User talk:Primefac/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olowe2011 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 September 2015‎ (UTC)

You corrected my reference syntax for me.

Much appreciated for the altruistic help!

-MasterChiefNY117 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterChiefNY117 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Michigan State Miracle

Hello! There is an article that has been nominated for deletion regarding the Michigan State football team. I noticed you were an alumni, so I thought I would let you know in case you have any interest in participating with the discussion. If so, please just click on the Title as I have linked it straight to the page's deletion review. If you wish to see the article itself, it is titled Michigan State Miracle. Any thoughts, ideas, or edits that would help improve the page itself would also be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubbleboy (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 18

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Anthony Marinelli. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 009o9 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have undone your non-admin closure, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 18, because non-admins may not close discussions as "delete", see WP:NACD. Please don't do that again, it generates extra work for everybody else. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sandstein: You may wish to check the TfD archives. NAC deletes are an established process at TfD. The RfC Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19 here allows for an orphan/CSD mechanism and it has become accepted in practice that this means "close as delete, orphan, tag G6. BethNaught (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, but this discussion resulted in consensus to do a trial - has this been done, and what were the results? If the trial was successful, discussion should start to seek consensus to document this mechanism in the appropriate guidelines, notably WP:NACD. Until then, the current guidelines apply as written.  Sandstein  10:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Because so few people pay attention to TfD, it was never formally organised AFAICT, and messages were somewhat confusedly added to the various guidelines. I would support a proposal to codify the current practice, but stopping NACs pending that would make the backlog balloon and undo the good work the original RfC led to. BethNaught (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sandstein: NAC closures at TfD have been routine since the end of that RfC, with very little dispute or controversy; the result has been to reduce the backlog significantly and to reduce the variability in "transit time" through the process. (Formerly, enormous backlogs would accumulate and then one or two people would make dozens of closes in one run-through, which is inefficient and tedious for everyone involved.) I suppose I could quantify this - I did intend to at one point, but didn't get around to it. But as the only admin who's been at least somewhat active at TfD for the whole time the NAC process has been running, I'm pretty confident in that observation. In that time there have been, IIRC, two prior DRVs related to a NAC close of a TfD, of which one endorsed the deletion with minor procedural doubt from someone not familiar with the process, and one was relisted and then closed as keep. With just one "wrong" call in four and a half months (and even then, a complex case), this is one of the least drama-generating processes on the wiki ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
All right, then the next step would be to propose a change of WP:NACD, in order to find out whether the broader community beyond the template specialists who participated in the earlier discussions agree with this change.  Sandstein  09:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, WP:NACD currently does mention the TfD exception and has done so for a month, and the same thing was introduced as a footnote at WP:NAC in August, but yes, the documentation should be updated to describe current practice; we can't expect people at DRV to follow all the minutiae. I don't know that there's a need for more RfC'ing - descriptive, not prescriptive, and all of that - but in any event, after the holidays; I'm sure I'm not the only one short on time this week. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Banned means banned

Hello:
Just to let you know (following the discussion on Ritchie333's talkpage, here) I have opened a discussion at Template:banned user (here) if you wish to comment at all. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

AFC list

Sorry, I misread my edit counter, looking at the user talk page count instead of the mainspace count. Oops! (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 06:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Primefac!

Happy New Year!

Primefac,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

Dear Primefac,
Thank you once again for helping me, back in February, and have a great New Year in 2016!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

for splitting up your unfortunate bundle. I went ahead and re-added them to the film delsort. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

About the decline of Draft:Vineeth_Mohan

Hello Primefac, I just submitted for AfC. But I found that it doesn't meets notability guidelines. But I added articles from the reliable sources like Deccan Chronicle, The New Indian Express and Malayala Manorama. Also i would like to add that he played lead roles in Adi Kapyare Kootamani See, and in Aadu - Oru Bheegara Jeevi Aanu See. Also this reference [1] states everything about him. I think the article satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers and Looking forward to hear from you. Thanks. Josu4u (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

01:20:23, 6 January 2016 review of submission by Jchambers1984m


Thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I will work on the vocabulary and finding additional independent sources 'about' Beckertime. Jchambers1984m (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Joseph

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For an impressive cleanup of the TfD backlog. Does that mean I'm going to have to read that damn Marinelli thread eventually? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Opabinia regalis. Yes it does ;) Primefac (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Khan Crown Prince Of Afghanistan.

Assalam O Alaikum!... 

   Pleade Help Me In Editing Ahmad Shah Crown Prince Of Afghanistam Page!...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-Zahid-Zadran (talk • contribs) 11:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Image upload

Thank you for responding to my question. Unfortunately, no one has responded to my inquiry on the live help page and I've been waiting for almost an hour. I looked at the link you sent but still am unable to resolve this problem. I did put in the link to the image as directed; it shows up on the edit page but nothing comes up when I save the page. I would appreciate your assistance. Also, would it be possible for you to review my draft and advise?Gaw54 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-free files related to scouting/guilding

Hi Primefac. It seems that you have recently tagged a huge number of non-free files related to scouting and guiding with {{di-fails NFCC}} in edits such as this. I understand you are doing this per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent. I'm not saying I disagree with the assessment that all or some of these fail NFCC#8, but I am curious if the bot you're using is also going to notify the uploaders of each image or add {{deletable image-caption}} to the articles where the files are being used. You could run into problems if the persons who uploaded these images are not properly notified. From personal experience, NFCR/FFD discussions about a single scouting logo can sometimes get to be pretty contentious, but a mass speedy deletion of pretty much every scouting logo ever uploaded (or at least tagged with {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}}) is not going to be very well-received at all by those who regularly upload/use such images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thanks for the note. I have notified the uploaders (fortunately, only 29 total users) about the template change. Primefac (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No worries then. Just for the record, many of the "Non-free Scout logo nocontent" tags were added a long time ago and either simply ignored by the uploader (and tus the problem remains) or never removed when the problem was fixed. I think many of the images you have tagged do have non-free use rationales; the question is whether they are valid nfurs. Many who upload such images seem to feel all that is needed for NFCC compliance is to add a (bolierplate) nfur for the usage, but that's not really the case at all. Many of these nfurs tend to overly vague, giving the wrong article where they are used, claiming the wrong purpose for use, and not being provided with proper information about their source for copyright verification. In addition, NFCC#8 (i.e., "no content") is a bit subjective depending on your point of view. Strictly speaking, many of these images are being used in a purely decorative manner which is something which is not really allowed, but some uploaders seem to feel that being able to see the image makes in contextually significant. So, you might be able to save yourself a little grief in the form of blowback if you do a quick double-check of the images you've tagged. Anything in the main infobox is probably OK whereas anything added to a gallery or list, or randomly added throughout the article is probably not. If you find a usage that it particularly problematic, you may find it better to discuss it at WP:FFD instead of trying to speedy it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Many of the logo's are historic logo's. Some of the historic logo's are erroneously taged as non-free but have expired copyrights or are for other reasons PD. For example File:Katholieke Verkenners Suriname.svg. --Egel Reaction? 11:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

03:02:36, 26 January 2016 review of submission by Willbam


I'm starting category on unsung Artist ,Astrologers and etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbam (talk • contribs) 03:02, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

nasty p article

Hi

First of all I apologise if I am doing this incorrectly but I really need some help with regards to this article. I have looked over other peoples articles and they have less information and less sources but they have had it published.. I have a couple of extra sources in the form of paper docs etc which im currently trying to work out how to upload and due to issues I have no access to the live chat when I use this computer so unable to ask someone there.

Do you think you could help?

sorry

Azura81 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

Please do not close discussions as "delete" when you are not an admin, even if consensus favors deletion, since you don't have the ability to delete articles and templates. See WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, please see this RfC and this discussion for why it is perfectly acceptable for me to close TfD discussions. You are welcome to bring the issue to DelRev, but simply undoing my edits is not proper procedure. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed those threads. However, it's still best to let admins close discussions as "delete" because they have the ability to actually delete such articles and templates. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: The workflow is often different for templates, which is why things were changed for TfD in particular. They often need to be orphaned before deletion, which is usually done by non-admins working more efficiently than admins usually do :) So big backlogs were building up, and the non-admins willing to do the grunt work were waiting for obvious "delete" closes. Typically the orphaned templates are G6'd and/or listed in the holding cell so admins can deal with them as needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
In that case, a note should probably be added to the NAC page I linked above to prevent others from raising their eyebrows at such closures. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, I just noticed that there is a footnote right after "Deletions" in BADNAC. I do agree, though, that it could be slightly more obvious/clear. Primefac (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Just saw that now myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully my change here helps Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you! 18:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatrixZ (talk • contribs)

Template:Nuneaton Town F.C. squad

Hi, I am writing to you as the closing admin at this TfD. The rationale for deletion, for which there was consensus, was that the template contained no wikilinks and therefore served no purpose as a navigation aid. I myself endorsed this. However, I have just updated the squad list at Nuneaton Town F.C., and at transpires that there infact 12 wikilinked players. I believe then that this template does indeed have practical value as a navigation aid, and should therefore be restored. I would be happy to update it. I'd like to invite @JMHamo:, @Fenix down: and @GiantSnowman: to comment on this, as they were involved in the TfD. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to restore the template under the assumption that @Mattythewhite: will update with the current squad, at which time it will be a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
No opposition to it being restored and updated if there are so many wikilinks. GiantSnowman 21:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability - Thank you

Thank you Primefac, I appreciate your honesty. You're right, after further deliberation we have decided to kill the AfC. Jeff Jeff Jilson (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProjectBanners

Thank you for closing the TfD on this template. Would you mind clarifying your close at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Template:WikiProjectBanners, because the current situation is not ideal. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action. How do we find a bot to do this job? Does someone need to post at WP:BOTREQ? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
In a word, yes. I've left some thoughts on the template talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Draft:Armand Cucciniello article

Hi Primefac,

First, thank you for the time you took to review my Wikipedia article submission/Subject, "Armand Cucciniello."

This Subject was a significant source for information during the Iraq war, as he served there longer than any other non-military U.S. official. Hence why an article has been created about him.

I have revised my article, and included more specific information as to why this Subject is relevant, removing general phrases and terms and replacing them with more specific detail.

Can you please be more specific as to where the “way too many WEASEL words and FLOWERY language” appear? Only once did “world-renowned” appear, in reference to the Dhvanyaloka Centre For Indian Studies and not to the Subject. (I have since removed the phrase).

According to Wikipedia, "Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, including newsletters, personal websites, books, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets, are usually not acceptable as sources. *****The general exception is where the author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic."***** The Subject is, in fact, an established expert on foreign policy, the Iraq war, South Asia, and the Middle east and has a previous, accessible record of 3rd party publications to support this claim --- hence all the sources in article's lengthy Reference list.

Please provide more detail as to how this article can be improved and why it is being rejected completely. ---- Rejecting the article outright (and moving a Resubmission to the end of the queue) seems unnecessary.

Blue Force (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Force2006, you are correct, primary sources can be used to verify facts when the author is an expert. However, my concern (which was just validated when I declined your draft again) was that you almost only included primary references. You need to have articles that actually discuss him in detail, as specified in the Golden Rule. As I mentioned on the draft page, there is only one reference you've given that does that. The other references you included barely mention him, and there are some that do not mention him at all (those should be removed).
With regard to the flowery language - yes, you only used "world-renowned" once, but you used "renowned" multiple times. Basically, when I first read through the draft it was entirely too promotional; trying to make him sound awesome by his association with other awesome people. A neutral point of view is paramount in all Wikipedia articles.
As a note regarding the decline/resubmission issue. There is no "queue" per se, and drafts are reviewed in whatever order the reviewers feel like. I declined your draft because I felt that it did not meet the requirements. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Blue Force (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, Thank you for your reply. Actually there are several (secondary source) articles about the Subject that discuss his work and notability. You state in your last message/reply to me that "only one reference [I've] given that does that." That's not true. The secondary sources I list below are used/cited in my Wikipedia article and are accessible via the WWW:

There are other verifiable sources about the Subject, such as:

  • A Morris Native In Saddam’s Old Palace. The Daily Record. Schneider, Tehani. Mar. 3, 2008
  • A Break From Baghdad. Doctor, Diane. NJ Monthly magazine. Mar. 7, 2008

There are 3 books which discuss the Subject, his work and notability - all which are *not* authored by the Subject and are hence more secondary source material. These books, the first two having been best-sellers in the U.S., are all available for purchase via Amazon.com:

  • Hastings, Michael. The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America’s War in Afghanistan. New York: Blue Rider Press, 2012.
  • Hastings, Michael. I Lost My Love in Baghdad: A Modern War Story. New York: Scribner, 2010.
  • Fort, Patrick. Bagdad: Journal d’un reporter (French). Paris: Des Idées & des Hommes, 2007.

Furthermore, there are a series of TV and radio interviews about the subject:

  • CNN New Day, with Michaela Pereira. Mar. 19, 2015.
  • Regional News Network (New York), with Richard French Live. Dec. 21, 2011.
  • WCTC-AM radio (1450) The Voice of Central New Jersey, with Bert Baron. (Somerset, NJ) Dec. 28, 2011.
  • Newsline with Joyce Estey, WRNJ-AM. (Hackettstown, NJ)Feb. 28, 2008. Live discussion about life in Baghdad, political situation facing U.S. Government in Iraq, troop “surge.”
  • WBGO-FM radio, Doug Doyle. Feb. 28, 2008.

If you/other Wikipedia editors read through/watch/listen to all these sources thoroughly, I'd argue there is *more* information about the Subject than that which I included in my Wikipedia entry.

I'm still befuddled why this person is considered not noteworthy, however there are many other Biographies of Living Persons populating Wikipedia with less citations and verifyable works. They too, like my Subject, have a plethora of primary source material. Somehow they've made it onto Wikipedia, while my Subject has not. Some include

  • Arwa Damon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arwa_Damon - Subject is a CNN news correspondent. Entry has lines of information without reference, and draws on the numerous news segments the Subject has appeared in. ---- This is no different than me using the many news articles and news interviews in which my Subject has appeared.
  • Miguel Marquez, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Marquez - Subject is an ABC News correspondent. The entry has *two* sources only, and it appears the entry was primarily written based off *one* of those sources. ----- I could have done something similar, using only one of my Subject's interviews.
  • Anita McNaught, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_McNaught - Another media personality, McNaught worked for FOX News. The entire Wikipedia article is sourced from one reference - which provides *nothing* except this mention of Ms. McNaught: "Anita McNaught - international journalist based in London

working for BBC World."

Please help. Given the information I lay out here... I am (honestly) perplexed and beffuddled on how a Wikipedia volunteer writer such as myself is supposed to write an entry without it being rejected; especially in light of the less-than-reliable articles on people like those mentioned above in (a) (b) and (c).

Please assist further. Much appreciated!

Blue Force (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Primefac,
I sent you a reply on Feb. 19 (see above) but have not heard back. Please respond.
Thank you.
Blue Force (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Force2006, I have been rather busy the last three days. Please be patient. I will respond to your comments and queries when I have more than ten minutes to myself. Primefac (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Force2006, a few things. First and foremost, the existence of any other article, good or bad, does not mean another should be created. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and to be honest the three pages you linked to could potentially be deleted. Some pages were created well before the draft process, and some just slip through the cracks. It's up to all of us to either fix, or nominate for deletion, bad pages. Now, on to the rest.
One of the articles you list as a reference isn't actually being used in the article. Second, interviews do not demonstrate notability. You could have every interview he's ever talked on, and you still wouldn't get the draft accepted. You need independent reliable sources that talk about him. His own articles are also PRIMARY and are similarly useless for notability purposes.
My main suggestion would be to remove any references that do not actually use Cucciniello's name. If it's not about him or mentions him, it's pretty much useless and is currently bordering on bombardment. Once you've removed the unnecessary sources, then you get working on the good sources. At the moment there are large chunks of text that are only backed up by his own statements. Find more good sources and add them to the relevant locations. Remove anything that can't be properly sourced. Etc.
In re-reading the draft, I still think that it reads a little too much like a CV or a "here's why he's awesome" page. It's not purely about what he's done, it's about what other people have noticed him doing. His own recollections of the things he's done are immaterial.
In summary - he may be notable, but at the moment you're not showing it. Add a few more good refs, trim the fat, and see what happens. Primefac (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

{{Lists of 21st-century state leaders}}

Hi, Primefac. The reason as to why I had included the 84 red links to future years of the 21st century was partly due to the precedent set at Lists of state leaders by year. I had assumed this was the way of doing things—in case the template does not get updated when 2017 comes, etc. You may want to review that page also.--Neve–selbert 05:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiLove

Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Primefac/Archive 5, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Peter Sam Fan | talk 16:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


{{Arcade History}}

You added a bunch of {{subst:Arcade History}} to articles. That template was deleted a year ago, by you. You'll need to go thru and undo your edits. Egads, this is the type of thing I do, not you. I called dibs on these types of mess ups.  :) Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite, it was deleted two days ago, wasn't it? Primefac (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Oy vey. Yet more proof that this is the type of mistake I usually make. Of course my dyslexia is another story.... Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I've been known to do such things so I figured it'd be good to double-check. Primefac (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Review my Draft:Energising Bharat Awards

Hi,

I request you please review my Draft:Energising_Bharat_Awards, I have made the changes to the draft according to your suggestion.

Danish Mehraj (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Danish.mehraj26, I generally do not re-review drafts, as I think that having a different reviewer look at a page is beneficial to the entire process (and removes some of the bias). After a quick glance, I still think you need to add more about the award itself, but the promotional aspect has certainly been diminished. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Cmmkt

Hi Primeface. Thanks for [2]. I wasn't sure if the answer I gave was sufficient, or if that user wanted more info. So, I left the template open just in case unitl they responded either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Political parties

Ok, I think I've fixed all links to Template:WikiProject Political parties (translucations) and I think it's ready for deletion. What do you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, from the couple I glanced at it looks good. I have no issues with deletion. Primefac (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

IMSLP2 merge

Hey Primefac. You mentioned at the holding cell that {{IMSLP2}} is ready to merge, but needs a bot run to do so. Could you elaborate on what a bot is needed for? If it's something that can be done with an AWB bot run, I might be able to do it. ~ RobTalk 02:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, it's definitely an AWB fix, but with a few thousand transclusions I didn't really want to do it myself. IMSLP2 is technically a wrapper right now, so to properly turn it into a redirect/get rid of it {{{idX}}} needs to be changed to {{{workX}}} so as to meet the new params in {{IMSLP}}. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
... is there any reason not to just make {{{idX}}} a valid parameter for {{IMSLP}}? That would be a hell of a lot less work, and I don't think we have to worry too much about proliferation of deprecated parameters in this type of template. If that's a suitable solution, then it will only take me around 2 minutes. ~ RobTalk 01:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that both IMSLP and IMSLP2 originally used {{{id}}}. In order to avoid having two sets of templates to change, I allowed for {{{id}}} to be a legacy parameter in IMSLP (being an alternate to the new parameter {{{author}}}). So yes, I suppose I could make it so that {{{idX}}} is an alternate to the {{{workX}}}, but that would still leave issues with the base {{{id}}}. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Got it. BRFA submitted. ~ RobTalk 02:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Extreme wealth navbox

Hello, my friend. Please see here. Cheers! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

HB Scotland header

I saw you tried redirecting {{HB Scotland header}} a while back and had to revert. What went wrong and what still needs to be done, if you don't mind me asking? They appear to have the same parameters. Is the method of input different? ~ RobTalk 19:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, without undoing my undo and breaking everything all over again, I can't say with 100% certainty (it was a while ago). If I remember correctly, though, it was the inputs for {{HB Scotland row}} that didn't properly transition to {{HS listed building row}} upon redirect. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag

Sorry about that. Appears you moved the article into draftspace, so when I did the G13 the bot picked you up as the article's creator. ( Draft:Alcanzar Software Solutions) Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion

the article has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author and all users who made any revisions at all, thus meeting the criteria for U1 and G7. could you revision delete the article please? 63.240.97.125 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)gord

Speedy deletion nomination of RDUINO Scope

Hello Primefac,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged RDUINO Scope for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Um... ThePlatypusofDoom, you do realize that R2 is a completely valid CSD tag, right? So double-tagging is kinda pointless? It obviously isn't going to have any content, because it's a soon-to-be-deleted redirect. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Pro gamer achievements

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Pro gamer achievements. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Prisencolin (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help and reassurance that I'm entering my citations correctly. Drvalsummers (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Primefac! Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for the help. I'm glad I'm doing a decent job being above-board with my COI. Also, thanks for posting the Connected Contributor (paid) template on the Harrison McIntosh talk page - I just figured out how to do that today. I'll be posting proposed additions to the Harrison McIntosh page from now on, per your suggestion (I moved my userspace draft to my personal sandbox). I would appreciate your help in looking them over! 11gandhi (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you very much for all the work you put in fixing my talk page archives!! I was at a bit of a loss, and just didn't have time to deal with it. Enjoy your warm fuzzy kitty!

Chrisw80 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Social Work

Hello,

[3] How to move forward. Where to find the UI coding guide that's been used in the page. Can you give some pointers on other issues.

Off-topic

Physics mainly deals with meta-concepts right. How were you able to understand and remember them. Mathematics, how was it for you. I find it really hard to get in track. It requires either practice or remembering the particular rules and functions. I find it hard to distinguishing questions to be solved withe rules. Memorizing is also kind of an issue cant anchor those with anything. Similar is the issue with Physics. How would you say your experience was and if you had faced such an issue how would yo handle it. Where do you think the problem is or should the whole approach need a change then how. What are the career prospects for physics students other than teaching and research oriented.117.215.198.220 (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter M. Brant

An FYI I left you a note over at Talk:Peter M. Brant. I look forward to your input. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

NinaSpezz, I saw that, thank you. I'll take a look at it soon. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pasi

I am going to be off-wiki for a few days now. I've reported that person to WP:AN3. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sitush, I will (as always) keep an eye on it. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for all your help :) 
CoolCanuck eh? 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

DJ Many

Please Help This Draft About Me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Many — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:2C1:6C00:5076:5530:4968:99BC (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding National Centre for Excellence Page

Hi

I want to know why you have been undoing my handwork in the page 'National Centre for Excellence'. If you see the wiki page of the sister institution, National Public School, Indiranagar, there are all the sections which I had added to NCFE and to point out, with no reference. Please reconsider your decision to that and please undo it. The information is not biased and is to the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.24.92 (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me other pages to clean up. Unreferenced or non-encyclopaedic information is always removed from articles. Just because someone added in text that no one reverted doesn't automatically mean it should be kept. Your information may not be biased, but it is not necessary to know what programs a school offers(unless it's something unusual that no one else in the country is doing). Primefac (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Indian film score composers

Please see my proposal to rename/upmerge: Hugo999 (talk)

Category:Malayalam film composers to Category:Malayalam film score composers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 June 2016‎ (UTC)

New York Red Riders (Professional ABA Basketball Team)

Hello Primefac,

I was hoping you help me through the process of getting a page I made "live" -- I don't understand why you rejected it. It was a professional ABA basketball team (as referenced on Wikipedia 2009–10 ABA season under the Northeast Division). The thing I don't understand is why every other team in the division, and the ABA for that matter, got their page up on Wikipedia, with far less information and links.

Can you just walk me through the steps I need to make to get this page running? The team meant so much for our community and I think they are AT MINIMUM as deserving to have a page as the other teams in the division like the NYC Thunder, the Tri-City Suns and the Jersey Express.

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemksy8321 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hemksy8321, my apologies for the late reply, life has been rather busy, leaving me little time for in-depth responses like the one you deserve.
Let me first say that the existence of one page, good or bad, does not automatically mean another page (good or bad) should be created. The fact that some (and not all) of the ABA teams have pages does not mean the Red Riders automatically get one too. In fact, browsing through the ABA teams, many of them should be redirects to the ABA itself as there is insufficient information and referencing to merit a full article (see WP:BRANCH for why there's no reason to have a dozen stubs instead of one good article).
Second, you lack in-depth references. There is no doubt that the Red Riders existed, but the only references you have are rather generic coverage: team rosters and stats sheets from sites that cover every team in the ABA, rankings, and game announcements. There is a lot of information on the draft page that is simply not backed up by any reliable sources (and forums are not acceptable sources, ever).
Third, in re-reading through the draft, the tone reads part promotional, part fanpage. Phrases like "The team faced an uphill battle all night" and "a thrilling 146-137 victory" are not encyclopaedic (see WP:FLOWERY and WP:WEASEL).
In summary, you need to trim out the promotional text and add references for ALL of the paragraphs (or just remove them). To be honest, having a really solid two-paragraph stub backed up by good references is much better than a ten-paragraph page that gives no verifiable information, so shoot for the former in order to get the page to an acceptable status. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

15:41:20, 29 May 2016 review of submission by Nic4711

Dear Primefac,

Many thanks for your review and your comment. According to your suggestion I will rewrite the submission in a more encyclopedic format and in particular turn the bullet-list into neutral prose.

I have a question regarding “reliable sources”: According to Wikipedia:

“Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

It seems to me that the sources I give fit to this description. I would be thankful if you could check this point once again, and tell me which concrete sources you think I should remove.

In any case, my aim is to present an author whose work illustrates that today’s science may help to clarify crucial anthropological and theological questions, by means of “material published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses”. I think this may be of interest for the Wikipedia readers. Please tell me whether I can make such a remark or not.

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nic4711 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Nic4711, my apologies for the late reply, real life has kept me rather busy.
Your draft is suffering from a lack of independent references. It is strongly discouraged to use someone's own research as verification of a fact. This is not because it is unreliable (as you say, peer-reviewed academic publications are reliable), but rather the fact that it is the subject themselves making the claim. Scientists (and pseudoscientists) make wild claims all of the time; sometimes their theories end up being debunked, and other times they do something novel and important. So the fact that Suarez has published a ton of papers means absolutely nothing unless someone else comments on his research to put his papers into one of those two categories.
This draft should be about Suarez AND his research, but if no one even mentions him then how do we know anyone has taken notice of him? At the moment there is no indication that WP:PROF, one of our metrics for determining if a research professional should have a page on Wikipedia, has been met, because all you have done is say "here's all his research, and here's all the people he's worked with". Nothing has been written about him. No one is saying "his research is ground breaking" or "we're now teaching his theories".
As I said in my review, you will need to do some serious trimming of the draft before it will be acceptable. To be completely honest, if I were tasked with rewriting this draft I would delete everything from the "Quantum Physics" section downward and only keep the first three paragraphs. I would then find reliable sources that verified that information, and if I couldn't do that I would delete those paragraphs as well. Then, I would find articles that talk about him and/or his research and add that information into the draft.
A Wikipedia article does not have to be huge, but it does have to be well-referenced and encyclopaedic. I would rather see a two-paragraph stub that has good sources than a huge CV-like structure that didn't give any verifiable information. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

10:57:19, 6 June 2016 review of submission by Tropicalpineapple


Hi Primefac,

Thanks for reviewing my page. However, I am still very confused about the referencing - I have used both notable and reliable sources to back up my information. I have looked into other DJs Wikipedia pages, such as The Martinez Brothers, for example, and they also use same sources as I did in my article: Mixmag, Resident Advisor, etc. These are reliable and well-respected sources in the electronic music industry. Please help me understand how can I better improve the referencing of this article.

Many thanks, Tropicalpineapple — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropicalpineapple (talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Tropicalpineapple, apologies for the late reply. Referencing can be confusing, but I'll try to clarify a bit. Essentially, there are three main types of reference:
  1. Unreliable sources: these are things like blogs, forums, Facebook, IMDb, etc, that are either user-generated or of questionable reliability. If some guy with an opinion writes something on the internet, it's generally not acceptable.
  2. PRIMARY sources: these are sources that are directly connected to the subject. Often this is the subject's own website, but interviews also fall into this category. They are discouraged, mainly because it is the subject talking about themselves and they could be lying (so it's easier to just not use the information).
  3. Independent reliable sources. These are articles from newspapers, magazines, and reputable websites (such as Mixmag). These references are what Wikipedia is built on - good sources of information and a place where someone can potentially learn more about a subject. There are two types of reliable source
  1. Name drops/passing mentions: these are sources that do little more than mention the subject or give their name in a list (such as the Top 100 Widget Makers). Since they are reliable sources, they can be used to verify the facts on the page, but don't actually demonstrate notability.
  2. In-depth sources: references that talk about the subject from a reliable source show that someone has "taken note" of the subject. If there is no in-depth coverage of a subject, they fail the Golden Rule and generally are not given a Wikipedia entry.
You have a lot of primary sources and a lot of name drops, but you have almost no good in-depth sources. You must get some for this draft to be even borderline acceptable.
Another thing (which I mentioned on the draft at the time of decline) is that you have a lot of unnecessary/trivial information in the draft. They are DJs, so it's expected that they're going to play at festivals and club nights. Unless they were a headline act or received major media coverage for performing, there's not much point in including any given appearance (and simply appearing on the "Who's showing up at XYZ Festival" doesn't count).
In short - you need more references and the page could do with a bit of a trim. It's better to have less information that is backed up by really good references than a huge page that is mostly fluff. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Section break

Hi, Not sure I am doing this right. I am new. A couple of questions:

  1. Bridget0727 started a page that was denied as it was written like an ad rather than an encyclopedia entry. Then the ball got dropped and no activity happened for the page for quite a while, the page was deleted. That writer is no longer involved in writing the article and I will be picking it up again. My question is this...do I need to get the old page undeleted and edit that or can I start with a new page?
  2. The user name. Does it ever display on an article? If so, is it possible to change it as it is the old writers name and it would be better to be something that is more associated with the actual topic or person/company in the article.

Thanks!

--Bridget0727 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bridget0727. In answer to your questions:
  1. It is possible to get the draft un-deleted, simply visit WP:DRV and make your request. If you don't want to go through that process, you are more than welcome to use the Article Wizard to create a new draft.
  2. Yes, you need to have a different username. You should create a new account. See WP:NOSHARE.
Let me know if you have any other questions. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Reversed Edits

Hello, and thanks for your response. I removed the posts because it said that if I felt the reversal was incorrect, report it, then remove the notification and resubmit the edit. My source for my edits is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7830046/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

MsTiger08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsTiger08 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

MsTiger08, that's totally fine, and hopefully you now understand why the bot was acting as it was. As a note, IMDb isn't generally considered a reliable source, so if you can you should try to find something more substantial. See WP:RS for more information. Primefac (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt Primefac Sir but i would like to add few more information, correct me if I am wrong please. Dear MsTiger08, I believe IMDb is reliable for sourcing who starred in a movie, what year it came out, or what star has starred in what productions, etc. Same goes for directors, producers, etc. The IMDb bios however are created by users you can read what part of IMDb is user generated here: WP:CITEIMDB . Cheers Catrat999 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 01:39:46, 13 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Mvphothits8849


Please review new sources and let me know if this is sufficient for the moment. We will be adding more as soon as they are available. Thank you.

Mvphothits8849 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mvphothits8849, there are two main issues with the draft, the first and foremost being that the album hasn't even been released yet. This falls under what we call TOOSOON, meaning that while it may be a notable subject, it's too early to tell. This stipulation is generally aimed at films, but albums also fall into its purview. The second issue (which stems from the first) is that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of detailed coverage of the album; most of the reliable releases are simply track listings, and the rest are either unreliable (such as blogs) or PRIMARY sources like press releases.
In summary, I suggest waiting to resubmit until after the album is released and there is more press coverage. There is a possibility that no one will notice the release and it will fall into obscurity (of course, the opposite is true, and it could become a smash hit, but that's why you should wait and see). Primefac (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Purplehed Records

Dear Primefac Sir, As per your instruction, I have added few more reliable references where Purplehed is a context other than Burn Like the Sun. Request you to kindly review my Draft:Purplehed Records and guide me further. Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Primefac Sir, I am writing for follow up. Hope all is well at your end, its been long. I am awaiting your feedback/reply. Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Catrat999, it looks like you've added some more sources, which is good. I see no reason not to resubmit, but I give no guarantees (as I was mainly looking at the general content of the references and not doing a full review). Good luck! Primefac (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thank you for the guidance sir. I am sure whenever article is ready it will be accepted (Y) and if not then for further improvement, I must correct whatever respective reviewer suggests, there is nothing to worry about any guarantee as both the cases are win win situation. Cheers Catrat999 (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Mayorkun edit

Hi, primefac

You know as a chart 📈, it keeps changing . A song can't remain in number one forever. His hit single "eleko" actually topped the iTunes chart at number 1, it is still currently on number 6.

Also his video hit 1000000 views in a month, these are both worth celebrating.

Please I'll resubmit now, as today is the last day for resubmission "30 days" and I am just noticing.

Thank you Eyitayo osunkoya (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Eyitayo osunkoya, my main issue with the #1 thing is that I simply cannot find any sources that say he got to #1 on the iTunes charts. It would appear based on my searches that iTunes does not keep a record or past #1s, but you would think that someone would have mentioned it. If a fact cannot be verified (especially if it's something like hitting iTunes #1) then it needs to be removed.
As for the YouTube hits - they are immaterial. YouTube is largely a social media platform, and how quickly someone reaches an arbitrary milestone of views is less dependent on the quality of their video and more about how well said video is shared by a network of people. To elaborate, if a popular person (like Davido) says "hey check out this video" most people will click just to see what is going on. Everyone could hate the video but it would still get the views.
As an additional note, I'm not sure what "30 day" limit you're talking about. Drafts are deleted after six months with no activity, so you still have plenty of time to find more sources and improve the draft. If you resubmit now without making any changes, it will simply be declined for not being improved. Primefac (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay thank you
I can't even find the draft.
I keep getting, the page does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyitayo osunkoya (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Eyitayo osunkoya, the page is at Draft:Mayorkun. If you ever can't find a page that you've edited, go to the Contributions link (found at the top of every Wikipedia page) and scroll through your recent edits. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Check this out.

http://www.nairaland.com/3057917/mayorkuns-eleko-currently-topping-itunes

Even when you Google search you'll see lots of platforms talking about it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyitayo osunkoya (talk • contribs) 18:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Eyitayo osunkoya, as the editor primarily responsible for editing this draft page, you should add the reliable references to the draft. I did find the original twitter post to the iTunes #1, but I also left a few other comments on the draft page regarding it. My original comments are also still valid, particularly the lack of in-depth coverage of Mayorkun himself. As a minor note, please make sure to sign all of your posts with ~~~~. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wallace vandalism

Thanks, Primefac, for your answer to my question. I had missed the edit, somehow. As you may be able to see, this was my first Wikipedia edit. So I am inexperienced.

Jlindcary (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Jlindcary, no worries, these things happen. I'm just glad that someone caught the vandalism. Welcome to Wikipedia! Primefac (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian Stylezz

Fyi, the Ian Stylezz nomination was a good call. He's not notable in the least really-- just one of thousands of non-notable lower level actors without independent critical coverage. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_20#Template:RMpmc

I must respectfully disagree with your close here. In the actual TFD, there was only one two actual !votes for redirect, the result of the TFD was more of a no consensus in my opinion. However, you took into account the discussion on the template's talk page as well, which is fair enough. Still, the consensus in that discussion was to change the wording back to the original {{RMnac}}, whilst keeping the link, not to redirect it. Overall, your close seems more like a WP:SUPERVOTE than an actual judge of consensus. I believe that the proper close would've been "keep, but edit to change the wording back to the text of {{RMnac}}, whilst retaining the link". Could you please clarify why you closed it this way? Omni Flames (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: A small point of correction: there were two !votes for redirecting (expressed as "retarget"). Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice catch. I've updated my post to reflect this. Omni Flames (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right; I should have just closed as delete. That was my mistake. Though, respectfully, I have a feeling you would have been posting on my talk page even if I had closed as such.
As for the decision itself, there seemed to be two main arguments: to declare the user was a page mover or not, and the wording implying more power than necessary. The second became a moot point as a result of the talk page discussion (since most involved agreed that "non-admin closure" was acceptable text). For the first point, the most compelling argument for was "it lets users know the change will be enacted immediately," with the most compelling argument against being "it's redundant to {{RMnac}}". As WP:RMPMC is a currently a subsection of WP:RMNAC (meaning linking to the latter includes the former) and there is NODEADLINE, redundancy wins.
If you still feel that I have overstepped my bounds as a NAC then you are welcome to bring my decision up for review, though I do ask that you wait until the discussion at Template talk:RMnac concludes (as it might just end up re-adding the RMPMC link to the template). Primefac (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Higher Education Research Consortium Philippines member has been nominated for discussion

Category:Higher Education Research Consortium Philippines member, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

23:14:56, 8 June 2016 review of submission by Khalaf Smoqi


Hi Primefac,I need your help with this Draft. Can you please do what is necessary(Delete the Sources you think unnecessary, as well as any lines). If possible, Please do what ever necessary to let this Draft be accepted. The reason I'm asking this is that it has been rejected 4 times, and I really don't know what else I can do. Thank you in advance

Khalaf Smoqi, it looks like you've already resubmitted the draft, so I will keep an eye on it and if I get time I will see about potentially improving the page. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Khalaf Smoqi (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Khalaf Smoqi , Hello again :Primefac, as You can see, my draft was rejected again, Please note that I'm not going to resubmit again hoping that you will take editing it under consideration This time. Thank you so much in advance

Draft: HuckleyBuck

I appreciate you taking the time to review my page and suggest improvements.

This is a tricky topic since playing card games tend to be things that people do, not write about. For example, there has reportedly been a running card game at the Auburn Country Club for the last 15 years, but no references to it in the Auburn paper of the club newsletter. That's my problem, not yours.

On the other hand, the online rules cited and the article in the journal both provide a lot of details. The article has a complete description of the game on page 4. That is where I got the details about shooting the moon. As noted, the article is not online but I write to the author and he sent me a copy. Is there any way that can be of any use?

Blwhite (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Blwhite

Blwhite, you are correct, writing about poorly-sourced subjects can be difficult. The issue I have with the draft currently is that 3/5 of your sources are not reliable: the "official" website is just a blog run by some guy named Kraft, and forums are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. This leaves you with the McLeod article (which I assume goes into a bit of detail) and the Pagat ref (which doesn't specifically mention the game, but does verify what is stated in the lead).
My suggestion going forward would be to remove the bad refs and add a couple more good ones (if possible); if you cannot source something, remove it. It is better to have a one-paragraph, well-sourced stub than a six page article that is all hearsay and unverified information. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:165th Air Support Operations Squadron

Thank you very much for your comments. I think I have edited the draft to remove flowery and weasel language. Obviously, I have never done one of these before... so I appreciate your patience. I was very surprised (disappointed) that it got recommended for deletion so quickly; I would have thought the original reviewer would have given me the opportunity to make edits.

As far as notability, I hope I have added enough to make the squadron seem notable. In the first section, I have included that the 165 ASOS is a combat support unit and that it falls under Air Combat Command (ACC). While the 165 ASOS is under the 165 AW, it is a geographically separated unit and has a different mission (the 165 AW falls under Air Mobility Command (AMC)). Please let me know if you recommend any other changes be made. I will make as many edits as necessary to have this accepted. Apologies for the advertising; I am definitely still learning.

Whopkins11 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Whopkins11, I apologise on behalf of the AFC helpers for your recent experience. The entire purpose of the AFC process is to make mistakes and improve on them! I wouldn't worry too much about the deletion nomination; the reviewer who did that is fairly new to the group and has much to learn (so they have their own share of mistakes to learn from).
Taking a quick look at the draft it definitely reads a lot better now. I would suggest removing some of the numerous images from the draft, since a random image of a guy holding a gun or jumping out of a plane is not strictly unique to this Squadron. On a minor note, I suggest that you flesh out the references using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} as appropriate (WP:REFB Section 3.1 has really good information about adding references quickly). The main reason for this is so users can more easily find the original source should the URL ever change in the future. Overall, though, it looks good! Primefac (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions and comments! I have made additional edits, taking out a few pictures and using {{cite web}} for all the sources. I apologize if there is still something wrong with it, but please let me know what else I need to do. I truly appreciate your help!

Whopkins11 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

PrimefacThank you for your clear explanations on how to fix the errors. I see that this is a very complicated site with many rules. I appreciate you explaining them. I have requested a new user name and will make sure to be non promotional and add paid to the page. SofiaUPaloAlto (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

13:55:01, 8 July 2016 review of submission by Pianomusic30


I appreciate the feedback that you have given in your most recent review of David Sulkin's draft Wikipedia page. I was interested that you said it is borderline. I have already amended the Early Career section as you have suggested.

David Sulkin has been major figure in the arts for several years, and latterly has been doing important work for two major music charities. This sort of work doesn't attract press attention in the way that performers do. He was awarded an OBE in the Queen's New Years Honours list for services to the Arts, Education and Charity, which to me says he is notable. He has achieved a great deal in his career and I appreciate that for an encyclopaedia entrance, it requires reference and evidence. What I don't understand is why these two people, for example, have had their Wikipedia entries confirmed when their articles are so much slimmer:

Daniel Kramer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kramer Genista McIntosh - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genista_McIntosh,_Baroness_McIntosh_of_Hudnall

I have identified two articles that were written by David Sulkin. Can you let me know if they will help my case? Times Educational Supplement article, 23.10.1987 entitled "Art of the State. David Sulkin looks at contrasting attitudes to young people's theatre in Russia" Drama - the Quarterly Theatre Review, 1988 - Volume 1 entitled "Behind the Iron Curtain. David Sulkin visits Moscow to find out about facilities for young people in the Soviet Union."

Many thanks for your help and advice Pianomusic30 (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between being bold and being uncivil

I notice you redirected a number of American Basketball Association (2000–present) team pages to the main page without starting the slightest bit of discussion nor giving people the opportunity to improve these articles nor add sources. Also your edit summaries, "being BOLD, redirecting" might violate WP:CIVIL. As such, could you please explain your rationale for doing this without any discussion? Tom Danson (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom Danson, I am genuinely curious as to how you equate being BOLD (making a big change to an article, and then stating in the edit summary what is being done) with being unCIVIL. Honestly, please explain.
As to your request: I came across these team pages, found little to nothing in the way of significant coverage (or non-trivial information), and decided to redirect to the parent article. I will admit, I didn't do BEFORE work on every team, but after the first dozen the trend was pretty clear (and you'll notice I didn't do all of the teams). One of the nice things about being bold is that it is easy to undo. If you disagree with my changes, you are welcome (and some might argue, encouraged, per BRD) to revert them. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

16:51:06, 19 July 2016 review of submission by Gdevasahayam


I have added references to the descriptions. I also have a photo with caption, please let me know how to submit this. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdevasahayam (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Gdevasahayam, I have left additional comments on the draft, but you need to add references that talk about her specifically and are not directly connected to her. Her company is obviously going to have a biography of her, so there is no indication of notability. Please see The Golden Rule for the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Some general Wiki mark-up and template doubts

I have some doubts with the Wiki mark-up and templates. Please clarify.

  1. What is the difference between the usage of '<br>' and '<br/>'?
  2. What is the use of using '&nbsp' with ';' instead of a space ' '?
  3. What is the difference between the substituting the template using {{subst:Example}} and transcluding it generally as {{Example}}?

Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 15:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, in order:
  1. None. <br> has one fewer character (which is why I use it myself), but they do the same thing.
  2.   is a contraction for "non-breaking space". It means that the words on either side of it will always stay right next to each other. This subsection has a good example of what it does.
  3. When you transclude a template, the page it's being used on makes reference to the template whenever it's refreshed. For example:
  • {{User:Primefac/RandName}} is

==Template update workflow== This template is part of a series of interconnected templates and modules: {{country alias}}, {{team appearances list}}, and {{infobox country at games}}. A change to one, in particular the first two, will often require a change in the others to accommodate the new information.

All relevant templates

Workflow

Below are a set of questions (in no particular order) to determine which templates and modules need updating. Note that simple updates (such as "adding a new flag to Module:Country alias") are not included below as they affect only one of the template groups.

  • Is a name being added?
  • {{subst:User:Primefac/RandName}} is This is a random subpage.
When I first saved the page, these two were identical. However, I will shortly be changing the code so you will see two different lines of text. A transcluded template, when changed, will change on the articles where they are used. A substituted template cannot, because it ceases to be a template (it's just text on a page).
Hope this helps! Primefac (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Primefac. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 00:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Primefac. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Nakon 01:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

TfD relistings

Hi Primefac. Thanks for helping out at TfD! Usually, when you relist discussions, you leave a copy of the entire discussion as of the relist where it originally was. There are many advantages of this, but one of the main ones is that editors can easily search for discussions they were a part of that have been relisted. Would you mind doing that going forward? Thanks! ~ Rob13Talk 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I asked about this a few months ago, where I specifically asked about WP:RELIST and how I had seen other editors blanking before relisting. The only response I received made sense, and I have continued to see others blank/relist, so I have continued the practice. If you feel that this is incorrect, I think we should ping some of the other TFD personalities on the TFD talk page to properly gain a consensus on this issue. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Templates for hierarchy

I want to know whether there are any templates to construct a hierarchy table. Presently, I am using direct image files to portray the hierarchy. For example: Please have a look at the 'Organisational structure' section of the Indian Naval Hydrographic Department. I am considering {{Family tree}}, but I want to whether is it correct to use that for the this purpose. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 00:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I think it would be best to use images. {{Chart}} (which has replaced {{family tree}}) doesn't have the level of detail you want (specifically, the arrows). Also, the image you're using is more complex than what Chart would be able to manage. Plus, the image looks really nice. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mayorkun

Hi Primefac,

Fixed up most you complained about.

The boy is doing really good.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyitayo osunkoya (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Austin Petersen again

Hi, not sure if you are interested, but the Austin_Petersen page is up again. Bunco man (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:23:47, 16 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by JMWalden



JMWalden (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

with reference to GENE VAN DYKE article:

I don’t think any changes need to be made to this article. It’s factual. It’s straight forward. And, I’d like to address your objections here so you will reconsider and/or comment:

Objections:

  1. Lack of online
  2. Lake Arthur (West Lake Arthur)
  3. Peacock language – has been removed
  4. Neutral POV – give me an example. A good example of a non-neutral article is the Wiki article for J. Howard Marshall, see below.
  5. Reliable sources – Time magazine, Crude Continent (book) are reliable sources
  6. Formal tone – this revision is a factual tone. Please give me a better example of a factual, formal tone.
  7. (June 28, 2016) draft does not say he is a “great oilman” It only states his activity.


Lack of online references Unsubstantiated references

  • Much of Van Dyke’s career (1951-1996) is in print and not online. Would you like a PDF of the articles?
  • Tullow Chief Aidan Heavey has a brief Wiki article with only 9 sources. One-third of those sources (online) can no longer be referenced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aidan_Heavey
  • Wiki article about Daphna Kastner, wife of Harvey Keitel, has NO citations to substantiate her family, marriage and career content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphna_Kastner
  • Most of Wiki article J. Howard Marshall’s citations are in print only, like court documents. And, the lead source of information is from his autobiography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Howard_Marshall
  • Another example of unsubstantiated history is the article on Everett Pierce Marshall, J. Howard Marshall’s son https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Pierce_Marshall. The first two paragraphs under Life and career refer to extensive education and employment, yet there is not one citation for the first two paragraphs. The paragraph uses language like, “led the company through a successful turnaround, saving over 300 jobs in Colorado and Oklahoma” but there are no citations to support this, and the language sound peacock.
  • Further, like Van Dyke’s article, E. Pierce Marshall’s article uses primarily non-online sources. Like Van Dyke, E. Pierce Marshall only uses 7 references.


Peacock language

  • All “peacock” language in Van Dyke article has been removed, yet it appears, unsubstantiated in Wiki article on J. Howard Marshall, which uses language like “his most influential work” and “these pioneering studies”. No footnote and no factual basis.
  • Marshall’s article further uses personal, non-factual and unsubstantiated references like, “Throughout many of his endeavors, Marshall turned most of his business associations into friendships; including J.R. Parten, Fred Koch and his sons, Oscar Wyatt and O.E. Buck.”
Insignificant discoveries-insignificant films
Reviewer labeled reference to Texas Gulf Coast discoveries in Van Dyke article as insignificant; yet the obscure, unknown and unsuccessful films of Harvey Keitel’s wife appear in her Wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphna_Kastner
Lake Arthur vs. West Lake Arthur
In the oil and gas business, there may be reference to a field that is in the vicinity of another field. In this case, the WEST Lake Arthur field is in the vicinity of the Lake Arthur field. Two separate finds; two separate fields. JMWalden (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
JMWalden, it's late and I'm tired, and I'll get back to you fully soon. However, I should give you fair warning that per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm pretty much going ignore any "but this person has..." complaints. The existence of good/bad pages means absolutely nothing for the creation of a new page. If a bad page exists, it should be improved or deleted, not used as rationale for creating another potentially substandard page. That being said, it looks like you make some valid points (I'm just too tired to parse them fully); I'll read through this in the next couple of days and get back to you. Primefac (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I look forward to your reply and further consideration. JMWalden (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft on RL Leaders

In reference to my article on RL Leaders....most of their work is CLASSIFIED so it's very hard to provide extensive "detailed" coverage of the company. I listed work by them that has been de-classified and can be mentioned and backed it up with legit references from the Washington Post to the NY Times as well as govt sites. I ALSO modeled it exactly after other pages that HAVE been approved and EXIST on wikipedia. Doesn't get much more legit than that. At this point I've been kind, I've been cooperartive and have followed every suggestion given to me since April (explain what they do....explain how they were born out of the 9/11 commission, explain a few of the projects they have done...take out info about the founders and talk more about the company...) I've done every single one of those things. Every single one. Robert McLenon was the nicest reviewer. Very helpful and not an elitist snob like so many. All "wikipedists" have different things to say to help my article and none of them, not one, has helped get the article approved. One last submission and I'm throwing in the towel. Evaki1972 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft:David Sulkin

HI Primefac I wrote to you about your review of the page about David Sulkin in July and haven't seen a reply from you yet. Do I need to check your page to see your reply? I should be really grateful for your help/feedback. Would you like me to send my query again? Thanks very much Pianomusic30 (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Pianomusic30, I do apologise. I appear to have completely missed your original post somehow (I see it in my archives), but I've been busy and haven't had much time to dedicate to Wikipedia. I'm moving in a couple of days, but after that I will take a look at your original request and get back to you. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Primefac, thanks, much appreciated Pianomusic30 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Pianomusic30, I've taken a look at your original message. First, the articles on Kramer and McIntosh may be on Wikipedia, but currently they do not appear appropriate for inclusion. Per a guideline called "other stuff exists," the fact that these two articles exist does not mean that similar articles should also be created. Sub-standard articles (a category which I believe both these fall into) should either be improved or deleted.
As for getting your draft approved: the lack of significant coverage is currently holding it back. Honestly, if you can find 1-2 sources that talk specifically about Sulkin (and aren't interviews, press releases, or other PRIMARY sources) I think it would be acceptable. A side note: the fact that he is an OBE does not automatically make him notable, as a ton of people receive that honour every year.
If you can find those sources and add them in somewhere appropriate, I'd be happy to take a second look at the page. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Primefac, thanks very much for the feedback which I understand and is very clear. I have found 8 more sources that talk about / mention Sulkin which are not press releases, interviews or primary sources. I should be most grateful if you were able to have a second look. Pianomusic30 (talk) 5 September 2016

Draft on RL Leaders

In reference to my article on RL Leaders....most of their work is CLASSIFIED so it's very hard to provide extensive "detailed" coverage of the company. I listed work by them that has been de-classified and can be mentioned and backed it up with legit references from the Washington Post to the NY Times as well as govt sites. I ALSO modeled it exactly after other pages that HAVE been approved and EXIST on wikipedia. Doesn't get much more legit than that. At this point I've been kind, I've been cooperartive and have followed every suggestion given to me since April (explain what they do....explain how they were born out of the 9/11 commission, explain a few of the projects they have done...take out info about the founders and talk more about the company...) I've done every single one of those things. Every single one. Robert McLenon was the nicest reviewer. Very helpful and not an elitist snob like so many. All "wikipedists" have different things to say to help my article and none of them, not one, has helped get the article approved. One last submission and I'm throwing in the towel. Evaki1972 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft:David Sulkin

HI Primefac I wrote to you about your review of the page about David Sulkin in July and haven't seen a reply from you yet. Do I need to check your page to see your reply? I should be really grateful for your help/feedback. Would you like me to send my query again? Thanks very much Pianomusic30 (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Pianomusic30, I do apologise. I appear to have completely missed your original post somehow (I see it in my archives), but I've been busy and haven't had much time to dedicate to Wikipedia. I'm moving in a couple of days, but after that I will take a look at your original request and get back to you. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Primefac, thanks, much appreciated Pianomusic30 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Pianomusic30, I've taken a look at your original message. First, the articles on Kramer and McIntosh may be on Wikipedia, but currently they do not appear appropriate for inclusion. Per a guideline called "other stuff exists," the fact that these two articles exist does not mean that similar articles should also be created. Sub-standard articles (a category which I believe both these fall into) should either be improved or deleted.
As for getting your draft approved: the lack of significant coverage is currently holding it back. Honestly, if you can find 1-2 sources that talk specifically about Sulkin (and aren't interviews, press releases, or other PRIMARY sources) I think it would be acceptable. A side note: the fact that he is an OBE does not automatically make him notable, as a ton of people receive that honour every year.
If you can find those sources and add them in somewhere appropriate, I'd be happy to take a second look at the page. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Primefac, thanks very much for the feedback which I understand and is very clear. I have found 8 more sources that talk about / mention Sulkin which are not press releases, interviews or primary sources. I should be most grateful if you were able to have a second look. Pianomusic30 (talk) 5 September 2016

Pageswap script for convenience

Hi Primefac! I've noticed that at some point, you performed round-robin page moves. Thought I'd share a script I recently completed here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual) It's gotten decent feedback so far.

Oh, and a quick thing about the round-robin for Future Earth: the move order you performed left two move entries in the main page's revision history. Consider making two moves for the redirect page (now at Future Earth (environmental research) instead, so a move of the main page has one direct clean revision. Anyway, feel free to adapt that script as you see fit, and cheers :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Andy! This will definitely make things a bit nicer in the future. I'll also keep in mind the move order for next time. Primefac (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitted article on Daniel Noah

Hi again. I've finished the edit, and wanted to make sure it was re-submitted properly. Is there any way you can check that for me? Also, if you have a moment to look at the edit, let me know your thoughts. Thanks again for all your help! Mek457 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mek457, you've made the edits, but you haven't resubmitted it yet. You can either click the "Resubmit" button on the previous decline notice, or place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and save it. A minor note regarding references: when you use something like {{cite web}}, make sure you include the closing curly brackets! Good luck! Primefac (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Los Alamos Scientists

Primefac, It appears to me that there is some "cooperation" in the writing of biographies of Los Alamos scientists. So, for example, have you noticed that User:UareNumber6 and User:GoldCar have extremely similar user pages? Also, user:Alamosfan, who submitted the article on Johndale Solem, [4], but otherwise has not made any other edits. Then there is user:MCCONM, [5]], who has made lots of edits to the Charles L. Mader article, [6]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom, I'm not overly surprised, given that they all work together. A little cooperation never hurt anyone, and (fortunately) they're all fairly neutral articles. Plus, they've disclosed their COIs (even though they might be nearly identical). Something to keep an eye on (which I think I do), but no reason to alert the authorities. Primefac (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:09:20, 12 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Helen Larkin


Dear Primefac

Thanks for taking the time to review my article, but there are a few things I have issues with.

The definition of a martyr is to give your life for your country. Patrick Whelan was awarded the 1916 medal posthumously, in recognition of his sacrifice to help build the foundations of this State and allow Ireland gain her freedom. In acknowledgement of Patrick's contribution, our family is invited to attend State Commemorative Masses and Events on an annual basis. In addition Patrick Whelan's name featured as part of the 'written names logo' for the centenary of the Easter Rising this year.

In your review, you state that 'he does have a street named after him' - it's actually an entire block of flats - Whelan House - that's named after him. The flats are beside O'Rahily House and next door to St. Patrick's Church in Ringsend. Both blocks of flats were named in memory of the two men who were killed in the Rising. I've since amended the reference to this (14) in the Wikipedia article, as I found the source of this information contained in Turtle Bunbury's book 'Dublin Dockland - An Urban Voyage'. 

http://www.turtlebunbury.com/published/published_books/docklands/ringsend_poolbeg/pub_books_docklands_rd_streetwise.html

I used the following as independent reliable sources:

  • Joseph E.A. Connell Jnr. (Who's Who in the Dublin Rising 1916)
  • Ray Bateson (They Died by Pearse's Side). Patrick Whelan is mentioned specifically on the back of the dust jacket.
  • I have made reference to the Military Archives, where Patrick's name appears on the Roll of Honour and which also stores the Witness Statement of the Captain of the 3rd Battalion, Joseph O'Byrne, who was standing beside Patrick, when he was shot dead.

Even though it only lasted six days, the Easter Rising was a seminal event in Irish history, and Patrick Whelan played his part in it. The centenary of the event this year has brought a greater interest in the various aspects of it and there is currently a writing contest (and photography contest) running on Wikipedia:

http://wikilovesmonuments.ie/?pk_campaign=Centralnotice

where one of the categories is 1916 People and Places. I think this would be a great context for Patrick Whelan’s involvement in the events of Easter week and would like to enter my article, as I believe it would be of interest in this category.

I look forward to your response and thanks again for your time


Helen Larkin (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Helen Larkin, there were multiple issues with the draft, which I left as a comment on the draft itself. I will not reiterate those points. However, I will expand upon your main concern about references: while it is clear that Whelan has been mentioned in a lot of places, brief mentions do not demonstrate notability. Articles on Wikipedia require significant coverage of a subject. He could be listed on every honour roll that they print, but if those listings never say more than "died in the Easter Rising" then they're pretty much useless.
Unfortunately, "notability" as defined by the Golden Rule is different than what most people feel is "important" or "significant." There are important and significant people who will never get an article on Wikipedia simply because they do not meet the requirements for inclusion. I am certainly not saying that Whelan is one of those people, but I am saying that at the moment (at least to me) he does not meet those requirements. As a courtesy, I will be copying this discussion over to the draft's talk page and will ping WP:MILHIST for their opinions. They might have some good suggestions. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: I have moved this discussion to Draft talk:Patrick Whelan#Discussion about notability. Please continue the conversation there. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft of Clipperz Wikipedia article

Primefac, thank you very much for taking the time to review my proposed article on the Clipperz password manager. I realize that you are doing your best to uphold the quality of Wikipedia entries. The rejection of the article is quite disappointing as I spent about 40 hours researching and developing this article and did my best to meet the standards, goals and format requirements of Wikipedia. In your comment you mentioned that there is only a single reliable source cited. The reason for this is that much of my original submission was removed after Bradv suggested that a description of the features of the product read as an advertisement.

In the case of Clipperz, I am just a long-time user of the product. I could appreciate the concept that a small product like Clipperz doesn't rise to the notability level of a Wikipedia entry except for the fact that many password managers listed in Wikipedia and which have entries in Wikipedia's list of Password Managers are even smaller, cite few (if any) independent references, usually run-on about their features and -- in several instances -- simply are defunct or otherwise unavailable. None of them have a (software) historical context, which Clipperz does have. A product called SaferPass appears in the Password Managers listing even though it is just a reference to a so-far rejected draft.

Even this would be OK were it not for the fact that Google and other search engines showcase the Wikipedia "List of Password Managers". No casual user would realize that this list is based on the combination of someone submitting an article and being assigned a Wikipedia editor who for whatever reason (or not) gave the article a pass. Instead they would reasonably assume that any valid password manager could be listed if someone went to the trouble to do so. In this regard I think the policy of restricting lists to items with Wikipedia entries is quite damaging to small software and other technology enterprises, especially when they are starting out.

I realize that none of this is your problem. On the other hand, it seems it is no one else's problem either. I'm sorry to have to say that that is even more disappointing than the denial of publication.

Again, thank you for the comments and assessment and continuing efforts on behalf of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddkatz (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft review for Doc.It article

Hi Primefac, thanks for your input. I have provided many sources and listed some awards that Doc.It has received, including one just now for top 100 accounting products - hopefully this addresses your concern of the software being run-of-the-mill. There are at least 2 independent, third-party reviews. Also, I have not cited the following reviews because I don't reference them at all, but they are different reviews that could satisfy what you're looking for: http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/review/11600740/2014-review-of-docit-suite http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/review/12236187/2016-review-of-docit-suite

If they are applicable and will help my case, let me know.

Also, consider the following Wikipedia page of another software company in the same industry. They have an article published with a lot less sources than what I'm offering now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CaseWare_International

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdowns13 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

GENUKI

Hi, you have replaced Genuki references with template, for example here, but you have failed to retain the accessdate required when used as a reference. The template looks like it requires an |accessdate= to allow it to be used in references. Keith D (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith D, this is me being genuinely curious, but if access dates were required for all online references, wouldn't things like {{cite web}} throw errors left and right from people leaving them out? I know that an access date is valuable information, but saying that a reference would be disallowed because it doesn't have an access date parameter seems a little farfetched. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I should also probably mention that I'm pretty sure this template (well, its predecessors anyway) were never meant to be used as references, but I'd have to ask PamD about that one. Maybe it shouldn't be used in refs? Primefac (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no code to throw an error for missing accessdates in the cite templates so that is why there are not loads of errors for this. I do not think I was saying it should be disallowed if it does not have an accessdate but that one should be present if it is to a web page as Genuki is. The reference entries to Genuki that have accessdates should not loose that information but should retain it when it is converted to the template. Keith D (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Keith D, you make a fair point. I'll go through my recent edits and re-add the accessdate information (be it via the template or just re-adding the information). Primefac (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It's most often going to be an external link, but I suppose it could be used as a reference if someone wanted to cite info found in Genuki, perhaps citing it as source for a quote from a historic description, so it might be useful to add an optional "access date" field. PamD 23:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
PamD, the other issue I discovered is that the base names only account for about half of the actual links being used. There are a lot of subpages for the various parishes that {{genuki}} simply can't handle at the moment. I'm thinking about ways around this, but I'll have to test some things out first. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to revert the ref usage of the template until I can figure out the best usage of this template. Primefac (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Good luck! I developed the original 4 templates for use, initially my own use, as a shortcut and futureproof way to add a helpful EL for places. I can see that others might want to link to Genuki pages for other reasons. Reverting changes to refs look safest for now. PamD 05:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD close error

When you closed the tfd for Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:ArbComBlock, you instead appear to have put the G6 tag on Template:ArbComBlock itself, rather than its editnotice. Pppery —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a rather serious error, Pppery, thanks for letting me know. I'm not sure what happened, as I was using the TFDcloser. I'm pinging Evad37 and I'll leave a note on the talk page for the script. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Should've put it on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at VarunFEB2003's talk page.
Message added VarunFEB2003 13:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please help improve the file you asked for - File:Toggle green v2.png VarunFEB2003 13:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done VarunFEB2003 15:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Industrial Plankton Review

Dear Primefac

Thanks for taking the time to review my article, Industrial Plankton Inc. You wrote on June 1st "My main concern with this draft (which I have discussed with the creator on IRC) is that in five years this company has only received three press mentions, one of which being from a rather specialized publication. Apparently there should be more press generated soon, as new business ventures are underway. When that happens, I would be perfectly happy accepting this article as a stub, but until then it seems like a good idea that just hasn't been noticed yet"

I have taken the time to work on what you wrote and have published an article by the Globe and Mail titled" Feeding the seafood Farm industry" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/partners/advsbi0916/feeding-the-seafood-farm-industry/article32263942/. I believe this should satisfy you, and the Globe and Mail is one the most reliable sources here in Canada. I am working on getting more sources, as I believe this company is attending a lot of huge Aquaculture and Biotech Conferences and seminars and I honestly see a huge potential for such a company. Kindly read the most recent article. I have just resubmitted the article and I hope you can approve it.

Thank you for your cooperation.

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am.h121 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Am.h121, in looking at the Glove and Mail reference, it's created by Globe Edge Content Studio, which is a service where a company pays them money and they write/help write an article that can be published somewhere. I'm not quite sure it counts as a good secondary source (since it's essentially a press release/native advertising). Keep looking, though, and I'm always happy to provide feedback! Primefac (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_5&oldid=998999918"