User talk:Primefac/Archive 10

Active discussions
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Contents

Request on 11:07:50, 8 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by FrankieFem


Dear Primefac,

first of all, thank you for your help in reviewing my attempt to write my first wiki page. You wrote me that I infringed the policy on copyright since some of the content were already published on the page http://www.euromoneyconferences.com/italy-Speaker-Details.html?id=9600. The speakers' biographies are not written by Euromoney but asked the participants, so are not Euromoney's property. In fact, you can easily find the same contents in other webpages (e.g. http://www.amcham.it/detail.asp?c=1&p=11&id=12936; https://imn.org/structured-finance/conference/Investors-Conference-on-Italian-European-NPLs/Attendees/4).

Does that solve the problem?

Thanks again for your help,

Roberta FrankieFem (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

FrankieFem, the general rule of thumb is that if it's published somewhere, and the text is not explicitly released for free use (generally some form of CC-BY-SA license), then it's under copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Often it's easier to just write the page in your own words. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

PrimeBOT's "update syntax in {{episode list/sublist}}" glitch

PrimeBOT's edits on the CSI: NY season pages (and others) to "update syntax in {{episode list/sublist}}" caused the plot summaries to disappear. I am reverting the edits. You need to fix this glitch before continuing. Box99Tube (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Box99Tube, please don't. The issue will be fixed in about an hour. Please see this thread. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Box99Tube, actually, if you do a null edit, the page should be fixed now. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I tried reverting and when previewing only CSI: NY season 2 worked. That one I changed. The others didn't work so I didn't change them. Since you're supposedly fixing this, do you want me to change back season 2? Box99Tube (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I changed it back as a check to make sure the fix worked. It worked, so I guess we're good. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, season 2 works, also seasons 8 and 9, but the others are still missing the summaries. Is it supposed to take awhile for the fix to work? Box99Tube (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
If you do a NULL edit or purge the page, it should fix it. Otherwise, the page will eventually refresh. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. The Null edit (which I had never heard of) worked. Box99Tube (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

ER

What happened to episode synopsis of season 4 of ER? It was letting me read brief descriptions of episodes, as always, now it will on give me the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.26.105.19 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Cache issue? Primefac (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I just checked on the pages titled: ER season 1, season 2, etc. It still isn't showing the brief description. I looks like the same problem as a couple comments before mine. Can you change it back? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D1A6:9130:9DE3:1E70:448B:8FAB (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @2602:302:D1A6:9130:9DE3:1E70:448B:8FAB: when posting comments, please place them at the bottom of the page, and follow them with four tildes (~). Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 04:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
IP, I checked all of the ER pages, and they all look fine to me. Try purging your cache and it should show up properly. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming users

Hey! Thanks for the constructive feedback. I was wondering if maybe there were any welcoming guidelines I should check out before I begin again.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 17:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A good place to start would be WP:WC, they've got a few guidelines for welcoming new users. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on talkpage post

Hi there, since you are a talk page stalker, I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on this? Thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, non-notable subjects are generally not kept in lists of notable X (performers, alumni, guests, etc). Primefac (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I figured that and was going to respond but thought I better check in with an administrator first to be sure I wasn't giving incorrect information. My response is now on the thread here. Thanks again for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

  Thank you for helping to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: LTA Knowledgebase. I think the closing statement did an excellent job of summarizing both the consensus of the discussion and the issues that still need to be addressed. Mz7 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Recently I had given the reference of Hindi newspaper article

Recently i have given the reference of hindi newspaper article that also was reverted. In that it was clearly mentioned actresses age. Check your facts (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

https://m.bhaskar.com/news/ut-chd-hmu-nes-child-actress-tunisha-sharma-in-sher-e-punjab-serial-news-hindi-5558517-pho.html?seq=1&ref=ns Check your facts (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Check your facts, the issue is that it doesn't actually give her birth date. For example, someone who is currently 15 years old in 2017 could have been born in January 2002 or November 2003. We need a reliable source that verifies her actual birthday. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:FOI-enthusiast/sandbox, you know.

I rarely protest; but.

  • They 'want to start a social enterprise' and 'document its progress in a wiki draft'?
  • They want to find 'a better way to alleviate linearly transferred worsening poverty'? 'In the pursuit of seeking egalitarian principles'?
  • 'We are concerned that this is the right time, for us to start this process... of effectively raising the living standards of suffering and impoverished peoples'?
  • 'Yes I am worried, but truly believe that if this gets traction, that it may achieve remarkable things, beyond that which, we can currently envisage'?
I look forward to seeing the article this is the basis for :D (oh, and [1])! Cheers, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, in this case your protests are completely valid. I misread the intent of the page, and thought they were asking questions about how to write a Wikipedia page about their enterprise. It has been deleted. Thanks for keeping me in check! Primefac (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I apologise to you for probably appearing completely precious about it. But you know. Thanks very much for being so cool about it too, I appreciate it. TGIF eh! You must be working too hard that's what it is :) Cheers Primefac! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Given the nature of most of the complaints on my talk page, I will take a well-reasoned query any day! That, and a beer ;) Primefac (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

  Since it's probably a bit early for you right now ;) something to look forward to! Unfortunately... WP:NOTPUBLICBAR ?! ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

  That beer that I owe you. Thanks for running the bot to complete my project; as stated, it could have gone smoother, but I'm glad that it didn't get as bad as it could have. You're a champ. Cheers. -- AlexTW 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

PortugalHistoria

Has removed your block template from their User talk. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. It was just a notice, it doesn't actually affect their block. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
My bad, I thought you weren't allowed to remove block templates. Turns out it's just failed unblock requests. The user has now made another edit on their talkpage... Thanks for your time with this. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Gerard Richardson MBE

Thanks for the caution about referencing. I volunteered on the festivals and thought I would add some info about Mr Richardson but Ive never done this before and didnt intend to break any rules.Id be grateful if you could check the citations Ive added and let me know if this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredonsundays (talkcontribs) 22:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Tell me more, what you understand by the word JUNK ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by PortugalHistoria (talkcontribs) 15:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you, Primefac, for your quick response to my question about footnotes from websites. Much appreciated. James P. Van Dyke (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Regina Mills

Thank you for protecting the Regina Mills page. The swanqueen fandom is repeatedly sabotaging both her page and Emma's to introduce their little fanfictions into it, and it is getting out of hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueenxSnowxWhite (talkcontribs) 13:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of my article about Dacca Overseas Limited

Hello Primefac! Thankyou for your feed about my article on Dacca Overseas Limited. The article seems to be protected now, and wikipedia is saying only admins can edit it... I was wondering is there a way to request an article to be written by the admins or is there a way to unlock the article again? Thanks

Kdayef (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Kdayef, I honestly don't recall giving you any advice about Dacca, but I will now! If you're having trouble writing an article, I highly suggest using the Article Wizard to create a Draft. Drafts are great because after you submit them for review, an experienced editor will take a look at the page and, if necessary, give you feedback on how to further improve it. Drafts are much less likely to be deleted for not meeting our standards. Good luck! If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected template edit request

I see you responded to the last edit request on Template talk:Infobox ice hockey team season back in January after the templates were merged. Mind taking a look at mine? The parameter is used on hundreds of NHL team season infoboxes that no longer work. Thank you. Yosemiter (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

StatCrunch

Primefac, Thanks for the feedback on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:StatCrunch. The citation overkill happened because previous reviewers kept asking for more references. I hope you can help me navigate this. I've been struggling with this for months. Here's where I am coming from. I would like to include StatCrunch in two other Wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statistical_packages and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_statistical_packages

StatCrunch is used by several hundred thousand users each year. It is a more substantial and more widely used statistics package than most of those already listed in these two articles. But I think that in order to be included in either of these pages, I need to be able to point to a Wikipedia article on StatCrunch, or else the change will be rejected. What advice can you give me? Thanks, Mark Barton MarkBarton (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

MarkBarton, I have created StatCrunch, but it is just a redirect to Pearson PLC#2010 to 2020 (I added a paragraph about StatCrunch so that it's a valid redirect). This will give you the opportunity to list it at List of statistical packages and Comparison of statistical packages while your page is still in the Draft space.
As far as the draft itself goes, I think the most important thing is to find sources that talk about StatCrunch, not just textbooks that describe how to use it (or worse, just give a few sentences saying that it exists). I'm honestly not sure whether it is a notable topic, but I haven't done any deep digging to find sources. Let me know if you have any other questions. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for digging into this. I appreciate that you are trying to do this correctly.

I agree with the purging or demotion of references that aren't appropriate, thanks for cleaning it up. I'm new at this.

Disclosure: I work for Pearson as a software developer. I've spent the last 4 years full-time on StatCrunch, adding features and improving it, as part of a team.

Your solution of adding the line to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_PLC#2010_to_2020 makes me uncomfortable because I think it introduces information at too fine a granularity for the Pearson PLC article. Pearson PLC has over 5 billion dollars a year in revenue, and StatCrunch is well under one percent of that, I would guess, so I think that if StatCrunch is mentioned at all, it should be exceedingly brief. I think it might be more appropriate to drop that completely and to have the separate StatCrunch Wikipedia article linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Education under the Technology Products section, in the same way that MyMathLab is linked to its own Wikipedia entry from that section.

I don't fully understand the criteria for being "notable", but I would make the case for StatCrunch having its own Wikipedia entry based on these two things, primarily on the first:

  1. Its impact on over a million people. Over the last decade, well over a million college students, mostly in Stat 101 classes, have invested time and effort over the course of the semester in learning to use StatCrunch as their primary statistical package. It is part of their college experience. Some of those students continue to use StatCrunch as an analysis tool in their professional lives after leaving college.
  2. The many thousands of hours of effort invested in developing the product. Dr. Webster West put over 1,000 hours per year into this for over a decade on his own. A team of three, including Dr. West and myself, carried it forward full-time after that, and the team has now expanded since the acquisition by Pearson. There is continued investment in developing StatCrunch, and continued growth in the number of users each semester.

Thanks again for working with me to get this right. MarkBarton (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've shifted it to a subsection of Pearson Education (and removed it from the PLC article).
As for notability - our "Golden Rule" is to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are not directly connected to the subject. Here's the issue - you give two fairly valid points about its potential notability, but none of the sources you've provided actually verify those facts. The references (now under "Further reading") simply talk about how to use StatCrunch or give a (very) brief outline of what it is. If you want to demonstrate notability you'll need to find non-textbook references that talk about its impact and why it's more than just a part of a university course. Take TI-83 series for example: while some of the references fairly standard reviews (and the article could probably use some overall fixing) there are also refs like this article that talk about the monetary impact of the TI-83. Offline sources are fine, too, so don't worry if you can't find a URL for something. I think if you found a few articles like the one I linked above, your draft will be in much better shape. Primefac (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at Herostratus's talk page.
Message added 05:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{Infobox Tour Rugby}}

Hi, if and when you get a chance can you look at this template and specifically the alignment of data in columns. When there are more than 9 matches played the alignments seem to go to pot, I guess it's the double digits and padding between columns. The example on the infobox page shows this. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, not sure what I'm looking at. The "usage" infobox is really wide because the parameters are really wide, and it only takes 8 matches anyway. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I should have been more specific. If you look at Template:Infobox Tour Rugby#Example and the NZ tour details used there. The first row of data reads 35 34 0 1 but the 34 0 1 do not line up with the column headings of W D L in the header row. Nthep (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right, missed that. I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  Fixed. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Star man, that's a beer I owe you if we ever meet up. Nthep (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad. Since you had some involvement with the Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pppery 19:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

  Hello, I'm Petrb. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to User_talk:Petrb— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Petrb (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Petrb, you realize you just undid vandalism on your own talk page, right? Primefac (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I see it now, I was doing a showcase on Wikimedia Hackathon in front of some people, so I didn't really have much time looking into the details, probably got confused and reverted wrong edit. Thank you for help! Petrb (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Institute of Osteopathy

Hi. Trying to get approval for the Institute of Osteopathy page. Hopefully I've removed anything that could be deemed as copyrighted (although I have approval to use). Have little experience of editing wiki pages, so I'm not sure if I'm missing a step or just need to be patient - which is not a problem if so. Happy to fix anything that may be wrong with it. Also, entirely unrelated, I'm a fellow Glasgow grad.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGW85 (talkcontribs) 13:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

EGW85, the copyvio has been removed, but now you need to add independent reliable sources that can verify the content on the page. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


Thanks again. I've added references as best I can at this stage, if these aren't up to scratch then I'll have to do some work with other organisations to ask them to develop sources that can be used - I'm surprised I couldn't find anything better already tbh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGW85 (talkcontribs) 14:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello - for information, please

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal&diff=prev&oldid=782248343 --Bhadani (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Just saw it in my watchlist and putting here so you know what's going on without having to click the link. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Whitney Lynn & Draft:Morgan Simon

Hi, it has come to my attention that you have put two drafts, Draft:Whitney Lynn & Draft:Morgan Simon, under review and have left them like that. Plum3600 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Plum3600, I don't have any drafts under review. It looks like Winged Blades of Godric and Curb Safe Charmer marked them under review, respectively. If you look at the source code, you'll see the AFC template has a |reviewer= parameter, which lists the reviewer in question. You're welcome to contact these editors individually, but I've pinged them so it might be unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Rich unblocked

I've unblocked Rich per reasoning at AN/I. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Faydee

Hi, can you just confirm that the picture I uploaded of him is okay for Wikipedia? Plum3600 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

PrimeBot is AWESOME

Seriously - I *love* this edit at George Washington. When I first looked at it I was puzzled but then I realized it stripped out that UTM crap. I'm always stripping out extraneous code from URLs - like the unneeded search-term code left over after I've searched within a Google Book. Thank you so much - when you see your bot tell it thanks for me. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Exoplanets

Please move List of exoplanets to Lists of exoplanets. I've tagged the redirect for speedy deletion already but I know that's an inefficient way to get the job done. Holy Goo (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy Goo, I assume your intention then is to move List of exoplanets (full) to List of exoplanets? Primefac (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
No. List of exoplanets is a list of lists. The name has to be in the plural form. Holy Goo (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
So then you're not going to move the full list to list of exoplanets?
And, to further the question, why wouldn't we then move List of minor planets to Lists of minor planets? It's the same thing (generally speaking). Primefac (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
And yes. In theory, list of minor planets should be moved as well, since it is not a list, but rather, a list of lists. Holy Goo (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Holy Goo, not sure if a discussion at WT:AST would suffice or if it should be listed as a proper RM, but I think a discussion should take place as to where everything should end up. I don't seem much reason to move the list but not the full list. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The full list doesn't have to be moved because it is in fact a list, not a list of lists. Holy Goo (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically it's a transclusion of lists, but I was specifically thinking that if we move List of exoplanets to Lists of exoplanets, then we should follow that up with moving List of exoplanets (full) to List of exoplanets because of the unnecessary disambiguator. Again, I think we're getting into the realm of needing more input from other editors, because I'm not convinced anything needs to be moved. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:Isik Abla

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Isik Abla. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough re: Bludgeon. I have no intention to reply to every comment, but I was having difficulty giving an account of my reasoning because of the edit conflicts. You have friends. :) Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Draft:Isik Abla

Hi, Primefac. I contested the SD of Draft:Isik Alba, so I don't think you were supposed to delete it. Could you restore it, please? :) Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you contested the copyvio/G12 deletion, and you made a valid point: not everything was a copyright violation. However, when I went to check the rest of the content, I found it was purely promotional, with phrases like Due to her desire to spread the Gospel on a wider scale and to ignite the fire for revival in the church... and Her message of hope, love and redemption, found only in a loving God, resonates and continues.... There were no references, and really not much in the way of usable information. In cases like these, it's better to start from scratch with good references. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
But I am not sure that you are grasping the whole context here: this was a recently rejected AfC submission, and the rejection was not made on the grounds of copyright violation. In that context, a SD for WP:COPYVIO goes against WP:BITE and the purposes of the project, I believe. All I am asking is for the delete to be reverted, and then it could go through the more appropriate process, MfD, if needed. Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Fix?Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'll get right on undeleting the article so that we can waste everyone's time at MFD and delete the article. Sounds lovely. I've checked through a few of your XFD conversations (and your talk page), and it's clear that I'm not going to convince you that I know what I'm doing. Personally, I think you should leave speedy deletions to the admins, because it's part of our job to determine if the CSD tags are placed correctly, but unless you start being disruptive about it I have no call to stop you. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, except that the admin in question had just placed four incorrect SD tags before the one you acted on. So I was looking at this one, and lodged my objection on the talk page that you deleted - and then you deleted it. Somehow I don't think that was the correct procedure, Admin. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Objecting to a speedy deletion tag does not automatically mean that the CSD is removed. It simply means that you have an interest in saving the page. As I said above - you made your point convincingly for the G12 to be overturned. I overturned it. And then I deleted the page as spam. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Newimpartial, you dont seem to understand that we have a legal obligation to remove copyvio immediately, regardless of whether its BITEY or not. In addition, something that blatantly spammy needs to go. Speedy deletion is for content that is unsalvageable, and there was nothing remotely salvagable about that draft. People, new orbnot, should already know that copyvio isnt acceptable anywhere. Waggie (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Then the policy is to delete the WP:COPYVIO content, is it not? Not to delete the page? Anyway, I have put in a request for review to clear this up. The person who nominated this page for SD made a number of mistaken nominations in the same session, so I just wanted to see it discussed properly. If I am mistaken about the appropriateness of this particular deletion, then I apologize, but Primefac has also in turn made a number of statements today at MfC that are against WP:CONSENSUS, so I am having difficulty trusting their judgement.Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This nonsense is now at ANi Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, including these edits. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vulcan1812/Bagley,_Alabama&action=history>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&curid=26467366&diff=782648198&oldid=782647878>Newimpartial (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Midnight Snack Break at the Poodle Factory

  Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You might want to recheck that deletion.   Not only did you delete a page I had already declined to delete (and thus allowed admin shopping), it also did not meet A9 on both counts: It's a recording by a band of a notable musician and it contained two reliable sources covering the album. Regards SoWhy 08:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup, total cruise control action there. Saw there wasn't a "band page" (i.e. Midget Handjob) and that the Rolling Stone was mostly not about the album, and just went with it. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem, that's what trouts are for   Thanks for restoring it! Regards SoWhy 13:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

  Administrator changes

  Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
  ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

21:10:16, 24 May 2017 review of submission by Dansmo


Hello, we have cleaned up the references per feedback. I'm not sure if the format is correct. Before I clicked to resubmit I thought it I'd ask for some feedback... Please can you take a look and let me know if the additional, independent references, help get this article approved and if the format is okay?

Sorry, haven't had time to look at this. Looks like it's been resubmitted. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Daniel White

What did I do wrong for it to be deleted? Can I remove something to get it reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakralamn (talkcontribs) 17:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this has been recreated without the copyright violation. Good luck. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Vladyslav Nossov

Hello. After your edit on the page Vladyslav Nossov only his second convocation is shown, first is not shown. Why Template:Infobox Ukrainian legislative office is okay here, here, here and here but not okay in Vladyslav Nossov? --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Tohaomg, I made a mistake in that edit, which I have since corrected. {{Infobox Ukrainian legislative office}} is being deleted, but it has to be manually folded into {{infobox officeholder}}, which is why there are still some pages using it. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

14:08:42, 26 May 2017 review of submission by Cogic2

Please help me understand what you were looking for. Also, I looked up several other articles on bishops, and noted that the primary information regarding them was regarding becoming bishops with a little else detailing their notability. Please give clarity as to why a Catholic bishop is considered notable for simply being a bishop but a COGIC Bishop would not be

Cogic2, I invite you to check out WP:CLERGY. While it is true that most bishops are notable because of their status, it is generally for bishops of major religions. Pentecostalist denominations are specifically mentioned as needing significant coverage in third-party sources to be considered notable. You're not far off, to be honest, and it's really just the lack of sourcing. Since there are a few paragraphs that don't have any references, these might be good places to add such sources. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Masslive is the online presence of the Republican Newspaper, a reliable source. Also, even as Catholic bishops with little notability outside the church are deemed notable enough to be included in wikipedia, shouldn't bishops in the largest Pentecostal denomination in nation also be deemed notable for their service in the church?
Please be advised that masslive.com is the online presence of The Republican Newspaper, part of Newhouse Newspapers. It is the largest newspaper in the region and should be considered a reliable source even as you noted regarding the Valley Advocate, which is a smaller weekly regional paper. Many of the references are attributed to masslive.
Also, please note the significance of the Church Of God In Christ, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the U.S. Even as Catholic bishops are deemed notable simply because the serve a Catholic diocese, shouldn't COGIC bishops be deemed notable for serving jurisdictions in their denomination as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogic2 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Have started to do some editing and adding additional sources, wanted to know if I'm on the right track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogic2 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Cogic2, the issue was not with the sources, but with the coverage given by those sources. A publication by the Church for the Church is going to give announcements regarding the promotion of clergy. While these sources are perfectly acceptable for verifying facts, they don't do much for demonstrating notability. And, as mentioned, WP:CLERGY specifically lists Pentecostals as the exception to the "most clergy are notable" guideline. I see that you've significantly expanded the draft, so it would appear that you've taken the above into consideration. Good luck if/when you resubmit. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point, just not sure which source you're referring to as a church source covering the church. The main source used prior to recent edits was masslive, which is the online presence of the main newspaper in Western MA and not a church publication. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones3927 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. I saw "Mass" and thought "church" not "state". My mistake. Still not sure it counts as anything above routine coverage, but the fact that it's not a church publication certainly helps. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

ok, I understand the confusion. It is specifically, the Springfield Republican Newspaper, which has extensively covered the subject of the article. Is it possible to modify the remarks in your rejection notes so when it is resubmitted, the next reviewer doesn't make the same assumption based on your notes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones3927 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done Primefac (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 16 has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 15:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

PrimeBOT 16, Cornell US Code update

I realize you have approval on this bot and that I missed the RFA; however, can I suggest that you halt, and instead use the template {{USC}} for your updating? At the moment, it has the same effect, but it will have the advantage of changing to another repository if a better one comes along (for example, if a well-populated official congressional site is established).

See, e.g., [2]. TJRC (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

TJRC, I've already finished with the bot run, but this is a completely reasonable request and I'm willing to put in another bot request to convert existing elinks to a template, especially since there seem to be about 1500 extant uses of the bare URL. but it also depends on if just the URL is used - most of the uses I'm seeing are within various citations templates such as {{cite web}}. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Please drop me a note if you put in that request; I'd like to support it, obviously. I leave for a length vacation in a week, so if the timing is bad, please feel free to point to this exchange as a !vote of support. I agree it shouldn't affect "cite web", unless that turns out to be easy.
For what it's worth, using the USC template, rather than cite web, is consistent with MOS:LEGAL for citation of legal materials. TJRC (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Just so I don't have to make it up again - [3] is the search for the URL outside of cite templates. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

copyvios

My posting first read 50%, and I changed it the last minute to 100%. Otherwise the egg would have been on my face. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dated

Hello again. I disagree with the deletion. I have often used "dated", so I don't have to date every maintenance template. I don't rely on bots too much. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, the result of the deletion (and subsequent action) was that you don't have to date every maintenance template. They are now all going to be updated by a bot if there is no date. Thus, you don't have to actually change your habits. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm.... I don't know. Who would fix the bot that does automatically date maintenance tags if the bot operation is inactive? I don't want to conclude that the decision would encourage lethargy and too much reliance on bots. However, I am worried. Also, TfD has very low participation. Why not undelete? --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to request deletion review, but three people (one being the creator of the template) were in favour of deletion (and there was no opposition) so I'm not overly inclined to undelete just on the off chance that Anomie gets hit by a bus and AnomieBOT stops working the next day. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Ooh... I didn't know that I can type in {{subst:cleanup}}, which can automatically transclude the tag and the date. Nifty. I almost filed for DRV, but then I changed my mind after realizing what "subst" does. --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC); see below. 05:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
A fact I explicitly stated in my tfd nomination. Pppery 02:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) The Cleanup documentation may need an update though: It says that the template should not be substituted. On the other hand if I substitute it as a test, the end result is it substituting to another unsubstituted version (itself), so it's safe in this case (with the side effect noted above)... —PaleoNeonate - 02:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, I've updated the doc. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: thank you; I have also just made this change. —PaleoNeonate - 19:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks, I missed that part. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 3. —Cryptic 04:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh... I didn't know that the DRV is filed suddenly. George Ho (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season has been accepted

2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Primefac (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Good to see you going through the AfC process, Primefac ;) keep up the good work! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Heh, only when a page is submitted without a timestamp or username :p Primefac (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

AfC archival template autosubst

Long story, sorry. There's an upcoming CSS change to the navbox class that could add unwanted borders to templates like {{AfC-c}} that aren't navboxes but use the navbox class. So I tried editing {{AfC-c}} to remove the navbox class from it. This broke some old AfC archive pages, and I had to revert. Turned out, even though {{Afc a}} and {{Afc b}} were usually substituted, sometimes a top was transcluded and a bottom was substituted, resulting in a mismatch. I hoped getting the tops substituted might make it possible to edit {{AfC-c}} again. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just make sure they get added to the force list. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect application of G5

Your recent deletion of Kiran Klaus Patel violated WP:CSD#G5, which clearly states that it applies only to articles "that have no substantial edits by others". I have restored the article and take responsibility for its content. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I missed your addition (I only noticed the rearrangement of content). Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group

Hi Primefac,

In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your recent BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 17, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 03:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Marjorie Cussons / Goodwin

Hello,

I am disappointed that you have declined this submission.

I understand you point that there is a heavy reliance on family sources. However there are a great deal from publicly accessable publications too. I have exhausted the options.

Marjorie Cussons is a historically important and inspirational woman. Her two brothers both have Wikipedia pages with far fewer citations. She achieved far more in her extraordinary life than both of them put together.

It is precisely that she was a woman that she needs a page. She was a founder member of World Wild Life (WWF), this alone is reason enough for a page surely? The fact that she created a world famous soap brand is too worth a mention? She did all of this in a time when females cooked dinner for their husbands and cleaned their houses.

Marjorie Cussons was a pioneering, inspirational, philanthropic and gifted woman. People need to know about her.

I therefore ask that you reconsider and put her page on Wikipedia.

Many thanks,

Henry (Henryshrigleyfeigl (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC))

Henryshrigleyfeigl, my primary concern when declining your draft was one of verifiability. Yes, she is definitely a notable individual, but how am I supposed to verify (for example) She contributed heavily ... in aid of The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust... when the source of this information is a letter? This is why we need reliable sources for facts. You seem to have included a lot of relatively minor (and possibly overly detailed) information about her life, which if not properly sourced might as well be removed. For example, does it really matter if she was invited by HRH Prince Philip and HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to join the 1001 club? Does it even matter if she joined the club, if she didn't make enough of an impact to merit something written in a non-primary source? Primefac (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Primefac(talk) Ok, thanks for that. Perhaps you could highlight the bits that you don't deem relevant. I think it does matter that she was asked to join the 1001 club. It is simply stating that she was recognised by Prince Philip for her contributions. To suggest that she may not have made an impact is not correct as the very fact that she was a member of this club means that she helped fund the WWF.

Like I said, I cannot find any more mentions of her to cite. I don't know what else to do. She deserves a page as her contributions to industry and to African wildlife preservation are exceptional. Like I said both of her brothers have pages with significantly less achievemnets. Is this because they are men?

I am asking for your help here. I have done the best I can with the article.

Many thanks Henry (Henryshrigleyfeigl (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC))

I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hello P. Could you please restore my sandbox that was changed to a redirect for some reason. I had planned on just copying the virtual plaque to S's talk page. I was going to use the sandbox for other things as time goes forward. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD, just edit the page and remove the #REDIRECT. You're welcome to copy it to their talk page, I just moved it to the HoF subpage for archival and ease-of-use purposes. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Good deal. Thanks for the explanation and many thanks for helping to get the plaque to the HoF. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

mass deletions

I have always opposed this, except for one or two obvious cases--the reckless Chinese geostubs, the wrongly classified slime molds. I certain object to doing it for G5, because someone may want to rescue some of them by substantially rewriting. Me, for example. I'm asking you to undelete those which you cannot prove to be entirely copyvio and move to draft space. I'll take them from there. As for the copyvios, I shall probably rewrite them from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

DGG, if you feel the pages are worth saving, I won't stop you from recreating the pages and/or undeleting them. I concur that it's unfortunate when viable pages are created by socks (though, in fairness, that's kind of what they do) but we shouldn't be giving credit to people who intentionally break the rules. Thus, I have no intentions of undeleting them myself. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this sort of situation creates a dilemma for which we have no real solution. In my view, it depends very much on the motivation of the socking attempt--incompetence which still leaves a usable stub is different from promotionalism. And as another factor, I actively support the idea of large scale creation of stub articles when it can be done to avoid copyvio and error, and limited to those subject of reasonable certain notability. I realize you don't. But we have been accepting articles in some areas where they show no signs of problems. The test for professor articles will be when these are done by someone more careful than most of those who have been doing it. I've been intending to try for some time now. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing UTM parameters

Just spotted that the machine also cut out the </ref> tag here. Checked a few articles up and down the contribution history and they looked fine, so not sure if this always happens when it's confronted with a bare url between ref tags (only instance I came across), or just this once as a fluke. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater, I caught that myself about 500 edits in. I'm manually checking/fixing the cases I'm coming across, and I've updated the bot's code so it doesn't remove the tags. Thanks for letting me know, though, that could have been bad if I hadn't seen it! Primefac (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your bot on my watchlist, and reviewed a few diffs. There was a problem with this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_television_drama&diff=prev&oldid=784219289 so you may need a little adjustment. Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Aureliano Babilonia, I'll make the adjustment. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Expelled.

Moving it off the other page. I'm not sure that that many GLOs give the option of allowing a new chapter name at a school to keep from associating with the past. I *think* that a few of the NPHC GLOs do, but I've never heard of it at either an NPC or NIC fraternity.Naraht (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said, my only experience is with ΦMA, and we have a few instances specifically noted as taking a new name to avoid connection to the expelled chapter. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Beaconsfield railway station, Buckinghamshire

Who suggested Beaconsfield railway station, Buckinghamshire, and where? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64, the page already existed as a redirect at Beaconsfield station, and with no "hard" suggestions or comments about its final destination, I made a judgement call. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
We have a lot of redirects from titles that do not fit in with accepted practice, these should not be taken as evidence that such a title is acceptable. Had I known that that was one of the possible outcomes, I would have opposed it. We use parenthetical disambiguation for UK railway stations, so Beaconsfield railway station (Buckinghamshire), which was suggested, would have been acceptable, as would Beaconsfield (Buckinghamshire) railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Given {{rws}} and the naming convention there, I'll go with the latter, and amend the closure. Thanks for the discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, I think Beaconsfield railway station (Buckinghamshire) would be the better title. British rail stations use that mid-phrase parenthetical disambiguation (ie Beaconsfield (Buckinghamshire) railway station) when it's something Network Rail uses, but it's more controversial in cases like this one where Network Rail doesn't use that format. Placing the parentheses after the title better fits WP:NCDAB policy. My 2 cents, thank you for moving the article.--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Cuchullain, honestly I don't think changing where the disambiguator goes would be a contested move, as mentioned above I based it off of the syntax at {{rws}}. You're welcome to move the page to "station (Buckinghamshire)" (or just create a redirect from there. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Beecher High School (Michigan) and WP:ORG

I fail to see your logic in prodding the above article. There are not one but two independent sources on the article and absolutely nothing in the recent RfC changed the general assumption that multiple independent sources exist. As a matter of fact, US, Canadian, British and Australian schools were specifically mentioned in the close affirming that assumption. A quite lazy (or ignorant) new editor created this and several other school articles with just an infobox. My data connection is slow until Tuesday, so I'm trying to flesh them out a little now and more when my data speed increases. Fyi, this school is in suburban Flint, one of the largest cities in Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I cannot speak to any other country, but every single high school in the US will meet GNG (ORG is specifically not required) on athletics alone. Please don't waste people's time with deletion processes on school articles. John from Idegon (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
John from Idegon I'm not sure I follow your logic. How will all high schools meet GNG? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not say that and I also did say how. Almost all US papers have a sports section. In all but the largest cities, at least two days a week, that sports section is devoted to high school sports. Not just game results, but detailed description of individual games, discussion in detail of individual programs, articles about particularly successful coaches, discussions of rivalries etc. If a newspaper happens to be in a competitive market, coverage of local sports is frequently the deciding factor on which paper to buy. Every state has a tournament system for all sanctioned sports. So even a small school in Podunk will get covered in a fairly major paper when it has successes in the tournament. There are enough sanctioned sports in the US that virtually every school has a chance to succeed at something. Sports like cross country, tennis, and golf require very little capital outlay for a school so even the poorest schools can and do have successes. Both the USA Today and the Sporting News cover high school sports. The coverage of athletics in US schools alone is enough to guarantee GNG. However, it is certain that local papers will cover budgetary and taxation issues, construction, staff issues and the inevitable crime on the campus. Some of the more local papers aren't indexed on Google. Many midsized city's papers aren't indexed prior to the turn of the century. Sources only have to exist. There is nothing saying they have to be able to be found easily. Logic dictates they are there. I understand the skepticism people not from the US have about the importance of high school athletics. I cannot find a link to the sources for this, but in the early 80s, a high school team from a very small town in SW Michigan had a very successful football team (Mendon). They went to the state tournament in Pontiac at the stadium the Detroit Lions played in at the time and literally (no hyperbole at all), every single citizen in the village left town and attended the game, nearly 200 miles away. I know that for certain because I was a volunteer firefighter in a neighboring village and spent that day in their firehouse so all the firefighters could go. This fact was covered in three television markets, including Detroit, which at the time was the fifth largest city in the country. It seems somewhat nonsensical to me, but that exemplifies how Americans feel about high school sports. Friday Night Lights is fictionalized; it is not fiction. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
John from Idegon You did say that above. "every single high school in the US will meet GNG". But regarding the other stuff, GNG will not always be met. Coverage in local papers is not really significant and coverage of every game is routine... and we routinely delete stuff that has quite a lot of coverage in local papers for both of the reasons i've already mentioned. Saying that all HS will meet GNG is wrong and silly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@John from Idegon::--Did this massive enlightment reach out to you after this edit?Seriously, prodding an article which had just enough to identify itself as a school and then following up with this advice is pretty.....  Winged Blades Godric 05:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I have argued both ways about coverage from local papers. I do not see it as a principle; I see it as supporting a decision on whether we want to cover the topic or not, based upon our idea of what an encyclopedia ought to be. That it can so easily be argued both ways shows the practical uselessness of the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
And the reason there is no point in prodding a highschool which has a reference of any sort is that the prod will unfailingly be removed (or almost unfailingly, if nobody concerned with that side of the argument is watching that week}, so no mater how strongly one feels about it, it's necessary to go straight to AfD, unless theres there's enough copyvio or promotionalism abuse than it is possible to use speedy. DGG ( talk ) 14:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

2017-18 NCAA Football Bowl Games Template

Why Did you Delete the template for please save it please. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:99BD:D3E3:1189:B71F (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The template was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. If you wish to contest the closure, you will have to contact either the editor who closed the discussion or start a deletion review. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you please start a deletion review now. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:99BD:D3E3:1189:B71F (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that I nominated the template, no. Today's DRV page is here, and the instructions are at WP:DRV. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Why Did you delete this for is it too soon or Crystal Ballish Bring It back now I don't want to wait 6 months for this. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:7DEF:6F0:885B:D293 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

UTM Parameters and archvied page

Hello, I noticed that the removal of UTM paramaters is being performed on wayback archived links too. This could lead to some issues, like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benvenuto_(song)&curid=33045399&diff=784576057&oldid=782054563 The archived link has been changed from https://web.archive.org/web/20120324234729/http://www.am.com.mx/nota.aspx?id=498062&utm_source=am&utm_medium=slidebox&utm_campaign=upnext to https://web.archive.org/web/20120324234729/http://www.am.com.mx/nota.aspx?id=498062 but the new link does not exist, while the previous one points to the right source, which is no longer available online now. Is it possible to avoid the BOT to remove parameters from archived URLs? Thank you! Stee888 (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Stee888, I'll update the code to keep the archives untouched. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Erm...
I just "patrolled" an AfD discussion page. What in the name of Lucifer is the point of adding AfD discussion pages in the number of backlog?  
I can digest adding drafts, and userpages in the queue; but adding pages where a bunch of wanna be admins are active, why? —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kiran, they are not actually in the backlog/queue as it is currently talked about in the NPP project, which is generally understood to mean the backlog of new main space creations that can be viewed at Special:NewPagesFeed. NewPagesFeed does not list anything other than userspace or mainspace creations, and is filtered to one namespace at a time. At the same time, all new pages regardless of namespace can be viewed at Special:NewPages until they are patrolled or thirty days have elapsed. You can see more discussion of this topic here. I also believe there was a proposal at some point to autopatrol AfDs but it didn't get any traction. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I once reviewed the main page. True story. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Tony.  
I am not not sure if you are telling the truth or pulling my leg Timothy  usernamekiran(talk) 20:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I really did. I think it may have been a bug. Maybe I should have attempted to try out some of the curator functions, you know... for science. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Main Page Reviewer(verify) here, checking in! I doubt using the rest of page curation would have ended well that day... --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

IOBDB (Lortel) links and template changes

Whoa! Whatever you're doing to [IOBDB] links is making a huge mess. Please go back and check your work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ssilvers, maybe before you go reverting everything you check what you're actually doing. This undo now links to I Could Go on Lip-Synching, instead of Best Foot Forward as it should. The links were broken, and this was the only way I could figure to fix them. I think instead of "you made a huge mess" it should be "what's with the gigantic error messages?" It was the only way I could think of to draw attention to the issue. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Do not leave gigantic error messages on articles. If you see a problem and can't figure out how to correct it properly, leave a message on the talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Ssilvers, {{IMDb}} leaves exactly the same error message. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm frankly astonished! You need to go back, undo what you did. There were no gigantic red error messages there before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Ssilvers, before I saw this note and fixed everything, nothing worked at all. So no, I will not "undo what I did", because what I did technically fixed things.
Now, I can agree that the error messages are a bit naff, but I can guarantee that if the error messages aren't there that they'll never be updated properly. If you have another suggestion, I'm all ears (genuinely - I couldn't think of another way). Primefac (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you leave a note on all the musical theatre talk pages for articles where you saw an IBDB error and ping me there, I'll go to IBDB, look up the musical and fix them. If you would do the same for the Lortel ones (should be a smaller number of articles), then between us we'll fix them all correctly. Howzat? I've got to run out, but I can do that tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ssilvers, I didn't do anything to IBDB, just IOBDB. Also, for reference, there are about 1300 pages that currently use {{iobdb}}, and they're all in this cat (or will be, once the dbase updates). They may display the error message, but they also link to the generic search to allow for the more specific template to be determined. And yes, I was planning on updating some of these. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I updated the ones on my watchlist, but 1,300! Now I understand what you did, though I still don't agree with it. Anyhow, you could try to gather a group of people at WP:MUSICALS or some other sort of message board to each take a bunch, and give the volunteers instructions on how to update the templates for a show or a person. I would be willing to help, if you do this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering why I couldn't find anything more specific than WP:WPBIOA&E (I let them know yesterday about it). I've now looped in MUSICALS. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving the message there, but it does not tell us less tech-savvy folks how to help you. You need to give step-by-step instructions for how people should 1) go to a particular page to find the list of pages that need updating, 2) explain how to search for the correct number at the IOBDB website, and 3) how, exactly, to update the links in the case of shows or bio names. Also, check out WP:THEATRE. Good luck. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Iobdb

Hi Primefac -I am unable to figure out how to use the Iobdb template. On the page Template:Iobdb/doc you do not give any actual examples. Could you put such a concrete example on the documentation page. It would also suffice if you simply said: For an example of correct usage, see page [name of example page linked here]--Toploftical (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Toploftical, it's pretty straightforward. {{iobdb}} links to the generic "search" page, so if you're looking for a specific person (say, Franklin Underwood, you'd end up here. Then you click his name, get the ID (25087) from the URL, and change the {{iobdb}} template to {{iobdb name|25087}}. For a venue, you'd use {{iobdb venue}}, and for a specific production you'd use {{iobdb title}}, all with the same procedure. Full instructions are at each template's documentation, as well as the category page. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Now you're making it unlikely that people will help us! I took out the mention of the broken templates. Would you please undo your last edit so that people can see that we need help and might help us without seeing a big argument on the talk page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, now everyone's attacking me, so I give up. I did not intend to insult you, and I apologize if you felt that I did. My intention is to get those big messages off all those pages, as they make the pages appear completely unreliable to non-Wikipedians. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Water under the bridge. The important thing is to get the templates updated. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The best way to do that is to strip those three Talk pages down to just the instructions. Can we do that, please? I will happily remove all mention of the broken templates/links if you can strip back or hide your last comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

UTM parameters in nowiki tags

Hello, I've reverted your bot's edit to User talk:Graham87/Archive 29 because it messed with some quoted wikitext from an article. To solve this issue, the bot probably shouldn't touch links within nowiki tags. However, I'm probably a bit crazier than most about changing talk page comments; A few years back I probably wouldn't have been OK with this edit, for example. Graham87 01:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing fragment after UTM parameters

Hi! This replacement breaks the link. I don’t know if it’s OK to change archives using bots on enwiki (we don’t like it on huwiki), but removing the fragment is certainly a bug. Please review your bot’s edits and correct them if necessary. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll probably be restricting the bot to the article space in future runs. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Time (season 7)

Hi Primefac,

Could you remove and revdel the revisions that have plagiarized information on the article linked above? [4] -- 1989 01:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done. I'm actually surprised only two of the summaries added in that revision were copyvios, but I couldn't find sources for the others. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, that info isn't plagiarized from the site, it was the other way around: it was plagiarized from Wikipedia! The source in question is a sketchy bootleg cartoon streaming site. That info was taken from Wiki and used by them as descriptions for their eps.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Gen. Quon, I was thinking that might be the case, but I looked at the source code for the pages in question and they were dated a month before the data was added to Wikipedia. That's why I removed and revdel'd the content. If there's other compelling information that shows otherwise, I'm happy to reverse my decision. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if they were taken from the Stakes page, and then added to the website? The Stakes page doesn't have the blurbs anymore, since I figured it was redundant. Either way, I guess it doesn't matter that much since it was only two summaries. I (or someone else) can just whip up two new ones.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Gurbaksh Chahal

Hi there, it seems like there has been a lot of trolling to my wikipedia page Gurbaksh Chahal and you have banned it for 1 year. Can you revert this so it can go back to the hands of actual contributors who can fix it from the incorrect information currently on the page which further projects vandalism. The fact you banned it for one-year from editing is just exacerbating the current situation for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurbaksh_Chahal

Gchahal2017 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Gchahal2017

Bot should not remove from these lists

Hi. Regarding this edit: [5]. This is a detection list and bot should not touch it (I guess). -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As PrimeBOT is exclusion compliant, I'd recommend making use of {{Bots}} with the appropriate parameter. ~ Rob13Talk 13:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe restrict to article space? {{Bots}} is not common outside article space. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that bot broke more pages in non-article space. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
If you find a specific page that was broken, don't spend the extra time, just fix it. I won't be upset. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Just making sure the bot won't revisit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding the template is not a good solution. Imagine I was doing this to all pages that AWB bugs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Restricting to article space is probably a good idea, Primefac. The initial BRFA linked to a search restricted to mainspace when estimating number of pages affected. Easy change in AWB. ~ Rob13Talk 10:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
AWB contains a filter and an option that the list will contain only articles in mainspace. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Trial

Your bot task has been approved for an extended trial. Please see here for details. Thank you for your work. ~ Rob13Talk 16:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox film template

Hello! Primefac this is a message about the film infobox. Can you add a label concerning voices. In a animated film they use voices for the actors. This is important for those who are interested in these films. They use starring when it is a ordinary film. This is important for those who are interrested in these movies in general. Yours sincerely, Sondre--2001:4647:25CB:0:3DD9:9B59:B158:EF11 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Please pardon the intrusion P. Hello IP. Before anything can be done to that infobox template you will need to start a thread about the change at Template talk:Infobox film. You will then need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for the change. MarnetteD|Talk 22:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
To save you some time P the IP has been making edits like this one where they are trying to add a field to the infobox that does not exist. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

query re national coverage, reliable, independent...

please check the SMH and numerous (freely accessible) significant reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject... Skinduptruk (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Skinduptruk, what's this about? Primefac (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kurt_Pudniks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinduptruk (talkcontribs) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Skinduptruk, the issue is not that the sources aren't independent, the issue is that the sources are all pertaining to an election that he did not win. Per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES people who unsuccessfully run for office are not generally considered notable. The "significant independent coverage" that is required for these individuals must be from outside the political sphere to show that they are independently notable from the campaign. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
To quote the links you provided (with my bold emphasis added):
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
Thanks for providing your logic. However your phrase "outside the political sphere" appears to be your personal interpretation of the criteria about "independent, reliable sources", no? There is also guidance about "non-trivial / non-merely-directory-like details" of the news coverage. The Cairns Post (newspaper) & Sydney Morning Herald (newspaper) & 4CA (AM radio) & ABC Far North (FM radio) both offered multiple, independent, reliable, in depth coverage of the campaign, which was quite unique for Federal politics in FNQ up to 2016. Skinduptruk (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wheel warring

Please revert yourself. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I do agree this is an important issue. And I agree further clarification would be useful. Do you want me to start a discussion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes please. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Will do. Will take me two weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

 
Hello, Primefac. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yashovardhan (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

draft error

sorry about the AFCH notifying your bot.I don't know what happened. The garmine (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's cool, The garmine. For some reason when the bot was running it ended up being listed as the submitter for the draft in question. I get random decline notices every once in a while from drafts I've simply edited or commented on, mostly due to how the submit template works (i.e. it requires a submitter and gets pissy if there isn't one). Primefac (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Task approved

Your bot task has been   Approved. Given the large scale of this task, please run it with an appropriate throttle (e.g. wait a day or two after an initial run of ~10,000 pages to see if anyone notices a bug). Thank you for your work. ~ Rob13Talk 23:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a bug, but this edit doesn't seem to be right :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's different. Rolled back, {{nobots}} placed on the page. Thanks for the heads up! Primefac (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you run this mainspace-only to start? That's where the changes are unambiguous and most urgently needed. ~ Rob13Talk 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI, Magic links bot is running through mainspace already. It's about halfway through now, with maybe 20 days of work left. I suppose Primebot could start from the end of the alphabet.
One nice thing about having the bots run through mainspace first is that a handful of edge-case articles are left behind, unfixed. Human editors are needed to clean up these ISBNs embedded within a template on the page, embedded within square brackets, or (when no ISBN link is present in the page's wikicode) transcluded within a template that causes the category to be assigned to the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Rev/del

Hi Primefac, I'm a big fan of rev/del for copyright violations, but I think this content, while promotional and inappropriate for use here, is provided by the US government for public use [6]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

পুনঃনির্দেশ - Suvray (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

15:07:42, 25 June 2017 review of submission by 2A02:8071:A8F:E300:B9A6:609A:8E36:315C


The reviewer does not accept all the listed original historical sources, written in French, Danish and German. He does not even recognize the famous universal genius Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (inventor of the infinitesimal calculus) as a reliable, independent and published source. Shocking.

Given that my decline had absolutely nothing to do with sourcing, I fail to see how any of this is relevant. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

  for keeping me in check on what edits I should/shouldn't make 🐦Do☭torWho42 () 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania

This redirect was deleted. Per the GFDL, you can't do that since the content was merged. The history has to be preserved and there is no harm in the redirect. It was clearly marked as such and there is also a notice on the talk page of the target article. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of, why was Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism deleted? I don't see anything in the AfD or in the move discussion that demanded the redirect be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, a redirect can always be created or re-created. There is a redirect.
Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   22:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, got a bit carried away. I've restored them. Primefac (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Whining...

I know you had to do what you had to do. But the squirrel article renaming doesn't convey the cyber-security issues that prompted me to write it in the first place. Thanks for letting me vent on your talk page.

Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   22:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), given that I didn't change the content of the article, I'm not sure where the issue lies. You're welcome to add or subtract content, provided it meets the criteria. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I know that. There is no issue, really. I will cheerfully continue to make the article even better. I guess the renaming the article makes it seem... less interesting. Thanks for your time.
Barbara (WVS)   22:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. Since you had some involvement with the Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KMF (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ISBN

In this edit you seem to have updated one ISBN link but not the other. Is it the capitalisation? --John (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@John: Which is "the other" ISBN link? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It's the one two below the one that was fixed. --John (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
John, the only isbns I'm seeing (post-fix) are either inside the citation templates or in the {{ISBN}} template itself. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice that. So the correction isn't necessary inside a cite template? Makes sense. --John (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@John: No, because the cite templates build their own ISBN links from the content of their |isbn= parameter, and have done for as long as I can remember (eight years or more); AFAIK they have never used the magic links method, which is what we're eliminating here.
On a very realted matter, if you see an ISBN magic link outside a cite template (as here), the thing to do is not to wrap it in {{ISBN}} (like this) but instead to move it to the |isbn= parameter, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Got you. Thanks for taking the time to explain. --John (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

template {{rlp}}

Hi, the new lowercase option does not appear to be working - see the lead paragraph of User:Nthep/1946 Great Britain Lions tour#Squad. Unless there is something wrong with my keyboard {{rlp|ce}} is producing Centre not centre. Nthep (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, when copy/pasting to duplicate a section and make it lowercase, it helps to actually make the output lowercase as well...   Fixed. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
My type of boo-boo :-) Thanks. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Naval sockpuppetry

Howdy! You jumped in at Naval Supply Systems Command and blocked NAVSUP HQ for its institutional account name and adding promotional content in Wikipedia's voice. Instead of responding to either of our talk page messages, or requesting an unblock, now all the content is there again, added by a new institutional account, NOCCHQ. In any other instance I'd open a SPI, but I kind of hate to do that to the Navy—but, given the utter lack of response to talk page messages on the NAVSUP account, I'm not sure what else going to be enough to get someone's attention that this isn't what Wikipedia is for. Unfortunately, I have an urgent real-world project going on today that will keep me from being able to spend much time dealing with this, so I thought I'd keep you apprised of the situation. Thanks for all your help, with this issue and otherwise! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Another question on this: I'm not objecting to the removal of the content as copy-pasting of primary source content, but was curious (for my own future reference, if nothing else) as to the rationale for deeming it copyvio when the source appears to be a U.S. government publication. No rush; just wondering. Thanks for your help with this - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Julietdeltalima, the first big removal was just random info, the actual "rmv copyvio" edit I made was to remove content from http://japan.stripes.com/ which as near as I can tell is not officially DoD and thus not PD. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to un-revdel. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. This turns out to be an interesting issue--I've never had occasion to dig into whether Stars & Stripes and progeny fall under the government umbrella. This may be a nice insomnia-busting bit of research for me tonight. Again, I appreciate your time (and I'm definitely not critical; I do an occasionally-copyright-law-related thing in real life and, between that and WP, government authorship status comes up with some regularity). Take care - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julietdeltalima (talkcontribs) 21:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Julietdeltalima, dig away! My main reasons for thinking it wasn't PD were these two phrases:
  • The contents of Stripes Japan and its corresponding website, Japan.stripes.com, are unofficial, and are not to be considered as the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. government.
  • Products or services advertised in this publication and website shall be made available for purchase, use, or patronage... (emphasis added)
I figured if they're unofficial and selling things, it's not PD (plus the copyright statement at the bottom of the page). But it is closer to OR than Truth, so if you can get definitive answer I'm all ears. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hiding option for unwanted entries in Watchlist

While I appreciate the good work that PrimeBot and its maintainers are doing, is there any reason that it should be exempt from the "Hide: bots" in the Watchlist options? Specifically, I am seeing a lot of unwanted messages about removing magic links from ISBNs in articles on my Watchlist. Is this necessary, or was it just an oversight? Reify-tech (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No idea. It's got a bot flag, so it should be showing up as a bot... Xaosflux? Primefac (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Reify-tech: can you point to a couple of specific diffs? — xaosflux Talk 14:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: bot flag "enables" a bot to assert that their edit should be bot-flagged, but does not enforce that each edit carries this flag. If running under AWB this should be included already, if you ran under another framework it may or may not be. (See mw:API:Edit#botflag). — xaosflux Talk 14:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks like you are not sending a bot assertion on recent edits - this is a BadThing, gathering some details. — xaosflux Talk 14:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks like you are asserting bot on these edits in general. Will need some specific examples. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
HERE is a dump of recent changes showing the flags in use. Also verified by adding some recently edited pages by your bot to my watchlist. — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Weird. Recent changes shows the edit to A Practical Handbook of British Beetles as a bot edit, but the history doesn't (nor does a look at the contribs). Primefac (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: bot flag markings are for recent changes purposes - they are not stored in the permanent revision data. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That would do it. Ya learn something new every day. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • xaosflux, was this request for the above strike-through comment? Primefac (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, I reverted after the additional info came out, no issues so far. — xaosflux Talk 23:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
    Cool. AWB throws a fit when one gets a new message, so I just wanted to make sure. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your funny name

Hi Primefac. I've been seeing you around a lot recently, and I can't help my ocd reaction. It hits me every time that primes don't have factors. However, then I realise that you may be claiming to be The One? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah, just a throwback to a time when the programs I was writing could only have 8 characters, so I had to settle for "primefac" for my program that ran "prime factorization". Primefac (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and Clarification

Thank-you for proposing the IBAN. I've been offline busy on a volunteer project for a couple days so I just saw it. Obviously I'd prefer to edit unrestricted, but I was completely ignoring and avoiding him until his attacks became to much, so I'll just go back to completely ignoring him. Great solution. Just to clarify, when/if he substantially breaches the IBAN, and resumes harassment, what is the correct procedure, given I can't mention him or go to ANi? Thanks again for actually doing something about this unfortunate situation. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Hello Primefac, Thanks for your reversion of my "edit". Frankly I cannot even remember making the edit. It must have been an accidential touch whilst checking the page. Apologies and thanks, David,David J Johnson (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Aye, no worries; it happens. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

PrimeBOT sleeping?

PrimeBOT does not appear to be working on ISBN magic links. It would be nice to have it running, if only to limit the drama around editors who just won't listen. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have it up in the next day or so. Been a really strange week and I haven't been home much. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Please also modify your bot to catch tabs and not only spaces. It would be also helpful fi you post the regex you use somewhere. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It's the same regex that MLB uses, and I'm pretty sure that code catches all whitespace. If I'm missing a code, though, I'm happy to modify. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Primefac/Archive 10".