Primefac

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 211#Toolforge tool/bot to send email notifications

I noticed this and your post at BOTN. I wouldn't mind working on this. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Primefac (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've written most of the code for this, just waiting on phab:T361367 to be resolved. I'm also going skiing for a week (starting today), so I'll try to get this done around the end of next week. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Primefac (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of what the emails would look like (my email address is qwerfjklwikipedia@gmail.com, if you want to forward one to me)? Are multiple changes on the same page grouped together? Would you only want emails for edits, or also for log actions, category changes, etc.? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Forwarded. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately filtering edits has the same problem as filtering for bots (hopefully will be fixed sometime soon, but who knows). — Qwerfjkltalk 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Blargh... thanks for checking though. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty easy to email for every edit made by a bot to a page on your watchlist (I could do a quick & dirty fix of treating editors with "bot" in their username as bots); wolud that be alright? It would send multiple emails if there are multiple bot edits to the same page, and I don't think I can check whether you've viewed the page or not (apparently the watchlist feed doesn't care either way). — Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, on the one hand multiple emails might get annoying, but on the other hand gmail is pretty good at merging them all together. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I've got this working, try toolforge:watchlistemail. From trying it out myself, most of the edits are sigmabot archiving pages, so I could filter those out if you want. Let me know if it works. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Bots archiving is one of the reasons I want this! Will give it a go. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────┘
FWIW I've encrypted the token i.e. so that the data is stored as:

{
    "Qwerfjkl": [
        "Z0FBQUFBQm1IcWxrV1VQamw2TWZHY2xYSVFrSFhiTTYyNHRGUi1MeWlKcVoxTWx2b05Jd0Y0SDlWczVfaEp0NEtJbk01Zl9DRW9UV0lRMWRtN1B6VTdtaXZFMWxQUGxRX2VqWVVlT3UzbzljQ1VodHdvd0ZUTDNjUkE0XzFIZTNYVDBwaWdaUmhvYzI=",
        "qwerfjklwikipedia@gmail.com",
        "2024-04-16 16:52:46"
    ]
}

— Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be working :-) Primefac (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

​ Question: Special:Diff/1219571247 was followed by Special:Diff/1219576277 (both following an edit I had made to the page), but the first edit didn't seem to trigger the email notification (which meant that I missed the second). Glitch or will an email suddenly appear in my inbox two hours from now? Primefac (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops. I checked for "bot" in the username but not "Bot". Now fixed. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting BOT is also possible (e.g. BaranBOT). Primefac (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And boT... (PonoRoboT)! Primefac (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just did

if not 'bot' in entry['author'].lower():
    continue

so it's case-insensitive. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That works. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(hopefully) Last tweak/request - instead of &diff=prev could it be &diff=0? That way if there are other edits they'll get lumped in (if not, no worries). Primefac (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the above might not be feasible... when diff=0 the oldid is the last-seen version of the page, not the edit being made, so it shows everything from that last-seen version, whereas your url just does the diff backwards from the newest edit. Primefac (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

AFI Templates

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#AFI templates. However, as this was a recently created template and previous consensus was to delete, shouldn't a "no consensus" outcome result in the status quo? i.e. there is no consensus to re-create the template? --woodensuperman 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I hate to admit it but I did not notice that the template names had changed and since everything at the older discussion was redlinked I assumed these were just missed the first time around. I will revert for the moment and re-read the related discussions. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The Keep !voters seem to be both in the majority and on the side of the film angels. Keeping seems a valid close, but your no consensus to delete seems like the least that can be decided given the editor's comments. Remember, the older discussed deletion was in 2012, 12 years ago, and these are valid new navbox which, as you aptly decided, have no consensus to delete. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

6 "keep" !votes against 7 "delete" !votes is not numerically in the majority. --woodensuperman 13:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

true, my mistake. Just that the Keep reasons seem to overwhelm the "I don't like it" delete comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks for re-opening, I'm still surprised that this was not speedied in the first place. --woodensuperman 13:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac - did you get another chance to look at this? --woodensuperman 08:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Template questions

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look at {{di-missing article links}} and {{di-missing some article links}}? There are two parameters (|date= and |articles=) that probably should be filled by those using these templates, but neither parameter is mentioned on the templates' documetation pages. The |date= parameter seems to add files tagged with these templates to Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files, which is used by file reviewers and bots to check on files with WP:NFCCE issues, while the |articles= parameter allows those tagging files to or those trying to cleanup such files to identify the exact article or articles not complying with WP:NFCC#10c. I've always used these parameters when using these template, but just noticed there's nothing mentioned about them of the files' documentation pages. I'm not sure if that's intentional or just an oversight; so, I thought I'd ask someone else to take a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the documentation for each template could definitely be expanded; just having places the image in dated subcategories doesn't say how it does this, i.e. that it needs a date parameter to be passed to it. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for giving these a look. I see if I can figure out how to enhance their respective documentation pages a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/Old Requests

Hello, Primefac,

I realize you have a lot of responsibilities on Wikipedia and this one is probably way, way down on your list of priorities but is there any way this page can be brought up to date? I was looking for when a certain editor received AFC permissions and this page was where I directed since they didn't come up on the search feature. But the table only goes to February 2023 so it is a year out of date. And then, when I clicked on some names, they were actually requests from February 2024, not 2023 so I'm not sure how those wires got crossed. This definitely seems like a task that could be delegated to some AFC helper who is knowledgeable about tables and updating them (which is definitely not me!). But since on the Participants page, editors are directed to go to this one page, it seems like it should be kept up to date as much as possible. Yes, it's not urgent but I do think it's important when trying to get background information on an editor one has questions about. Many thanks for any help you can supply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Liz, meanwhile, this may help you search. I have only one edit, so presumably, I was given the right a short time after I made that request. If you're looking about Shewasafairy, they have zero edits there. So, they didn't request to join AFC. Another way to get AFC is to get NPR, which can be veiwed from their user rights log. It shows that they were granted NPR here, the same day that their AFC log started populating. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It is up to date. I just borked a number. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Handing in my mop

Hi, Primefac! I want to post a request to resign as an administrator. No great problem or anything, it's just that I haven't been very active in recent years and have taken almost no adminship actions. When I do post it is in articles, and I intend to keep doing that, but I've almost forgotten how to be an administrator. That is why I am posting here: I think there is a board where I should formally request to have my mop withdrawn, but I can't remember where it is. Directions please? Thanks! --MelanieN MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BN is the place to make such requests. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You hijacked a thread dedicated to a popular youtuber with over 100k subs

https://www.youtube.com/@NickWhite this is a popular youtuber. I decided to edit a currently useless page with accurate information. NickWhiteArmy (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to create a draft page, but as far as I can tell they do not meet the criteria for inclusion and it would thus be a waste of your time. Primefac (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Popular influencers do meet the criteria for inclusion. Just because you dont like them doesnt mean they cannot have their own pages. NickWhiteArmy (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Popular influences might meet the criteria for inclusion, but this influencer does not (as of the time of your last attempt at making the page). Primefac (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes he does. He is very popular and is also tied to another popular influencer known as Ice poseidon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Poseidon NickWhiteArmy (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"Very popular" is not a metric we use. Ice Poseidon has 48 references. Your last attempt at writing the page had one (and it's not even a reliable source). Primefac (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

He DOES meet the criteria. Therefor you LIED.

What you meant to say was I didn't add enough references. NickWhiteArmy (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you had references you would have added them. You can still write a page about White, but to badly paraphrase Semisonic, you can't do it there. Primefac (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... A lot of similarities between these two user's "drafts" today: KFCOp's edit and NickWhiteArmy's edit.

Only differences are KFCOp's first paragraph that they seem to have accidentally included as it got removed a minute later, and of NickWhireArmy's inclusion of an infobox. Text otherwise is identical. Zinnober9 (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some form of meatpuppetry or off-wiki discussion going on, but KFCOp hasn't edited since so it might just be a burner account. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Revdel edit summary

Could you (or a talk page stalker) redact this edit summary (for RD2 reasons)? Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and Zinnober9, please check when you're restoring what an IP has removed, especially if they've provided their reasoning on their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Very true, my error. I've retracted my IP warning, and replaced with a welcome constructive. I had seen that the IPs and Bruce1ee were starting to have an edit war, and I've known Bruce to have good judgement some past things, so I had gotten the sense he was correct on my initial read of the situation. We both erred it seems. I appreciate both actions you took in regards to this article. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I've done it a few times myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed

The Arbitration case to which you were a party, "Conflict of interest management", has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.
• For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.
• For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

mass deletion

Hi. I hope you are doing well. On mrwiki, where I am admin too, there's a category "files not in use" with around 8,000 files in it, all of which need to be deleted. Is there a way to automate the task if it was here on enwiki? Maybe some script, or AWB, or maybe I will need to come up with pywikibot script. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle has a d-batch function that allows for mass-deletion of a list of pages, that's probably your best bet. If they're all from the same user Special:Nuke is available but it sounds more like this isn't specific to any one editor. Primefac (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

yeah, I dont think meta:User:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal/Preferences has that. I have created a rudimentary program in pywikibot, I hope it works. I couldnt test it, I have asked my bot to be granted temporary admin rights. I hope the deletion works. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Emails

Thanks for dealing with that so promptly, seems to be resolved now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

AFI navboxes, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#AFI templates

Please reverse your close. On March 20 you relisted the discussion to obtain a clearer consensus. This clarity was achieved with three 'Keep' !votes and one 'Delete'. You then, after obtaining the requested clearer consensus, closed as 'Delete'. Please reverse on common sense alone, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes, so counting them does not give a result. I will also note (see #AFI Templates which you participated in) that I re-opened because I had not considered some things (not that I was "waiting for a clearer consensus"). I finally found time to give the matter more consideration, and came to the conclusion I posted. Primefac (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The March 20 relisting specifically says "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." At that point three more editors appealed to "Keep" and one to "Delete". This one seems an obvious Keep. Or at most No Consensus (and no, "no consensus" does not mean "Delete" as argued in the discussion you linked, the revert to status quo would Keep the page which was last deleted many years ago). This one has been run through hoops and enough reasoning and editors decided it was a good Keep, please reverse your decision and keep the useful navboxes, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like an obvious keep to you before I relisted and re-opened the discussion (see previous discussion where you miscount the !votes), so you'll have to forgive me if I do not take your opinion as the "obvious" result. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I forgive you, and without reading it again your analysis may or may not be correct (which is why I don't close discussions, my thumb would sneak over onto the side of inclusion for interesting things that do no harm to the encyclopedia and impart information to the readers) but let's get back on subject. My concern: in a relisting in order to get a clearer consensus, three more 'Keep' comments and one 'Delete' comment appeared. Then you closed the nom as 'Delete'. If you relisted it to get a clearer consensus, and a 3-1 Keep emerged from editors who by that point had the entire discussion to read as weight for their opinions, who came to it with fresh eyes, this seems like a legitimate point to raise. Would hope this makes sense to you in a moment of reflection and taking the messenger out of the equation, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, it comes down to the quality of opinions presented and not just the quantity. Two of the keep !votes simply agreed with your rationale (and the third repeating the "old TFD" argument), while the delete !vote gave a lengthy explanation of why they felt it should be deleted. In other words, after the relist there was more "new" information on the side of the deletion !votes to consider, with only a numerical weight being added to the keep side of things. Even considering all of the above, it still took me +2k of text to explain my close, which is something I haven't needed to do in probably three years, because of the complexity of the situation. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation. I won't follow up with a review request, although I view keeping such navboxes as beneficial without doing any harm to the encyclopedia. When a group of established editors agree to a Keep because they perceive value in the navbox, then I believe that readers should be given the opportunity to experience the same value. Many good navboxes have fallen to very thin margins. Thanks again for the interesting back-and-forth. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Trying to figure out what is going on

Please see Template talk:WikimediaNoLicensing.

digital_me (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

I deleted this page as an orphaned talk page before seeing that you were directed to go to it. Here is the content of the page:

What has gone on here? I’m suddenly receiving an alert that I’m mentioned on a talk page about a template for deletion that I don’t have any recollection of.

Let me be clear: my intention has always been that my contributions are in the public domain.

I can’t see the deleted template so I have no idea even what it said.

I understand that Wikipedia adopted a CC license _after_ I stopped actively editing. Legally this does not matter, I am free to license my contributions as I wish (as long as the license is less restrictive than that which Wikipedia uses). Apparently I’m not supposed to edit the TFD page but otherwise how will I get in contact with the admin who said OK? I don’t even have time to edit anymore, generally.

Also, have y’all heard of the GPL? Seems like a pretty good license to me…

Please hit me back via email

digital_me (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I also directed the editor to come here to talk to you rather than created orphaned talk pages but I can see they already made that attempt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

digital me, please see this discussion for more information about this the now-deleted template; editors determined during the discussion that the template no longer had use and should be deleted as being potentially confusing at best and void at worst. Primefac (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Draft article

Hi Primefac. I would have hoped for a slightly less robotic response from you here. I understand that changes to protected templates need to be proposed and discussed, but that already happened, and why should a single non-policy-based objection block an otherwise straightforward change? Since you have taken responsibility for reverting the change, could you do us a favour and try to move the discussion forward a bit, rather than sitting on the fence? – Joe (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-template editors cannot contest a protected change, and since don't really have an opinion on the change itself I felt it best to indicate that. If you had waited more than an hour I had made my change, and that change hadn't been made yesterday, I might be more inclined to cross-post somewhere, but there is ongoing discussion at the template talk page so for the moment I'm going to wait a beat and see how it shakes out. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

If you had waited more than an hour I had made my change, and that change hadn't been made yesterday – I don't understand what this means. – Joe (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I made the edit at 08:40, and you posted here at 09:20 asking that I do more than comment as to why I had reverted. Given that this isn't AN we're talking about, I wouldn't even expect a reply to that discussion for a few hours, let alone be getting a talk page notice forty minutes later about why it's taking so long for someone to get a discussion going. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ask you to comment immediately, I'm sorry if you got that impression. I don't believe I said anything about how long the discussion is taking; my request for your input is because the person you are reverting on behalf of is just saying "no" and it's difficult to get beyond that. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. As I said, I'll keep an eye on things and if nothing's doing I'll see about having an opinion. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

AfC probationary members

As you deal almost exclusively with approving the AfC participants, can you go through the probationary members and either transfer them to normal members or remove them. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes? The third option of course is "leave them as probationary members". Primefac (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t word this correctly, it was just my impression that no one had gone through it in a while. Nagol0929 (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That is also true. It is not an often-occurring task. Primefac (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Beaconsfield gallery

Hi, I’ve re-uploaded my edit. I riffed off of Chisenhale Gallery which is a very similar space to Beaconsfield. The gallery has been deeply underserved by the previous entry and so this is a larger update. This is non profit space and needs the support. Please do not undo. If you feel it’s excessive explain where instead of just deleting all the new entries. Thanks BeacHal1 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay a few things, in no particular order:

• I assume you are being paid to edit the page, given your username. Please see WP:PAID and make the mandatory disclosure using {{paid}} or similar.
• The Chisenhale Gallery page has 25 references on it, but it probably could use more and/or removal of some of the unsourced content (see WP:OTHERSTUFF)
• Your edit removed almost a dozen references
• Your edit also added a ton of promotional language such as "unique testbed and primary research vehicle" and "delivered a consistently challenging artistic programme -- see WP:FLOWERY
• Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, it is a page to provide information on a subject in a neutral tone

If the page needs expanding to fill in missing information, that is fine, and I would encourage you to do so, but please make sure any additions are supported by reliable sources and stick to "just the facts" (i.e. no PR jargon). Discussing planned improvements on the article's talk page is also a good way to get feedback on proposed changes to the page. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not being paid by the gallery! The quotes are from the gallery site. The references were outdated and also dead links. That ‘flowery’ language is again taken from their website.

This is a redress from the previous article not a promotional campaign. But I take your point. However, I feel a bit aggrieved by a wholesale take down of everything I wrote up. Why is that okay?

you could always edit from what I’ve entered rather than take it all down again. Why is that okay? BeacHal1 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes but you’ve done just that. Removed my edit completely with assumptions made about who I am and why I’m making these edits in the first place BeacHal1 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve edited to take out some of the flowery language! And quotes etc BeacHal1 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

​ My apologies for the assumption about your status with regard to the gallery; I read your username as "Beac" belonging to "Beaconsfield" and "Hal" being your name, i.e. "Hal that works at Beaconsfield" (which is similar to some of our username examples). That and the copy/paste from the gallery's website and you can see why I might have made that assumption.

As to the "wholesale revert" - it is the responsibility of the editor who adds the content -- especially when it's many paragraphs -- to ensure the content is properly sourced. As an editor I should not be required to check every paragraph to make sure there exists proper sourcing for the content you added. When faced with "revert everything or check every single paragraph" I will choose the former every time, and then ask the editor making the addition to provide references. To that end, I highly suggest you read through WP:REFB and move the references from the end of the article into the body of the text as is preferred, otherwise the content may be removed again for being "unsourced".

As a comment on something you said on your talk page, please write everything in your own words. As I said above, we are not here to "promote" the gallery, so copying their own prose is at best unnecessary, usually removable as promotional, and at worst a copyright violation.

Please let me know if I can clarify or explain anything further. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this longer response. I was beginning to think wiki was more trolling than a place to contribute knowledge. I have only just started and am learning but tbh I now have a good mentor who is taking me through things and told me that I shouldn’t have been flagged as a vandal at any point and things should just have been explained as he has done. It’s fine. I’m now more aware as to how it works and whilst I think that certain levels of gatekeeping are fine it’s worth noting that my intentions on this site are to redress the balance of commercial arts replacing all the non-commercial artspaces and artists which is a constant. All the commercial spaces have in-house marketeers and they use wiki to elevate their status. Anyway, I’m quite pleased because I’ve just had my first page accepted! BeacHal1 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sock check

Primefac, would you run a SOCK check for me? A user with a nine-day-old account has created one rather heavily biased article Bouchet Graduate Honor Society, and had offered a rather biased and over-weighted set of edits to the summary article on Honor society. I adjusted that second article, but looking at the user WikiObjectivity, something appears amiss. His/her offerings were rather advanced for a nine-day-old Wikipedia newbie. Jax MN (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not really enough to go on, sorry. If you can tie it to another editor who is making similar edits that could result in a check, but "this is sus" isn't quite enough for me to feel comfortable checking. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Bot task (presumably simple)

Would you be able to take a quick look at a pending bot task request for me? It's a new task, but it is primarily regular expressions from an existing approved task - just being used for a different template and maintenance category. New task: ButlerBlogBot task 4 to format dates in the {{Infobox film}} template |released= parameter to use the {{Film date}} template. This task uses a number of regular expressions that are already used in ButlerBlogBot task 2, just modified to check only the |released= param and to use {{Film date}} instead of {{Start date}}. Initially, I'm only looking at single dates, not ranges. But I think that could account for around 15k-20k of the existing list. I've already spot checked results in AWB, and it's ready for testing. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to it next time I check the BRFA page. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)