoot, or are you just letting me know that you've imported our freenode display template? Primefac (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
For example Wikipedia:IRC "Publicly logged channels" paragraph, Click #wikidata connect 's "#wikidata" Unable to connect IRC's URL, but "connect" can. So to avoid this problem, "irc://irc.freenode.net/" part should be changed to current "https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#" , because "irc://irc.freenode.net/" link has expired. --Z7504 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Not really sure how to fix that... Primefac (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:AuEduNewbie

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look at this? It appears to have been boldly created back in February and seems to be being currently used quite a lot. However, there's no real documentation for it and it's not clear how it's intended to be used. Is it, for example, for the user namespace or the talk namespace? It might also be somewhat redundant to {{Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} and {{WikiEd banner shell}}. Anyway, I saw it added to Talk:Music television and it seem out of place; so, I removed it. If it's intended for the talk namespace, then I'll self-revert. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This looks like it should be a User or User talk template, and maybe as a pseudo-banner on drafts, but definitely not on Talk or articles. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this. It seems as if it is something intended for the either the main space or the talk namespace that it probably should've been discussed a bit and provided with some sort of documentation explaining how it should be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Just going to add that the part of the template stating "This page is a work in progress and I am approaching my subject in good faith." seems to imply the it was intended for article talk pages or perhaps drafts, but again I'm not sure if that wasn't a little too bold of an intention. Perhaps that bit will needed to be re-worded if the template is really for use in the user namespace because it kind of makes no sense as worded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely an odd template; it reads half like a userspace template, half like a talk template, and the fact that it was only used on three talk pages makes me think it's meant for the former. Might be worth a note to the creator asking what's up. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I posted on the template's talk page and it now seems that others connected to WikiEd are aware of the matter and working towards sorting it out. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Awesome, glad I could help. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Behaviour

this edit and es is unacceptible and a PA. Also, you are supposed to seek agreement not enforce your own immature edits.

What has gone into you recently? Cannot remember you were this obstinate before. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Saying something is "a load of bollocks" is not a personal attack, not even close. However, saying an edit is "immature" and an editor is "obstinate" are much closer to personal attacks. Lev!vich 22:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Nope. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
DePiep is possibly violating their editing restriction by mischaracterizing a comment on an edit, describing Primefac's edits as "immature", and describing Primefac as "obstinate". Those seem like an assumption of bad faith to me; I will leave it to an administrator to judge, as the editing restriction instructs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
ICYMI: the edit broke hundreds of pages, and so may be called not fit for production. Talking that way about an editor is not helpful nor cooperative in creating improvement. The author themselves did find a reason to redact. -DePiep (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that calling an editor "obstinate" and referring to their edits as "immature" is neither helpful nor cooperative. I encourage all editors to refrain from doing so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The wording "mature" and so derived "immature" are non-personal, content-related descriptions used in software development. For example, it is used in the first sentence of ICU: a "project of mature C/C++ and Java libraries for Unicode support". Jonesey95 surely must have encountered this very recently, since Mediawiki linked this article in mw:Tech/News/2020/46, and J95 responded to this issue today. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
No amount of quacking will persuade me, based on this and past experiences. Good luck out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This has happened the last two times I have interacted with DePiep, so I'll be doing my best in the future to avoid any templates or discussions in their sphere of influence; it's becoming clear that we cannot work effectively together. I don't think it's any one party's fault, just the way things go sometimes. Good thing my background is in physics and not chemistry. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
If an edit is considerd problematic, one route to solve it is go to a talkpage. And that is what I did. The "last two times" you mention had a different origin. Thanks for the care spend. -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_30&oldid=1139451991"