User talk:Primefac/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Hello, sorry to bother you, but I would like to use AWB. Would you please add my username to the list of approved users? Narenko (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! Didn't realize that you didn't get added. Done. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Everett Stern Page

Wiki Editor Creed:

"I will always assume good faith on the part of my fellow editors and will be civil at all times, even to those who are not civil to me. I will not attack my fellow editors or disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If involved in a content dispute, I will not engage in edit warring and will instead discuss contested edits and/or seek dispute resolution."

Primefac

I am going to edit the Everett Stern page for grammar, historical accuracy, citations, and writing style... again. I expect a period of consensus to follow. During that time, please use the Talk page to DISCUSS your recommended changes. Making sweeping changes to any article based on your initial feeling is not in line with Wikipedia values. Bureaucrat or not, please respect the platform. If the group of active contributors AGREE that your way is better, then so be it. But please allow the process to take place. Thank you.

- Sportsplex03 —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sportsplex03, I'm not sure I follow. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, my point is that you are credited with 30% of the edits on a subject that you have no apparent expertise in. Other contributors have argued cases on the talk page and are basically ignored as you act unilaterally to remove data or reduce material. I think it is fair and reasonable to let the entire group make decisions (consensus) regarding what is editorial vice what is able to be responsibly sourced. I am new to Wikipedia editing but I am not new to writing, political science, government driven intelligence operations, or research. I've spent a lot of time researching this subject and am frustrated that my input as well as the input of others is just ignored based on subjectivity. I will message back when I have completed a round of edits and added appropriate sources, and if you'd like we can go through the changes together or simply allow the unbiased group to make edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsplex03 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac I have made a thorough edit to the Everett Stern article. I incorporated the feedback from those in the Talk page. I added sources to each statement. Please review the article and comment in the Talk page where you disagree with the content. There should be an opportunity for discussion. I appreciate your patience as we all work toward the same goal; a Wikipedia that benefits readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains objective information on all branches of knowledge. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsplex03 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While it is true that I have the "highest edit count," by total volume I'm quite far down the list. My interest in the page was (and still is) keeping verified, neutral content on the page, which can be difficult when POV pushers and single-purpose accounts attempt to add promotional or unsourced material to the article.

I find issue with your claim that I've supposedly ignored consensus on discussions on the talk page - most of the "disputes" are people complaining about my removal of unsourced content, or with 2:1 agreement with a change I made (and I'll note that with changes to the text Rolling Stone is still in the article). I am happy to discuss things further on the talk page (and I see another editor has already called into question your most recent edits) but please don't make it out to be like I'm just going rogue and ignoring everyone. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories can't be moved without page mover rights

Saw you handling this page move request and just thought I should tell you that since April 3 2019 categories can't be moved without page mover rights per Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 18#Page Moves for Categories??. It still doesn't mean the request in question was appropriate since all category moves should go through CfD or CfD/S where the user hasn't participated much. Just thought you should know since there are some page movers, including myself, where closing CfDs is a major reason for having it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well blimey, thanks. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Tabiti

On what basis you carried out the 'merge' on Tabiti? I count there were 4 oppose (me, Desmay, RebeccaGreen, 85.194.243.194) and 4 support (not counting the blocked sock puppet's vote but counting the sockmaster (Squatch347)), and the merge discussion was solely opened as a part of failure to drop WP:STICK after the AfD that ended as "Keep". I don't see any consensus so far for a 'merge', contrary to the fact that it has to be very clear given the article already survived mass bludgeoning on AfD.

The subject passes WP:GNG and can be easily expanded if enough time has been given. There is no rule that stubs should be merged into the main articles. Orientls (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sockmaster huh? Squatch347 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wanted to ensure that Primefac was aware of this version. It seems to be the sourced potential expansion that people were talking about on the talk page, but it was edit-warred away. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I will revisit the close, as to be honest I did not see the versions like the diff linked above, but I will say that I discounted the Jesus/Christianity arguments pretty heavily, and note that the AFD close said that a merger discussion could/should happen. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that user's contributions were not revisited primarily because the account was determined to be a sock of Falconfly (the account and its socks are the ones primarily driving page retention historically). Squatch347 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

×

Do you know what's up with this × at the end of the page? I'm used to seeing ghost artifact characters creep into edits here and there, but I feel like I've been seeing the × everywhere in the past few days. Is it just me? – Levivich 19:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I would check your scripts; it might be something you have enabled that, for one reason or another, is attempting to do something and throwing in a random character instead. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral Point of View Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Thank you. Everettstern (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Primefac, thanks for serving the community on ACE this year. While it seems like half the crats were running, I really appreciated having an active and respected crat like yourself serving on the commission. You are no doubt is part of the reason why the decisions this committee made were so well received, on the whole, by the community. As a candidate I am deeply grateful for the work you did in allowing me to run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. I'm a little disappointed you didn't make the cut, but I'm also impressed at how many folks received more than 60% of the vote; it means you would have a solid chance next year! Primefac (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi

No worries, I actually want to thank you, because Yunshui also warned me about that, but I unfortunately couldn't fix those, because of some personal issues. James The Bond 007 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Happy New Year!
		🏈May your new year go better than the 31 teams who passed up on this guy🏈 Love, Action Jackson

Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Primefac!

Happy New Year!

Primefac,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Primefac,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ptinphusmia

Hello Primefac! Did you block User:Ptinphusmia? Why? Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That user has never been blocked. Special:Log/block lists the admins who have blocked a given user. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a message on the user's page. Well, today the user can edit again. Don't know, what happen. ^^° Have a nice day! --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Recent block of User:James The Bond 007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision Hisory Work

Hi @Primefac: I copied this article Draft:Maria Canals (pianist) as part of NPP as it was over a good redirect, from Maria Canals. I didn't use the script so I didn't lose the redirect, but it now needs the revision history copied across, specifically from 12:18, 21 December 2019 as she is the article creator, not me. The pianist is internationally famous. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

scope_creep, just to double check: you copied the content from Special:PermaLink/931816332 to Maria Canals (pianist) (Special:Diff/931824704) before moving the page to Draft:Maria Canals (pianist)? It's doable, just want to make sure I have the right content as the split will a bit awkward to fix if I've got it wrong. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Yip. I should moved it draft using the script, its a bit awkward I think, but both the article and redirect won't get deleted. scope_creep^Talk 03:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not the ideal situation, but your only other option would have been to draftify the redirect and create a new one; both would require a bunch of deleting and moving stuff, so I'll just get to this one and not try to mince out which one required (probably one) less moves. Primefac (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Please let me know if I borked anything. Primefac (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

For tireless actions

	Mohanthal for you
	Traditional Gujarati Sweet dish for your contributions and actions as Bureaucrat. Harshil want to talk? 06:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week Hall of Fame

I hope you have had a pleasent Holiday season. I usually come to make this request earlier and for that I apologize. 2020 is upon us and I hope you can, once again, create the #ifexist: grid for the EotW Hall of Fame/Season 2020. I've tried in the past to replicate it but I always fail. I hope this is not too much of a burden or imposition on your time. Much Appreciated. There is absolutely No Rush: whenever it's convenient. Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

New BRFA

Hi! In response to the stuff at User talk:DemonDays64#Removing www, I have submitted a new BRFA. I felt that this was the right move because it seems necessary that the RegEx match the BRFA. As you told me in the discussion I had to change it or the BRFA would be revoked, it feels appropriate to notify you of my attempt to fix it. Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Archive"

[1]

Your summary for this edit was "archive", but it appears to be a simple deletion. Why did you (mis?)characterize it as such? Horologium (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I was going to archive the content, but then I realized that connecting a private filter to what it's trying to filter out kind of gives people an idea of how to get around it (BEANS and whatnot) so I ended up not saving the archive version. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:CFB schedule/convert

Module:CFB schedule/convert has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Page Mover Rights

Hi, I just tried moving/swapping a page due a technical request and I got a permission denied and after some digging I found that the permission granted was temporary. Can I please have the access permanently now? As you can see from my page move records, I have been diligent with it, and also with the edit notice, although I've been mostly using it to do technical page moves and clean up the page move queues. I would appreciate having the right so I can continue doing so. Thanks and Happy New Year. SJ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done; seems you got some decent use out of it. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks, yeah, once I found a script it seemed pretty simple, even with one manual step needed for some reason. SJ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Daniel McGillivray Brown

I tried to have the offending content revdel'd myself instead of a G11, but you deleted the article anyway. What just happened? ミラP 17:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict, most likely - you edited the page at 17:38 and I deleted at 17:40; it sometimes takes me a minute to get through the cv logs. I just took a look at what you changed, and a one-sentence substub isn't exactly worth restoring. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also tagged two other articles the creator CalShoosmith made as revdel, so take a look at them. ミラP 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Marty Grebb

Can you undo the protection on that page? There is a decent source for his death here, which I or others could use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. For the record, I locked it because there was a war to add it in without adequate sources. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Pasi (caste) Reverted

Hi Primefac, this is with the reference to the recent revert of my well-cited edits from the reliable sources that you have made on Pasi (caste) without proper comment or specifying the reason. The article seems to be written in a negative point-of-view to defame to community despite the law of the land does not permit. The introduction itself talks of the past of the community and if we follow the same trend will we start the article of Narendra Modi with ...he was a poor tea seller instead of the prime minister of India? — Sanskari ^Hangout 03:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad naseum on the article's talk page; it's not likely to be changed any time soon. Primefac (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, let's keep the discussion at one place Untouchables. — Sanskari ^Hangout 04:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot request

Primefac, happy new year! I have another bot request related to college football. Many of the college football standing templates use "#" instead of "No." to punctuate rankings for teams. The later is the correct format, per the MOS. See my recent edit at Template:1983 Big Sky football standings for an example of this correction. Could we run a bot that searches every instance of Template:CFB Standings Entry and makes that correction? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to put in a bot request, but I don't see why not. Where exactly does the MOS say that we should use "No."? It will help make the case for the BRFA. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Just gonna note this ongoing TfD which indicate this issue isn't uncontroversial. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Might not be uncontroversial, but regardless of the outcome of that discussion, the MoS is very clear at MOS:NUMBERSIGN, which no one from that discussion has attempted to change. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can not ignore the MoS. --Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but since this is neither for comic books nor periodicals I think the removal of the # would be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Contrapoints

I see. Probably your employ in your reasoning the following convention (even this argument was not given and it was my guess work to assume this so that I could defend Contrapoints) "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".

I agree on the letter of the law. But for the case of rule by law instead of rule as law. What is the spirit of law and the intention of this convention? As I mention it is discussion between WP:PROP, WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:AB. If I may put it in these words, you didn't went into the reasoning behind the decision. No ethical reasoning was put into the discussion.

But if I may be bold, only this argument may was given. Their is a convention. This has 100% authority and no discussion further is possible about an ethical discussion because it is useless given the convention.

Thank you for your concern to protect the interests of the entities in the case --MasterJin-Chan (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if you're looking to start a discussion about this or just letting me know you're not happy with the situation, but it boils down to the fact that a lot of people who changed their name (for gender or other identity reasons) often don't want to be associated with that former name, for a multitude of reasons. If Jane Doe used to be Jack Doe but changed their name, then we should respect their wishes, just like if a colleague of yours wanted to be called "Bill" you shouldn't keep calling him "William". Primefac (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason I post at your page is, because you were giving your opinion and I replied with a philosophical response to just let you know that such response does add value the conversation, but if the reasoning is put away, then people have to make assumption why somebody decide something. From your argument I can see an consequential and liberal approach. But their is a gap in the liberal consequential approach and also in the logic used.

First I am trying to defend your logic. Deductive reasoning is used.

(P1) People who changed their name (for gender or other identity reasons) often don't want to be associated with that former name. (General Rule: Premise)

(P2) If Jane Doe used to be Jack Doe but changed their name, then we should respect their wishes, just like if a colleague of yours wanted to be called "Bill" you shouldn't keep calling him "William". (Minor Rule: Conditional Premise)

(C) Therefore we shouldn't use a changed name. (I inserted this conclusion to make it valid) (Interference)

The big question now is would this reasoning be sound? I need to defend your claims:

1. They don't want be associated with that former name. (Descriptive claim)
2. We should respect their wishes. (Moral claim imposes a duty)

I am searching for sources to support your first claim, but it is hard to find the right sources. Some are talking about what is a name. It would be great if I had more sources so that I could defend this claim stronger. Second claim is dealt in the next paragraph. Still if I could have more sources about the dignity and autonomy of name change it would be very cool.

Assume this Wikipedia page is mine autobiography then I will use WP:AUTOPROB to solve the problem. "If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral – to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources." But in this case you assume already that the other person does not want the information be published about her education (and in this case unfortunately her previous name), because you presume a consequential notion of harm. Also a Wikpedia page is an encyclopedia, with the aim to inform the reader from knowing things about the world. Articles should then also consider WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. In this ethical discussion I will defend you on the basis of WP:OUTRAGE, but I failed, because was it morally offensive for the reader? I guess not. What is left to defend your claim maybe deontological argument. If I would use the categorical imperative then would I still want to live in a world in which everyone's previous name is exposed in the name of public knowledge? I guess it depends. The problem is we make a judgment with deontological about the other person. The best option would just be ask the person herself.

In conclusion I am not happy with the situation because the decision is not based on a deliberative way of truth, but merely on usage of an own ethical reference frame, while not deflecting the other possible ethical reference frame. Socrates would Turn in one's grave and would whisper 'the spoiled youth'.

Enjoy your life --MasterJin-Chan (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac, is this even remotely sound or is it fake philosophical rubbish?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It's basically a glossary of debate jargon thrown together to resemble paragraphs. Ignoring most of the philosophical rubbish, it boils down to "we should publish everything on everyone because we have no ethical frame of reference on the internet." Why they couldn't just say that instead of wasting 3k bytes and a good five minutes of me scratching my head, I don't know. Maybe that was the point; I do rather wish I had their levels of free time though. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Bbb23, and @ Primefac you mean rubbish like theoretical maths? Anyways. I think what they are trying to say is, if someone changes their name, then we should not be WP:OUTING them. They change their name because they dont want to be associated with something they've done previously. So we should respect their wishes, and instead of calling them William, we should call them Bob. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Script errors at World Athletics Indoor Championships

Can you please take a look at the script errors at World Athletics Indoor Championships and Wushu at the Summer Universiade? I suspect that they may be related to changes made to templates or modules around December 1–3, specifically to Module:Country alias‎, Template:Flagu/core‎, and Template:FlagIOC2‎. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The first one; I made it so that {{flagIOC2}} required a "games" parameter. Thought I had fixed all of the outstanding broken transclusions, but I guess not. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. I found them in Category:Pages with script errors, FYI. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Number being inserted in articles

Hi there, you may be aware already but I'm sending a message anyway to be sure. Pages like Switzerland at the 2020 Summer Paralympics are now showing a number that's coming from {{Infobox country at games}} somewhere, any ideas? - Simeon (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No fecking clue. {{Infobox country at games}} passes {{Infobox country at games/core}} a "code" for switching the behaviour of the games, and somehow the {{#expr:{{{TALauto|0}}}+{{{TALapps|0}}}}} is ending up outside of the template code. Primefac (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Misuse of #iferror; I still can't find the script error that's throwing the template into Category:Pages with script errors but it's definitely not that. Primefac (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: Something about the |country= para is screwing it up. Will keep investigating but I think the number of script errors has slowed. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I have no experience with this but it may be that the "else" case is missing? So it shows the expression instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Conditional_expressions#Using_%23iferror ; apologies if it's not that, you have more experience with this :) - Simeon (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as the numbers showing up, yes, that was my mistake; it shows that it wasn't the TAL #expr that was throwing the error, so at least that's something... There's something about Austria_at_the_1976_Winter_Paralympics that's causing it to throw a script error, but not, for example, the same country in 2014. Primefac (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Figured it out... there were some pages that had blank |NOC= params on top of filled-in |NPC= params that were causing {{country alias}} to throw a script error, but those errors were hidden because that section of code wasn't actually being implemented. Swapped over to {{if empty}} and it seems to have sorted out the issue. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, nice one! Simeon (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

app_begin_year being ignored

Hi there, it appears that the app_begin_year parameter is not used anymore in {{Infobox country at games}} (see e.g., Morocco at the 2020 Summer Paralympics and Nigeria at the 2020 Summer Paralympics). It appears only using appearances = "auto" also doesn't work; is there a way to make this work again? Simeon (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Both parameters work, but only in certain circumstances; the two countries apparently were not added to the data module, but this has been rectified. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Primefac Thanks for fixing it quickly. Is there a way to generate the data module entries for other countries as well? That data module has 68 entries but {{Nations at the 2016 Summer Paralympics}} has 162 nations. Other events may be affected as well so I'm wondering what the general way is to propose changes to that data module? Cheers, Simeon (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm updating it as we speak. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot assistance

Hey, do you happen to have a bot that can replace the text/templates used on the TV task force quality- and importance-sub categories (sub categories of the list here) with either {{WikiProject Television task force assessment quality category}} or {{WikiProject Television task force assessment importance category}}? These templates make sure all categories have the correct parent categories, header text and links with a consistent style. I'd do it myself manually but it potentially has 96 sub categories x 24 task forces, so over 2400 categories (but as can be seen by Category:Start-Class television articles by task forces for example, only less than a 1/3 is categorized).--Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between {{WPTV task force quality cat}} and {{WikiProject Television task force assessment quality category}} (seen in the category you linked)? I guess I'm not sure why one TV task force template needs to be replaced with another one instead of just modified appropriately. That, or I'm misunderstanding the request. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand your confusion, I wasn't the one who created this series of templates and it took me a while to understand what is used where. {{WPTV task force quality cat}} is used for the non-task force container category - Category:C-Class television articles by task forces, while {{WikiProject Television task force assessment quality category}} is used for the task force category . I was talking about the task force categories, not the container. --Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Television

Please undelete Template:WikiProject Television, it was not meant to be deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Television

I don't know if it was accidental but you seemed to have deleted Template:WikiProject Television. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Whoops. Restored. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please undelete the redirects as well. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

<sigh> Done. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You also need to reprotect the page, since deleting and undeleting a page clears its protection. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In theory Musikbot should get that, but if it doesn't happen by the time I check I guess I'll do that. Didn't know that was a thing, so thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits undone

Hi I was wondering why my edits to the La Excelencia page were undone. I posted information regarding the bands new single, as you will find in many artist/band pages and I cited the location where I obtained the information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoDog18 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You copied the content directly from a source, which contravenes the copyright policies on Wikipedia. Even if you hadn't done so, the text was incredibly promotional; you could have just as easily said the same in two sentences as you did in two full paragraphs (but without all the flowery language). Primefac (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My ANI edit - request clarification

Hello, i saw you reverted and hid my edit on ANI with the summary of "I'm sure you'll figure out why." - now, i am willing to learn from mistakes but i can't read your mind. Based on logs, i saw my edit hidden due to RD3, and i would presume that that would mean i was reverted for spreading allegations and/or harassment (i was republishing personal information & allegations on another user sent to me on another wikiproject) - but in that case, why isn't the above thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly relevant) also deleted, since it outs a user's ethnicity? I could be misinterpreting your actions but unfortunately "I'm sure you'll figure out why." doesn't give me much information to work with. In any case, how should i have dealt with the wall of text sent to me at French Wikipedia? Koopinator (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Koopinator it's one thing to link accounts, it's another to pass along information about personal details of an individual. I've already contacted the French oversight team, and I suspect they'll be removing some or all of your message as well. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: In that case, i would presume that the above thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly relevant) should also be deleted - i can't quote it directly, but the sentence that comes after the list of links following "long term abuse multi account" states a user's ethnicity. My mistake stemmed from following that example specifically when dealing with being messaged on another wikiproject. Koopinator (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That one is a borderline case, rather dependent on if the user has declared their nationality on any other language projects, and even then a nationality is far less "personal" than someone's name. I am a little surprised that JzG would include that, but again if it's more or less common knowledge/obvious on the other project, then there's not as much of an issue. And, while I would not normally hesitate to do so in blatant cases, I'm not sure this is strong enough to merit suppressing over 700 revisions. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

AFC question

Hi, on my watchlist I came across FadedOrange performing AFC reviewer actions on several drafts (moving to mainspace and leaving AFC "accepted" templates on editor's talk pages). With only 63 edits, I know they don't meet the AFC participant requirements. I didn't ask FO about it on their talk page because I don't know for certain that what they're doing is allowed or not, since obviously it's technically possible. I saw that you were recently active in approving AFC participants, so I figured you would know whether anything should be done about the articles FO "accepted" and if any guidance needs to be given to FO. Almost all of their contributions today have been AFC-related. They're keeping track of articles they've accepted on their user page, so I believe they think it's okay to be doing this. Is it? Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing requiring a draft to go through the AFC process. If they are doing improper page moves and the pages should not have been moved out of the draft space, then a discussion might have to take place about whether they should be moving those drafts. As it is, I'll leave them a note about using the AFC "accepted" user talk template, since they're not actually being accepted through AFC and I don't want people confused if a page gets punted back to draft. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

wikidata ListeriaBot

Hi. Can you please tell me how does User:Usernamekiran/actresses works, and/or where can I find the information about it? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The blog post linked on the bot's page gives more detail, but you're esentially grouping WikiData properties to make a table. In your current sandbox, you're matching "females" (Q6581072) with "pornographic actor" (Q488111) to give a table of all female porn stars. In the example, it pairs "lighthouse" (Q39715) with "Netherlands" (Q55) to give a table of Dutch lighthouses. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

but why would anybody prefer dutch lighthouses over female porn stars? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

fixing table in article

Hi. Would you (or anybody) kindly fix the "awards" table in Tejashree Pradhan? I am getting a little confused with the code on small mobile screen (BlackBerry). Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a lot Jelly. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

note at 2020012710007108

Hi Prime, take a look at my note on 2020012710007108 when you have a min. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

fyi

fyi. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In hindsight there's more I could have done to prevent this, but thank you both for handling it so well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries; your rationale was solid, it just happened to clash with the rules. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot request (continued)

Primefac, circling back about the bot run to clean up the number signs in the college football standings templates. Looks like the thread got archived already here. Is this bot run doable? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Just to double-check, the bot would run through all transclusions of {{CFB Standings Entry}} and change all instances of # to No. in said transclusions, if applicable? Out of curiosity, of the 20k transclusions, do you have an idea of how many contain the #? Primefac (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Two comments on this. If "No." is used, then {{Abbr}} should be used per MOS:NUMBERSIGN. I'm also trying to understand what the number actually represents. The doc at Template:CFB Standings Entry says nothing and just gives in the example a usage. And articles like 1964 NCAA University Division football season (first link on the list) show some teams having it and others don't. If each team had a number then the correct way to handle this would be in a separate column as the "number" has nothing to do with the "team name" column (and also saves on the amount of {{Abbr}} template calls), but because I have no idea what it represents I'm not sure how it's best handled. --Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, only the top 25 teams are ranked, so it is to be expected that only the top 1-3 teams will have a No. I guess you have to be a college sports fan to know that? Primefac (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, now I at least know what that is. It seems that the AP rankings (and others if used) is split between many tables but does not have it's own table in the article. This is way off-topic for this issue, but imo, the real end-solution to this would actually be to remove the rankings data from the conference tables and add it to a separate table which will be much easier to follow. --Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably doesn't help that the rankings change each week as well. At least it looks like the tables are all templates and not hardcoded into the articles. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, your summary of what is needed is correct. The 20,000 figure you quoted above includes all the articles that call standings templates like Template:1964 AAWU football standings that in turn call Template:CFB Standings Entry. I'd guess the number of standing templates calling Template:CFB Standings Entry is maybe a couple thousand and that only a few hundred of them have number signs that need to be converted. These numbers represent end-of-year national rankings. Typically only the top 25 teams, or fewer in some historical cases, will be ranked, so most teams will not have this designation. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to Block 120.21.153.82

Hello Sir - Individual with IP 120.21.153.82 is using abusive language with reverts. I did mention to the individual to add his concern in the talk page but the verbal abuse continued again. Please let me know if you can help. Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience. Here is information from "Battle of Saragarhi" history page:

curprev 04:48, 31 January 2020‎ 120.21.153.82 talk‎ 31,437 bytes +5‎ Once again, read my previous fucken message. Read the whole message, not the swear words retard.

curprev 10:20, 30 January 2020‎ WorldWikiAuthorOriginal talk contribs‎ 30,427 bytes -5‎ Undid revision 938266120 by 120.21.33.158 (talk) Please, there is no need to be abusive. You can bring your discussion to the talk page. 10000 is the number. Thanks.

curprev 03:07, 30 January 2020‎ 120.21.33.158 talk‎ 30,432 bytes +5‎ So it was 1,000-1,500. Are you are really that stupid not to read what the label “strength” is asking for? That number attacked the fort therefore that number was in the battle. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have left a final warning on their talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Saw your message on my talk page. Concern is not me. Concern is the IP address. If you look at the history, Admin Utcursch made the correction on 16:25, 29 January 2020‎ and that was it till the individual from IP address 120.21.153.82 began to make change again. My concern is not the change, its more of the abusive language he used. Thanks. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

True, they are two separate issues, but they are issues. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparent copyright violation in protected page Battle of Saragarhi

Hello, I just came across Battle of Saragarhi, which you have protected. I'm not sure what the right way to address copyvios in a protected page is, so I'm notifying you now. The entire description of the battle appears to have been copied from an opinion piece in The Print. It looks like the last clean revision is from 16 August 2019. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

An {{FPER}} request is the way to do it, though incidentally I discovered a big copyvio on the talk page because of it. I'm still trying to scan the page now for confirmation (copyvio tool is being buggy) but I'm working on clearing out the violations. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with AfC submission

Hello and Happy New Year, I'm trying to create a page for this guitar player (Yiannis Papadopoulos). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yiannis_Papadopoulos_(musician) I read your comments about the page and why you declined the submission, I tried to add more reliable sources, but it seems that I'm missing sth. I've been checking wiki pages from similar artists and they have less coverage and use less sources, and the sources they have are like the ones I use. I thought that since I'm following a similar structure with the articles below and since the sources are similar my article would be accepted. Can you please help? Thank you for your time and your help.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Johnston_(guitarist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Richardson_(musician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Sfogli

Electra Roberts (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I've seen this, but haven't had time to dig into it. Will respond as soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, I added a few more articles to my draft, I updated and resubmitted it. I don't know if you had the time to check my question above- and I do not want to rush you by any means, but I believe that taking into account what I discussed above and the examples of the wiki articles I referred, I believe my draft qualifies as a wiki page. Can you please have a look? Thank you for your time. Electra Roberts (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft is still lacking something substantial in the way of references; Guitar International is about the only source you have that isn't directly connected to Papadopoulos and/or just a brief mention. There are a dozen references that do nothing more than say that he is the guitarist for Creed; it makes it look like you're trying to hide behind the sheer number of references rather than the quality of reference.

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, or saying "Company X, run by it's CEO Joe Bloggs"). 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.

I won't decline this out-of-hand but I would suggest you find some better references (and quick) before it gets looked at by someone else. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, first of all, thank you for looking into this and please know that I do appreciate a lot your in-depth reply. For one of the above examples out of the 7 total sources, 4 are interviews, 2 are press releases and 1 is a review of an album, all in similar media outlets and sites like the ones I used i.e. Guitar World. In another of the above examples, there are 4 sources in total, 2 of them are press releases, 1 is a link to Itunes and the other one is from a company that endorses the guitar player. I've also included such links. Also, I don't see any independent reliable sources used in none of the articles I mentioned above as an example. Please do keep in mind that the outlets that promote and support the specific genre -focused on the guitar players, are more or less the same. Also, I'm not "trying to hide behind the sheer number of references rather than the quality of reference". When I started working on this article I checked numerous others published articles about similar artists, both the layout and the sources they used, so that I will follow a more "proper" path that would help get the article published. What I’m trying to figure out is how come articles that have very similar sourcing some of them are rejected and other ones aren't. My point is that the policy you described above about what's accepted and what's not regarding the sources, it should apply for everyone. I will definitely look into adding more references but maybe after reading this, you can reconsider accepting my article. Your time and help is much appreciated,

Thank you very much.Electra Roberts (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for removing the SD notice on that talk page (1), it turns out that WP:TW accidentally notified the wrong person for some reason. Thank you! N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 12:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It notifies the "page creator", which unfortunately means if someone's moved the page previously they "created" it, even though someone later added the actual content. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC) P.S. I don't know if you have noticed but your sig has a random </span> at the end that's just hanging out. There's also no time stamp?

The </span> is for the end of the white on blue background, but I've now moved it back to where it should be. The time stamp is me putting one to many '~' on the sig. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 12:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, missed the span inside the wikilink. However, the </span> should be inside the square brackets. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

AfC Reviewer

Hi - I'd previously applied to be an AfC Reviewer but had to withdraw my application after I was made aware that an editor with whom I am presently subject to an IBAN was also a reviewer [3]. It has come to my attention that they have, since that time, been indefinitely blocked. Therefore, I was hoping to revisit my request and see if I might be considered to become an AfC reviewer? Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to drop a request at WT:AFCP. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

120.21.58.237

Anonymous user is back again vandalizing "Battle of Saragarhi" page. Had to revert back changes but I am pretty sure the anonymous user will strike again. He uses different IP address everytime but 120 is the common digit.WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, I think you want to stay back here. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. I'm not seeing anything completely egregious by the IP. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

AfC consideration

Hello! I just wanted to check in on my AfC reviewer consideration. I've been keeping myself busy focusing on non-vandalism activities, including AfDs, category cleanup, disambiguation cleanup, and I successfully reviewed a GA this week. If you feel I don't make the cut, I'd love to hear some feedback from you on how I can improve. Thanks for your consideration! Cheers, -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I meant to get to the AFCP requests this weekend, but more pressing matters (mostly in real life) took the helm. I will try to get to yours (and the others) in the next day or two. Thanks for the patience. Primefac (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Scott Dinah block

I was about to berate you for declining an unblock on a block you imposed, before going through the logs and finding it is a checkuser block now. Is there any reason that is not mentioned on the user talk page (e.g. via {{sockpuppet}})?

(If there is a reason that should not be disclosed, obviously, just revdel this post) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

CU blocks don't generally get talk page notices, from what I've seen. I suspect it's easier to block from the interface than it is to go through the hassle of leaving a templated message (especially for serial offenders like sockpuppets). Primefac (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the Draft namrespace

As a user who has expressed an interest in the Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC, you are invited to join a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rethinking_draft_space. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji close

@Primefac:

Nicely written closing statement for the Money emoji RfA. A minor thing I noted, not with your closing rationale at all, is in the bottom footer, it says RfB but the top header says RfA. Is that a glitch in the template used?

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 23:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy/paste fail on the closing template. Thanks for pointing that out. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, No problem. I figured you'd want to correct that. Doug Mehus T·C 00:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I was trying to push it all through without any edit conflicts and definitely should have triple-checked things. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

February flowers

Alte Liebe

Thank you, on Handel's birthday, enjoy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of making WP a great place to work. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Every December I ask Editor Primefac to set up the WER/Hall of Fame for the upcoming year. Lickity-split. Within 10 minutes it gets done. Active since 2014. Prime is a very busy editor. He has 142K diverse edits with a 42% in mainspace, 11% in WP back room stuff and 17% on templates. A bureaucrat, oversighter, administrator and OTRS member as well as a member of WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, and WikiProject Templates. Primefac maintains a high standard of conduct and excellence and is always respectful and civil when interacting with all editors, new or old. Over the years he has dramatically improved Astronomical spectroscopy and Normani and List of Sinfonians. A fine example of someone doing his best to make WikiPedia a better place to visit and to work.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Primefac enjoys gazing at the night sky

Primefac

Editor of the Week for the week beginning

Over 142000 diverse edits, 42% mainspace, 11% WP back room stuff and 17% templates. A member of WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, and WikiProject Templates. A high standard of conduct. Pursues excellence. Respectful and civil with all editors.

Recognized for

presenting a fine example for all to emulate

Notable works

Astronomical spectroscopy and Normani and List of Sinfonians

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 23:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

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

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Adsemar

Please undo your speedy deletion of this draft. It clearly stated that the world is fictional, and so G3 (blatant misinformation) does not apply. Granted, the subject was made up by the creator of the draft, and I strongly doubt it has any potential for an article, but speedy deletion is not the way to go in a case like this. Glades12 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of a response, I have opened a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 3#Draft:Adsemar. Glades12 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi!

ur awesome!

I am a unicorn believer (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RFB Paperwork

Thanks for straightening that out. Useight (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Stormshadow and WBG

There's an off-wiki attempt to out WBG. From the same stable as the outing of DBigXray and now Vanamonde and Kautilya. Seems to be led in part by OZ. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I'll try to keep an eye on things. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 21:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Revisions hidden

Why were all the recent revisions hidden? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, when revisions are hidden and there is no corresponding entry in the deletion log, it is almost always an WP:Oversight action. The reasons for oversight actions are not publicly logged for privacy reasons. --AntiComposite (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Acknowledging that the above is correct. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Unprotecting talk page

Can you unprotect the talk page of Maanvi Gagroo as well? Coderzombie (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NY bot run

Thanks for running the bot run last night, from a quick check, it appears there are a bit less than 2000 transclusions of the 5 templates remaining. Will the remaining clean-up occur this week, or are you waiting for next weekend? Just wanted to know so I could plan on when to conduct other cleanup, I appreciate your help.

𝒬𝔔 23:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I was unusually busy this last weekend and was not able to get through everything (though it is nice to see that the "easy" cases were the majority of transclusions). Unfortunately this week is rather busy as well, so chances are good I will only be able to finish up this weekend. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be  Done now. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Eneanya Block

Hello Primefac. I tried to do some edits and was informed that you had blocked me. Did I miss a memo? Jennifer Nkem-Eneanya (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Nkem-Eneanya, the edit here is the first edit you have made. Primefac (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bot request for number signs (again)

Primefac, do you think you can run that bot to correct the number signs in the college football standings? We last discussed this in January at User talk:Primefac/Archive 26#Bot request (continued). Could we also run it on the college basketball standings: Template:CBB Standings Entry, see example at Template:1993–94 ACC men's basketball standings. This would be a big help. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Task 31 looks like a go, just need to get approval for the trial. Primefac (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Circular

Didn't you have a good method to detect circular referencing? Nosebagbear asked, in reference to checking a CCI cleanup. In the past I have used web archives like Wayback to get an idea, but I thought you had more advanced methods. Kees08 (Talk) 17:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If there is no date on the page Wayback is a good way to determine which came first (assuming it exists). Other than that, or getting lucky and having a publication date, there are not really any foolproof ways of determining if a page is reverse copy. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits on page

I am new to making any edits on here, I have never done it before. All I know is for over a decade my fathers Wikipedia always showed his wife, children, and siblings. Last year we were contacted by someone who claimed to be his illegitimate son, later to find out that this person was born to someone else with a different last name, as well as someone else as his father on his birth certificate. We (The Family of Danny Rapp) only wanted it to go back to the way it has been for over 10 years. This already caused great upset to his only living sibling, but his children and widow. We had no problem, and nobody ever removed our information for all these years. So then I changed it to him being survived by- wife, 2 sons, grandson, siblings, etc etc (as you saw).

We lost our father tragically, and then went through the ordeal of some scam artist, and now we can’t be on our fathers Wikipedia as we were for so many years. It is unfair and definitely not how our father would want it. Our father never acknowledged having any other children, we the family of Danny Rapp spoke with the band members just months before their passing and they knew nothing at all of this. Nobody did. So because someone went and added their name, and we changed it back to read the way it always read, we are being punished? We can prove we are the family of Danny Rapp, we can prove everything necessary. All this because this person is trying use advance in his acting career. We simply want the page to read as it always did. We have no clue how this works with edits, and are not computer savvy but we are Danny Rapp’s true family and for over a decade it always read the same. That should not change. I don’t know why there is an edit war, why didn’t someone edit it when a name was suddenly added that hadn’t been there with the rest of the family all of the years on Wikipedia.

With all do respect. We just want people to know who our father was and he did leave behind a loving family. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARealRapper (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

ARealRapper, I'm sorry to hear that your experience on Wikipedia has been frustrating. I definitely know how confusing it can be when "the encyclopedia anyone can edit*" turns out to have a rather large asterisk at the end of it.

The main reason why the content was removed (and will likely stay removed) is because of a subsection of our biographies policy called WP:BLPNAME, which essentially says that content such as a person's entire family should not be included in an article on them if those family members are not "public individuals" (i.e. someone with their own Wikipedia page).

As far as the content being there in the first place - In 2011 Wikipedia contained almost 4 million articles, but at any given time there are only a few thousand editors active; when that content was added it is likely it was overlooked, and only when the most recent edits were made did anyone notice. Just because something improper was added a decade ago doesn't mean we should keep it there for posterity; articles can always be improved.

The best place to discuss issues about an article is its talk page, which in this case is Talk:Danny Rapp, but if you'd like to discuss any "in general" topics about Wikipedia please feel free to reply here and I'm happy to help out where I can. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@primefac (I have no idea if I’m replying to this correctly. So please forgive me as I have no clue How any of this works. And our intentions as Danny’s family was not to be disrespectful to anyone who works hard monitoring the page. We looked at the other band members and they all have a personal life section, with the name of their spouse and children, are we able to add that if they other band members have the same who are deceased now (sadly). It is just important to all of the family, due to his manner of death, that when people read about him, they do know the truth, and that he did have two sons who love and miss him, a wife, and siblings (one remaining) I do not want to add anything to the page because I do not understand how it works. This was a great upset for the family and he did not die with nobody. We feel it is important that the good memories of his family be mentioned as they were important parts of his life. I hope I am writing this in a way you will see it. Forgive me for not understanding how this is done. We also can provide any proof necessary that we are who we say we are, if that is needed. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Even if you could add it in the appropriate way, and spot. It would really mean a lot. Danny was extremely close to his family and he would want them all included, especially his two sons, grandson (well only one at the time of his death that number has since grown a lot) but he loved that baby, and his sons. As well as wife and siblings. Can we add a personal life section? Thank you in advance for your time and help with this. It is truly appreciated. ARealRapper (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is founded on the premise that our content, whatever it may be, needs to be based on what has already been determined to be reliable, published sources. Wikipedia is not a place for anyone to publish their own original research, opinions, arguments, experiences, or conclusions, and we have a well-established set of policies with regard to verifiability and reliability. The verifiability policy states that "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

As far as the other band members' pages - see my previous statement about the sheer number of articles on Wikipedia. Just because one page does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines does not mean that we should allow a different page to be nonconforming; the other pages should be instead corrected.

Hopefully this helps clarify some of your concerns. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm just starting XFD discussions

Is that OK with you? I can't close discussions as "delete" because I'm not an admin, but I want to be one someday. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If you're only closing discussions with super-clear outcomes, then there is no issue. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:Physical constants

You still haven't filled in this module, over 6 months after creating it with the edit summary "create - will fill in later". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Forgot about this. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended mover right

Hello, I was temporarily granted extended mover rights which will expire in a few weeks. I mostly use the right to draftify articles that I come up while using the page curation tool and filtering for unsourced articles. As you can see at User:Buidhe/Draftify log, I've draftified quite a few articles unsuitable for mainspace, almost all of which were entirely unsourced. The last article that I draftified was Draft:Ditrău ethnic incident, an entirely unsourced article about a controversial topic. I would like to have this right on a permanent basis so that I can continue my work at NPP. buidhe 01:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for an extension at WP:PERM/PM, if only to allow more eyes to take a look. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal

Would like your input on whether this belongs in the intro lead here: Gurbaksh_Chahal

I had looked through the history of the page and believe you have removed this before. And, now it's been expanded to a paragraph as the intro lead. Since, this is not what he is known for, does it belong there?

In 2013, Chahal was convicted for domestic violence and battery, and was sentenced to probation. He was terminated from his role as CEO of RadiumOne by the Board of directors. In 2016, after new charges of domestic violence against a second woman with whom he was in a relationship, his probation was revoked. He resigned as CEO of Gravity4, and served six months in jail. Chahal maintains innocence. 49.130.82.24 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

From a quick glance it seems like it's a little over the top for a lead/summary, but this is something that should really be discussed at the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Given your experience as a well respected editor, I would love to have your input there or in the t/p. From what I have noticed, most of the editors there don't pay attention to newbies unless they are a senior editor. 49.130.68.122 (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate but fair statement. If I get an opportunity I will try to weigh in there. Primefac (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated.

Look's like Jimbo started the conversation for removing the lead on the talk page. Many other editors support this. It would be great to get your opinion on this topic as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal#Regarding_the_lede — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.130.62.78 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I should have some time tomorrow, will give a look. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Hey, about your transcluding the template on the Field hockey at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament article. You know that we use those templates, because they are used on several articles and just need updating once? Or is there something that i'm missing (could very well be the case). Kante4 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I do, but based on this discussion and this TFD (for a related grouping of templates) there's currently support for using labeled section transclusion instead of templates for these tournaments. I figure I might as well do one group that isn't heavily used (yet) as proof-of-concept before hitting them all. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

With that, we would need to change the templates using in the nationa articles to those LST ones? And that would work the same way if i'm correct? Sorry, but i am not the best in those "technical" stuff. ;) Kante4 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Works the same way, just means everything is linking to Field hockey at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament instead of 20 different templates. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Can you do that for the knockout stage and the women's tournament aswell? Kante4 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. I want to get the steps down so that the other Olympics can be handled by a bot. Too many to do manually! Primefac (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Understandable. Thanks for the work so far. Kante4 (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Next period

Hello Primefac, thank you so much for editing the Next Period template for me! However, I think you missed something, and I don't blame you for it, because I didn't make it obvious that I wanted one more thing done my bad. at the very bottom of the page, I had added 'meghalayan' to a list of terms that all go to the present day: Here's the original version of the code, as it is now:

|holocene|quaternary|cenozoic|phanerozoic|now|recent|present=now
|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}} }}} }}<noinclude>{{template doc}}</noinclude>

and here's the version as I wanted it:

|meghalayan|holocene|quaternary|cenozoic|phanerozoic|now|recent|present=now
|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}} }}} }}<noinclude>{{template doc}}</noinclude>

I'm sorry for bringing this to your talk page, and am especially sorry to ask this, but can you please add this to the code? I'm afraid to request more than once on the actual page, and if this isn't fixed, the Meghalayn's span function will still be broken. If I should just request again on the main page again, let me know. I'm not trying to criticize you or anything, and you've done a great service to WikiProject Geology, and for that I'm greatful. thank you!

Benniboi01 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, no harm in letting me know here (or there) or even submitting multiple edit requests. I'll fix it right now. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I do have a couple of minor changes I would like done that I forgot to mention in my request. Is it a good idea to request again? again, thank you so much, you've been an absolute godsend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benniboi01 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

No harm in putting another {{TPER}} on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Good. Thanks again!Benniboi01 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes

Hello, Primefac. I asked you before I edit. Do you know Flori4nK? That account back that page without any research. I shared the reason why I deleted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Usagidot#March_2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagidot (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Usagidot, as I said on your talk page, you should discuss these matters on the article's talk page. At this point you have started what we call an edit war, which if you keep it up will result in you being blocked, and definitely not giving you the opportunity to make your case. Start a discussion on the talk page and come to a consensus with other editors. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. But that person sounds like he has no reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagidot (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Better watch out

...or Trust & Safety will have you boiled in oil for making death threats [4]. EEng 20:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Note: the foregoing is not an actual threat to boil anyone in oil.

Oh no! I guess I'll have to self-block and OS that before I email ca@ about my terrible decisions. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Note: I figured as much, but who knows these days.

Now you've made it a veiled threat. EEng 20:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

<insert aphorism here> Primefac (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

PrimeBOT 31 approved

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 31 has been approved! Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this is allowed or not

Someone basically added an adminship template. In order for this person to become an admin, he or she needs the qualifications then he or she can nominate him/herself. I actually find a bit odd. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessarily forbidden but it is rather misleading; I notice that some other folks have noticed and removed those sections. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

reasons re. Sodium Chlorite

Not sure if I'm using @ correctly so don't know if you'd already get a notice, so wanted to let you know I just added to Talk page. Field In (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Template not mentioned

Hi, please see this edit. Which template was that? There are several on the linked TfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird, it should have skipped if there were no actual changes... it was supposed to take care of TV Tropes in this thread. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

MFD

Hi Primefac, Given this yesterday I would assume the MFD was serious ?, Either way I support your closure but just felt I should point the link out, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm starting to think that it is a serious nom, but given the timing I'd rather be sure; no harm in having it closed until things get sorted. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@PCHS-NJROTC: * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It was serious, but it looks like WP:SNOW territory to me anyway, whether you choose to reopen it is up to you. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there's an important distinction between serious nominations, even ones that ended in snow keep, and April Fools nominations. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Template cases coronavirus pandemic

Just wanted to sincerely thank you for your help on this template. MattSucci (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You're very welcome, was my pleasure :-) Primefac (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for the improvements in the COVID cases template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)