User talk:Primefac/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

It was there

but subsequently deleted. I think I had finger trouble. Three identical versions of the same file were updated, two to en:wp, one to Commons. Mea culpa. There is now a correct deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 5#File:Vadim Kravchinsky.jpeg where you may wish to offer an opinion either way. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I wondered if it was something like that (noting that the various F criteria were likely more appropriate anyway). Thanks for the followup. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Georgina Lara Booth

Hi Primefac, I have just seen the reverting of my edit. Very much open to having a discussion here with you, and I understand your point about some excessive info, but I will add some edits to the article again and we could have any further discussions about it here. Starting with that the subject is not just a "website editor" since she is a journalist / reporter / interviewer / writer / etc. for an international outlet. Thanks in advance and looking forward to any discussion for improvementsJanssenben (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that both I and Drmies are involved, please discuss the matter on the article's talk; it's not just a discussion 'twixt the two of us. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, I have to say, I have seen a lot of BLP fluff, but this one really takes the cake. Janssenben, please explain on the talk page how "Booth received special permission to establish her foundation from a district court judge due to her young age as a minor under Dutch Law" is verified by the subject's own article on the death of Olivia de Havilland. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Drmies and @Primefac, thanks for your feedback. As was mentioned to me by an editor, it would be great to have a friendly discussion here about how my edits in the article can be expanded and improve my contributions to the subject with both of you and @Primefac to resolve this edit discussion.

I have seen information (like what Drmies mentioned) around the internet on various links over time, which now might have been on some outdated links that may have been removed, I would have to look into that. However, I can see that Drmies has removed literally almost all of the details of the subject now anyway. I agree with the removal of some of the edits, but at least a sentence can be mentioned about some of the information that has been removed (point 3).

1) For starters, I think the template message from Primefac on top of the article can now be removed, since the article has been cleaned up by @Drmies who has made the latest edits to remove most information about the subject's career now.

2) From what I have read, it is allowed to expand an article on Wikipedia with good faith - especially about a female subject who has been recognized internationally by outlets and organizations for journalism and other work. Mentioning other work and personal life in someone's background seems to be found in a lot of articles.

I have seen this for example, as a reference, with other female journalists, Diana Award winners, Forbes 30 honourees, etc. that have also mentioned personal life and any other work they have done. Some random examples I have found for reference that contain very specific details about personal lives, other work, etc. and do not even have any refs for confirmation about women in comparable fields (none have template tabs added on their articles either for cleanup):

• Female Journalists:

- Sophia Smith Galer (an almost identical subject that has recently been created with a larger section with very specific examples of her journalistic work) - Katherine Rosman (a lot of very specific private and irrelevant information about family life, namedropping, etc. aside from journalism that do not even have refs and a lot of paragraphs about the kinds of topics she has written about and covers).

• Female Diana Award winners and other female figures:

- Christy Zakarias (refs about music used are on a personal self-confirmed music profile for her music contributions that can not be even been found online) - Aishwarya Sridhar (various specific anecdotal personal references and films without refs). - Sophia Kianni (excessive amount of details and puffery)

I would thus like to potentially expand the article again, but I agree with @Primefac that some information in the journalism section could have been shortened without mentioning too many names, etc. - but again I can see Drmies has removed all details now anyway. I would suggest at least expanding the sections that have just been removed about journalism and at least mentioning a line about acting/film work in her background that has also be confirmed, etc. (for example the Royal Society confirmed and referred to the subject as a filmmaker alongside being a journalist, writer and humanitarian and the subject has published interview films on Mashable and other platforms that have been referenced by other media outlets and forums).

To sum up: at least a sentence can be mentioned about the kinds of topics the subject covers/has written about and the many high profile interviews conducted as an interviewer (point 3), which can be confirmed and should be allowed to expand, just like in the other articles I have found as reference examples of women in comparable fields.

3) I would like to suggest expanding at least the Journalism section again - as it now just says "Booth leads the Social Good content and publications desk of Mashable (Benelux), writing about social good, sustainability, social entrepreneurship, charities, NGOs and humanitarian work." However, Booth has also written about other content, like Entertainment, Tech and Science and has interviewed a lot of public figures as an interviewer/journalist which seems to be a focus of the subject's work (at least Forbes has mentioned some of the high profile interviews), so a sentence can be added about that the subject interviews a lot of public figures and celebrities, which seem to be a specialty of the subject, without mentioning all of the specific names of the subjects' interviews again as @Primefac has previously discussed, in addition to mentioning that the subject also covers subjects in the field of Entertainment, Tech and Science in the Journalism paragraph of the Career section.

In conclusion: I agree with your feedback and edits that you have made and the article now looks the same as comparable female subjects (although the other female subject examples do not even have references for a lot of personal details mentioned on their pages). However, I look forward to finalizing this discussion to improve the article on the following 2 points: 1) the expansion of the journalism section with a sentence or two about the fields and topics the subject has covered and 2) removing the template on top of the article now (in discussion with @Primefac who added this before Drmies' last cleanup edits) since literally all details and specifics about the subject have now been heavily removed / cleaned up in the last edits. Can I edit the article on these 2 points I have suggested to finalize this discussion to improve the article? Thanks in advance.Janssenben (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• If I skip over the "but this other article has that", is there anything to look at? And can you do this on the article talk page please? Drmies (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  tl;dr -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Dunno, I've been rather enjoying the 64 pings every few minutes today... Primefac (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Lennon-Picasso Basin

I see you redirected the article Lennon-Picasso Basin to List of geological features on Mercury, I assume because it has only one reference. But you didn't include the feature in the list. Jstuby (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about alternative accounts

Hi, I'm Neuropol. I'm starting up my CVU academy program, and as a module to training, I'd like to have "live" or "hands-on" training. For this, I was wondering if it would be within policy to create an account which could act as a "CPR dummy" for trainees to interact with. I would be the only one using it, and, of course, it would not be used to vandalize mainspace articles, only interacting on its own talk page and on designated training pages within my userspace. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as you're abiding by WP:LEGITSOCK I don't see any reason you can't create a second account. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... but why doesn't this show up in the article's text? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Because the change is inside of a <ref>...</ref> tag, so it is in the references section. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Test section >2<

Test section 2 Primefac (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, try that again. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Test section <1>

Re-indent, yes these are out of order. So what. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Test section 1? Primefac (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Add new comment (see edit summary). Primefac (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about removal of RFC

Hi, I'm just wondering about this edit you made, what's the reason for the removal of the RFC template? Thanks. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my reply, there hasn't really been a ton of discussion about his name, and what little discussion there has been has generally found consensus rather quickly. In other words, this is not an intractable issue (yet), so per WP:RFCBEFORE I removed the RFC tag as being unnecessary. Removal of the tag doesn't mean that discussion can't happen, just that it won't be broadcast around Wikipedia that all and sundry should come and give their opinions. Primefac (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay, so try regular discussion first, and if there's nobody/no consensus, then start an RfC? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much; you could also cross-post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics about the discussion to see if anyone there has opinions. Primefac (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Captbloodrock

FYI, this user is an AfC reviewer. CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh... no reviews. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw them move a couple to mainspace but didn't use the AfC script. One of which went to AfD and with other socks and SPAs resulted in keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Merlin) but have asked the admin to re-open. The others do not appear to be an issue from what I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Template: Infobox Fraternity

When you have a chance, could you please work on the addition of the Status flag there, I don't have enough confidence in my template programming to pull it off. Everything that I can find, the tests are whether a parameter/value pair exists, not the value of the value half.I believe that what had been decided is if the value of Status = D, M, Defunct or Merged that the entry in Category:Pages using infobox fraternity with missing website would not be generated. Thank you.Naraht (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, been meaning to look at the latest discussion at WT:FRAT but haven't had the time. Will take a look in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank You. I *think* Template:WikiProject_Canada_Roads tests values to determine what to do (so that multiple provices can be displayed), but I'm not sure. Is [[Template:#invoke:If any equal]] the path to go down? Wish I could plagarize from an Infobox looking to do closer to what is desired. :)Naraht (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ArbReq

I didn't know you were an arbitrator. But how did you konw -- in two minutes -- that my request was in the wrong venue? Also, I am currently banned from raising this issue in, as I understand it, all other fora, and I can't appeal at ANI, like you say, for six months. Surely, if I disagree with all of these decisions, then my only appeal is to ArbCom? Thomas B (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I am in the process of writing out a response to you on your own talk page, since that is where the primary discussion is happening. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Error in Template:Infobox rugby biography

A duplicate parm error (label31/data31a/data31b/data31c) was introduced into Template:Infobox rugby biography by this edit, which affects Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls. Who knew there were so many rugby players? Davemck (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this problem. It will take a bit for the articles to leave the category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ooft, thanks for the note and the fix. Genuinely can't believe I missed something that obvious. Primefac (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

FPER

Why are we replacing all these template transfusions with a redirect and an acronym that people are unlikely to know ? Was this decided somewhere ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I can replace them with the full template name. The original redirects are vague terms and I have retargeted them, meaning that the original uses (pointing at fprot requests) should be updated. If you are formally contesting my retargeting, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am formally contesting it: WP:NOTBROKEN applies to template transclusions just as it does to page links. Unless the redirect Template:Editprotected is the subject of an ongoing TfD, it should be left alone. In addition, edits like this are compromising the structure of a page by changing intentional code demonstrations into invalid unclosed elements that were not intended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically it would be RFD, since it's a redirect, but sure, I'll send them all to RFD. Fair point re: the formatting; when this eventually goes through again I'll make sure genfixes are turned off. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Now at RFD. Feel free to vent your spleen there.​ Primefac (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

On another note, this edit and many like it replaced {{edit protected}} with {{FPER}}, but the template in question is template-protected. I think I would have used {{TPER}} or {{Edit template-protected}} for accuracy. It appears to render the same, but if people are counting transclusions, the data might be misleading. Or something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned it in the RFD, but at the time these were used the templates were fully-protected, so if anything replacing them with FPER is keeping the historical accuracy; from my time at TFD I know that some folks just can't stand it when the historical record gets changed more than it has to. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that replacing old closed FPER templates isn't really useful unless that template is being deleted - perhaps enjoin the RFD next. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Retargeting {{Editprotected}} without replacing the transclusions will result in {{request edit}} appearing in thousands of pages. I'm all for "not changing old discussions" but having a dab transclusion appearing all over the place is probably not what anyone is intending. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Primefac's explanation makes sense to me. This looks like standard thankless post-TFD/RFD work, except for the bit where a redirect is being used instead of the canonical template name. No good deed goes unpunished. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Good revert

Thank you, sorry! Hahaha Zanahary (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:casenav and friends

Hi! {{ACA}} has sucked me down the rabbit hole of ArbCom templates. This message was going to be a quick note, but quickly turned into a wall of text—after which it occurred to me that you (or perhaps the clerk team?) would know these things better than I would. Therefore, I have opted for a list, and I'd appreciate it if you/another Arb/a clerk could take care of them, when you have a minute. The ones I found in a few minutes of searching include:

• {{casenav}} and friends should probably be named something like {{case navigation}}? Of the subtemplates, {{casenav/PD}} should probably be further expanded to something like {{case navigation/proposed decision}} and {{casenav/Talk}} should probably be downcased to match the rest of the subtemplates.
• {{ACA}} I really can't tell if this is still in use or not? The note Data on Arbitration Committee activity is now contained in {{Casenav/data}} sounds an awful lot like this is no longer used because we use {{Casenav/data}} instead, but it is transcluded on the current case... If it is in use currently, I can't tell what it does, so what it should be renamed to is left as an exercise for the reader!
• {{ArbMotionNotice}} made me chuckle... SIX motions? Rename to {{Arbitration motion notice}}? The code also looks super ugly (defaulting to null is a thing; you don't need to force people to pass in empty parameters rather than simply omit them), but that is beyond the scope of this exercise :)

Thanks for coming to my TED talk, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion at one point with the clerks on ArbCom's various templates, can't remember what we decided but I'll see if I can resurrect it. Primefac (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Template dagger malfunctioning

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Template dagger malfunctioning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look a this Teahouse question? It seems related to an edit you recently made to the template's page when you started a TfM discussion about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: This seems to have been resolved so I don't think anything else is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we let people know about deletion discussions... Primefac (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I posted as much in my reply, but apparently the end of the world was nigh at hand and the link needed to go asap. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback

Hey, I think you are good. Can you give me feedback on my edits, AfC reviewing, AfD, and CSDs? Am I going in the right direction to become a New Pages reviewer? Here is my previous request for The New Pages Reviewers right. It would be very helpful to get input from an experienced admin like you. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 11:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a very broad request! I've only given a brief look at things, but from a random sample of your AFC declines I'm not finding anything major (a couple of what appear to be borderline declines but I didn't check the sources). I'm not really involved in the NPR side of things any more, so I honestly couldn't give you any advice if you're working towards that; I would consider the feedback you received last time and maybe wait a bit before re-applying. Your last decline was less than a month ago. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate you taking the time to look at my request. I'll make the necessary improvements. I'll also take your advice and wait a bit longer before reapplying. Thanks again for your help! GrabUp - Talk 15:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of User atmilt

Deletion of User atmilt

[edit] Hi I am atmilt, you were ref as the contact for my user deletion. I authored the pages "Effie Neal Jones" and contribute funds to Wiki, I'm not a avid user but I am wish to remain a user. Please explain how I may remain a user of this vital platform. I look forward to your advise and reply. Thank you, Atmilt Atmilt (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Atmilt, your user page may have been deleted but you are still most welcome to edit Wikipedia. If you would like to have your userpage restored to the Draft space for further work, you may request it at WP:REFUND (or here, since I'm watching this discussion). Primefac (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply] Primefac, Thank you for your reply and advise, I would like to have it restored, and I will complete it. Atmilt (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can do; the page is now at Draft:Effie Neal Jones. Since it has been a while since you've edited Wikipedia I have put a draft tag, and I would encourage you to submit the page for review. Please feel free to let me know if you have any further questions or issues (likely on my own talk page, since Plastikspork probably doesn't need the extra pings!). Primefac (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, I am so sorry That page could remain deleted as it was addressed some time ago. I am a little new to all of this, as it has evolved since my last written acticle. Please delete (Sorry), and advise (point me to the link) me on how to complete a users page. Atmilt (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, no worries, I have re-deleted it per WP:G7. Apologies for not noticing that the article already existed, otherwise I would have given you totally different advice! Wikipedia:User pages has information on creating user pages. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for 1917 film

The plot currently reads "(Schofield) awakens at night and makes his way through the flare-lit ruins of the town. After evading a German soldier, he discovers a French woman hiding with a presumably orphaned infant." When he is making his way, he is fired upon by several unseen Germans, before he encounters and is chased by the one that charges him, the French woman says she doesn't know who the baby's mother is, so "presumably" could be irrelevant to use. so it could be rephrased to "He is fired upon by Germans and after invading one, find a French woman hiding with an orphan child". In addition, it could be added for this section, in which Cumberbatch's character says that Schofield's efforts might have been in vain in the end: "He forces his way in to meet Mackenzie, who reads the message and reluctantly calls off the attack, though Mackenzie also says that, while the cancellation offers a temporary reprieve, command will likely change its orders in a week. 2.100.74.138 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what page this is, and I'm not going to try and find it. Either way, semi-protected edit requests belong on the article's talk page, not mine. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Primefac. I think it's for 1917 (2019 film). You indefinitely protected the page at the end of March 2021 and it appears the IP has an issue with the plot summary. They probably mistakenly posted their "request" here since you're the admin who protected the page.

@IP 2.100.74.138: If that's the case, you should follow the guidance given in Wikipedia:Edit requests and post your request at Talk:1917 (2019 film) instead. I don't suggest, however, you post exactly what you posted above though because it's not clear what you're asking. Edit requests which are unclear tend to be declined (sometimes rather qucikly); for this reason, it's usually best to keep requests simple and clearly state what needs to be changed and why, and also provide some kind of link to a reliable source or relevant Wikipedia policy or guideline in support of the proposed change (i.e. change X to Y because of Z). One thing about WP:FILMPLOTs, though, is that they tend to be more of a general summary and aren't intended to go into too much detail; so, please keep that in mind when making the request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The O.P. is the banned person from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/UK Kennedy–Lincoln–Titanic IP. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

R from gap in series TfD close

Regarding your close, WikiProject Redirect and WT:Redirect were both notified of the discussion. Does the lack of participation after those notifications changes your view of consensus? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No, because the discussion was closed with no consensus; a further lack of input from the WikiProjects doesn't move that particular needle. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that you're willing to overturn to delete if the WikiProject agrees, would you consider relisting with one more notification to the WikiProject? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The intention of my comment was that if a discussion at the WikiProject determined that this is an unnecessary template, then I would consider that reason enough to overturn the no consensus; notifications about XfD don't always bring participants to the XfD pages. Primefac (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Template:R from gap in series necessity. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:2026 films

Could you remove the creation block from Category:2026 films? Gonnym (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ruby line

Hi Primefac. Thanks to your observation I found out I introduced a bug in Module:Params yesterday (now reverted). I will try to understand what it was and adjust yesterday's code review in a sandbox. In the meanwhile we can use the previous version of Module:Params. --Grufo (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that would do it. Thanks for the attention. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Found the bug. Yesterday in order to optimize the code I decided that it was faster to create a new smaller lua table instead of removing elements from the existing table. The problem is that I had left a reference to the previous table in a couple of functions. I think I fixed the bug now – for unrelated reasons I have gone back to “removing elements from the existing table”, but the bug could be fixed also keeping the other solution. --Grufo (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Deprecated parameter removal request

Hey Primefac, I hope you're well.

I wanted to see if you'd be willing to use PrimeBOT to remove five deprecated parameters from the infobox of just under 24,000 articles. I would be requesting the removal of |nfl=, |nflnew=, |nfl-new=, |nflwd=, and |nfl-wd= from {{Infobox NFL biography}} based on this discussion. The parameters have already been deleted from the template by Eagles247 here. This would save loads of manual work for us if you'd be able to lend a hand. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, can probably sort this out at some point. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic, I appreciate it. Of course there's no rush at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Nearly got caught out by the other parameter removal yesterday but that should be sorted as well. Looks like the cat is down to ~ 90 pages. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you so much! I'll go through the rest soon since I do like to keep this category empty :) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Jack Churchill, and starting a mess

Hi Primefac, I made a post on WP:CCI about the old copyright issues we were talking about (resulting in the "record-breaking" RD1 at Jack Churchill). The list of affected articles keeps expanding rapidly, standing at over 1700 articles now. This was discussed twice at WP:AN in 2009, but people back then gave up after (heroically!) checking about 1000 of the roughly 3000 articles created or expanded by this user. What a mess. Renerpho (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Schmachtenberger page deletion

Daniel Schmachtenberger is an influential cultural commentator; he has appeared as a host or interviewee on numerous videos, some of which have received hundreds of thousands up to half a million views. Beside this he is also the founder of a research organisation, The Consilience Project, which publishes opinion pieces on global issues.

For these two reasons he has, in my opinion, surpassed the threshold needed to validate having a wikipedia page. Previously you had removed his page, could this decision be reviewed in light of his gain in cultural influence since this time? I am in favour of seeing his page reinstated. Lucasaw (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Draft:Daniel Schmachtenberger, which was deleted because it was a copyright violation. If you think that he meets our inclusion criteria you are more than welcome to start a new draft, but I cannot restore the old page. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Need IP block exempt

Wikipedia is blocked in China, and i used VPN. so I need an 【IP block exempt】 for editing , thank you! --Air7538 (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)