User talk:Primefac/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Corrects birth year

OpenSource88 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)== Corrects birth year ==

What would be exceptable to source a DOB for Sarah Nagourney? Also, why would adding a DOB be considered controversial? She has in the past used a year 10 years past her real DOB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenSource88 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, the message I left is a generic "unsourced BLP" message, which includes the (sometimes unnecessary) bit about "controversial" information. The information needs to be supported by a reliable source, not just by deducing the information from a photograph or a user-generated website like IMDb, Wordpress, or GeoCities. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I had only been adding the DOB as I thought all profiles of living persons needed a DOB. OpenSource88 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Whitgift Wikipedia Page

Dear Primefac,

How are you? I hope all is well. I would like to update Whitgift School's wikipedia page. There are a number of facts and figures that are incorrect and the page generally needs updating. I am new to Wikipedia but can see the page is semi-protected. Is there a way to unlock it so that the necessary changes can be made? If not, what are my other options?

Look forward to hearing from you. Whitgifitian 17.06.20 13.38 Whitgiftian (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Whitgiftian, you should go to the article's Talk page, click "New Section" (found at the top of the page) and use an {{Edit semi-protected}} request to propose changes. As a minor note, you might want to look into changing your username, as it could be considered promotional (and thus not allowed). Primefac (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Whitgiftian (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

About Template:Ifexist check redirect

It's not high-risk template now.Willy1018 (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding WP:COPYVIO issue for Draft:Samuel Laing Williams

Hi, Primefac I am in dilemma whether Draft:Samuel Laing Williams is a copyright violation as I am unable to determine whether https://uudb.org/articles/fanniebarrierwilliams.html is in public domain or not. Please find the WP:COPYVIO report here. Please have a look and thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Bottom of the page, All material copyright Unitarian Universalist History & Heritage Society. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for the help and Curb Safe Charmer thanks for the necessary changes and comment intended for the editor/creator. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for history merge

• If you wanted to change Wikipedia:Requests for history merge to archive-once-a-month, best if you had discussed it with me, instead of leaving me with confusing changes. And, I prefer to preserve the commented "toolkits" at the start of the current month's accepted list and rejected list. Archiving once a month would create 4 times as many archives over the same time period and would make the list of archives unwieldily long. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Can I remind you of WP:OWN, Anthony Appleyard. We're nearly 20 years into the Wikipedia project, we've got just over 6 million pages and just under 40 million users. There's nearly two decades of archives already in various locations, and we really desperately need to simplify archiving across the project, so people can find things easily. If that means generating four times as many archives, then I'd have to say 'too bad'. If the list of archives becomes unwieldingly long, that can be next on the list of things to fix, indeed, that would be easy to fix if you go to a nice, convenient monthly archive, you have a nice drop down list or even a calendar based archive list. Nick (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I was obviously unaware of your personal preference for archiving that page. There is no note saying how the archives are set up, and the newest archive simply makes it look like the months are archived sequentially. However, I don't see how "archiving once a month" means making four archives - if you noticed, I added the text to Archive 36; if you want to keep them quarterly, that's fine, but in that case why not just archive May to Archive 37, and do the same at the beginning of July? There is no requirement for moving a page to archive it. I do agree with Nick, though, in that "how many" archives is a trivial matter. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • To prevent Wikipedia:Requests for history merge's edit history from becoming unwieldily long, I archive it 3 times a year (Jan 1, May 1, Sept 1) by moving Wikipedia:Requests for history merge to an archive page, and then cut-and-pasting its permanent matter back to Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, and starting new empty month lists for accepted and rejected for the new month. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RE: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement

Hello. Could you read this message I wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CommanderWaterford&diff=963412931&oldid=963392984 ? It isn't an unambiguous copyright infringement. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, there was no indication that the wordpress article had been copied by the original WK Article, almost impossible to detect. Sorry. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford It is very obviously a reverse copyvio and is easily detected if you look at a revision prior to the date of the blog post. The blog was posted 9/19/2016. Our article with a diff prior to this (9/2/2016) already has the content and the link literally says: "From Wikipedia July 16, 2016:. In the future please be more careful and look at revision history. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, it was marked as copyvio by three persons, also in NPP and earwig&turnitin - I would not say that it was obvious to be seen. But, I made a mistake. Mea culpa. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the funny thing about reverse copyvio, if it's not a mirror site (which Earwig and others ignore) it's easy to miss (Earwig isn't "smart" enough to check and see if a "copied from Wikipedia" notice is present). Live and learn! Primefac (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Tajotep, that's entirely my fault; I genuinely don't know how I missed your page creation edit summary. Restored. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Maybe I could have explained it better (?). Thanks :) Tajotep (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that was about as clear as you can get, barring some minor formatting tweaks. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories

Hi, Primefac it seems some IP editor has attempted to vandalize Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Proof see [1] and [2]. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, just someone trying to put an article in the wrong place. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remove permanent link

Hi Primefac Can you please remove the permanent link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3APatrick_Whelan ? The discussion here was the topic of notability, but as the article has since been accepted and received a barnstar, I'm assuming this is no longer needed. Thanks.Helen Larkin (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

In a word, no. Talk page discussions, just like with an article, tell the history of the page. Deleting a discussion just because it's "old" makes it a lot more difficult for those who are interested to read through that history. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough Primefac, but can it be archived so that it doesn't come up as a separate page in a Google search? Helen Larkin (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Page mover rights

Wait... I'm confused right now. I have file mover rights, but how does this automatically make me ineligible for page mover rights? If you see my log, I was only granted rollback and file mover, but not page mover. I can move a page, but I do not have access to suppressed redirects. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

As near as I can tell you've never needed to suppress a redirect. Therefore, if you don't have a need for the perm, you are not granted the perm. File moving and page moving are two completely different things, which is why they are separate PERMs. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. This has only came to my attention since I tried to move COIN (band) because of MOS guidelines and an unanimous agreement to move the page (so I wanted to close it myself). Thanks for the reply though, appreciate it. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't let the lack of ability stop you from helping out, of course. Closing RM requests and making WP:RM/TR posts is a good way to show you have a valid need for the permission, though you really shouldn't be closing RMs that you opened. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. On hindsight I should have just brought that to WP:RM/TR but for some reason I didn't know that existed. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you. Excellent instructions about using the short name form as the second use of a reference. Dan Martin (memdmarti) Memdmarti (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad it was helpful. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

AFC

Was I supposed to be added to this list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants? Thanks --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup! Apologies for missing that, you're on now. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb

Hello sorry to disturb you on a Friday but I’d have to ask; is there any such thing as a personal AFC log? In the same manner as a personal AFD, CSD & PROD log exists is there such a thing as a personal AFC log that exists or rather, that can be configured/activated/installed? which catalogues all AFC articles reviewed by me? Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There is, at the moment, no log that I know of. I suppose it could be added to AFCH if there were enough interest in it. At the moment the closest thing would be to do an edit summary search for the AFCH code the script leaves during a review. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac, oh crap! I didn’t realize you responded to this. Thanks for the clarification/explanation. Celestina007 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, sorry for not pinging, over the years I've found most people prefer not to get pinged when they ask a question like this. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

NOC codes

Hi, I wanted to ask for some changes in Module:Country alias/data but before that I wanted to make sure about one thing, I see for some countries like Bahrain you added all previous or current codes into the list, BRN, BHR, BHN. I'm curious if you are OK do that for some other countries ? I mean what's the policy about that ? thanks. Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, we can add former codes. The slightly longer answer is that those codes are old/deprecated, so if the code was used in an older version of the Games the module needs to recognize that. On the other hand, I wouldn't be okay with arbitrarily adding "SPA" as a shortcut for Spain, because it has (as far as I'm aware) never been used as a three-letter code to represent it. What are you looking to add? Primefac (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

TMP for East Timor. they used that code for 2002 Asian Games, source. actually I was taking a look at this page List of IOC country codes I have to check old documents carefully before asking for any other change, for a simple reason that IOC standardized codes only in 1972 so it's better to not use those pre-1972 codes because they were just random letters used by the host nation. I was curious if it's technically possible to use the same code for more than one country ? for example VNM showing Vietnam for some years and South Vietnam for some other years. I'm not asking for any change now, just want to know if that's even possible. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, AIA got used by multiple countries, so I know how to do a workaround. I'll add in TMP. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, I hope you don't mind me bothering you again and again. lol Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not at all! Always happy to fix things. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you were nice I want to ask for some other changes, I checked some official reports to make sure there is no mistake, HOL=NED, NGU=PNG, SAU=KSA, they are mostly NOC codes used for the 1988 Olympics. but I have two more requests, first about Vietnam, right now VNM returns "South Vietnam" and VIE returns Vietnam. but in two Games, before the existence of South Vietnam they still used that code for "Vietnam" 1954 Asian Games and 1952 Summer Olympics. so in short I want VNM returns Vietnam (and not South Vietnam) for those two Games. my last request is probably more complicated. currently MAL returns Malaya, but from what I saw they also used that for Malaysia for a very long time. before 1963 it was Malaya (with MAL as code) but after that until 1990 it was still MAL (but this time for Malaysia), is it possible to make all these exceptions ? 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988 Summer Olympics and 1966, 1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986 and 1990 Asian Games. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, just to double-check:

1. Three new alternate codes, HOL=NED, NGU=PNG, and SAU=KSA
2. VNM essentially needs to trigger VIE for those two Games
3. After 1963 MAL is an alternate for MAS

Should be doable, soon as I get confirmation. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't expecting you to message me back here, so I didn't check, I just came to ask you again but then I saw your response.

1. Yes, sure
2. Yes, exactly
3. Yes, until 1990, for 1992 Olympic Games they started using MAS. I know this last one is probably not easy to adjust.

Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, probably should have pinged you. Will get on this soon. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward for that Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I know you are busy and sorry for asking again but this is taking too long, I think this section in your talk page will get archived soon! I wanted to so some edits on old Olympics/AG pages and put them on hold. I would ask for change on the module talk page if I knew the exact code to be added but I need your help here. again sorry for asking again. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Got lost in the shuffle of life. Was looking for something to do, so I'll get right on it! Primefac (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You should be good to go! Primefac (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

THANKS, I really appreciate it. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

sorry for bothering you again, I see some problems, I don't know how, checking all 4 tamplates in used for Olympics and other Multi sport events, I see different results ! some of them still go to "Malaya" (same goes to Vietnam)

Nurul Huda Abdullah
 Malaysia

 Nurul Huda Abdullah (MAL)

 Malaysia

 Malaysia (MAL)

Nurul Huda Abdullah
 Malaysia

 Nurul Huda Abdullah (MAL)

 Malaysia

 Malaysia (MAL) Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I also see the same problem with MKD and Macedonia/North Macedonia.  North Macedonia (MKD) so I guess it's probably more complicated. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll look into it. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bit of semi-outdated code in the non-{{flagIOC}} group of templates; the flags are right but the names are a bit off. Been meaning to get all of them into alignment, guess this gives some motivation. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess it won't be just a simple edit and takes time. hopefully not much, looking forward for that. have to postpone my series of edits for a little longer lol. Mohsen1248 (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's the quick fix, and there's the elegant fix. I've done the former, so everything should appear correct now, but the longer fix (which incidentally won't have any change in output, just coding) will take a little longer. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That's perfect. thanks A LOT. Mohsen1248 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Somebody has messed up at WP:RM

Hi, Primefac just wanted to bring to your notice that an editor has seemed to messed up a page move at WP:RM. See Talk:Pushpa_(film)#Requested_move_12_June_2020 is closed but and now unable to move Pushpa → Pushpa (disambiguation). See here. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like everything's been done properly? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Article Deleated

Dear Primefac,

I have just noticed you deleted an article about Noam Yaron. I just wanted to understand why and if it would be possible to modify it before final suppression.

Thank you and best regards,

Chiconono — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiconono (talk • contribs) 09:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It was copied directly from other sources, including IMDb. Content on Wikipedia must be written in the editor's own words. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Image WP:COPYVIO

Hi, Primefac File:Ernani Rhoden.png is blatant copyright violation from (https://www.ufcspa.edu.br/index.php/paginas-de-professores/6486-ernani-luis-rhoden-md-msc-phd). The copyright notice © 2009-2020 UFCSPA is present at the bottom. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 04:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, that file is on Commons, so you'll have to nominate it for deletion there. As a note, it's a lot faster to tag a copyright page (or any other speedy) with the appropriate CSD criteria; it's a lot faster than pinging me. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I am unable to do. I am able to see no option there, therefore I posted for help. Do I need to add CSD manually? ~ Amkgp 💬 14:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

AjaxQuickDelete and QuickDelete should be enabled in the "Gadgets" preferences, which will give you options for nominating for copyright violations and/or nominating for deletion in the left toolbar. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, OK I will do it, anyways I have manually put {{copyvio|reason or source}}. Thank you for the help. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That works too. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

I know you are beginner but I don't understand what you are trying to say as I did what you recommend me now and waiting the result.and need time to start understand the process. Meanwhile stay safe .Because I need help in terms of creating my page. Brittany & Jason (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about the TikTok vandal discussion you closed

I didn't want to open another discussion on the noticeboard since you only recently closed the last discussion on the TikTok vandalism campaign, but I noticed that nobody mentioned the actual TikToker who is encouraging the vandalism. The account "chunkysdead" is linking random Wikipedia articles in every one of her TikToks. She has over 2 million followers, so the vandalism is happening right after each of her videos.

I'm wondering if its worth somebody reaching out to her and letting her know about the vandalism? She has a business contact email, which looks like the only way to contact her since her DMs on TikTok and Twitter are closed. I didn't want to just send her an email unless a more experienced editor thought it would be alright, though. Do you have any thoughts on this? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any Wikilinks on either her page or her videos. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You're probably looking at it on a desktop? They're visible on the app (as a zoomer, that's my default for these kind things, lol) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!}

Fair enough. In that case, someone should send her an email. Depending on what she says, it might be worth setting up pre-emptive protection on those pages. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anthony Radetic

Hello Primefac: I wrote an article entitled Anthony Radetic. It was first sent through copyvio and marked as being copied. I wrote the article from many other sources and had over 50 citations. There were proper names like his high school marked. It was noted that you deleted all of the materials that were claimed to be copied. I don't understand how proper names can be copyright infringement. What is left now if a fragment of the article. I finished a chat that said I need to go to the blank sections and write new copy where only citations remain. Is this accurate? I need help and I am trying to understand this process. Thanks. Lipav123 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Lipav123, I only removed the full sentences that were copied from other sources, which will need to be rewritten in your own words. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. There are sections like "Skiing" where there is no copy left...only citations. Are you wanting me to rewrite based upon these citations and recite them? I wasn't sure why the citation was left. Please advise. Lipav123 (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I left the citation because I know it can be a lot of work finding and inserting references. Since the references were used in that section, I figured it would help you recreate the section. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Lipav123 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify

Hello, i just wanted to clarify this edit. I tagged this for T3, because here, people said, such sandbox subpages would qualify under T3. Probably they only meant pages like "/sandbox/2". But anyway, thanks for the info. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I guess in this case I stand corrected; if the consensus there is to delete non-obvious sandboxes, then this would (somewhat) follow along with that consensus. I can IAR a little :-) Primefac (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

American sports navboxes

Hello, I saw your edit summary here and wanted to pass along this goes against the standard we use for all American college sports navboxes (coaches, teams, etc.). You may want to discuss this amongst a related-WikiProject because someone is bound to revert your edit at some point in time. Corky 17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan, should I have the redirect go the other way then? I was unaware of the convention for that WikiProject. Looking at it, though, the "navbox" variant is older anyway. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That would be my suggestion because I know there are a few who will change it back to include “BA box”. We don’t have a consensus, it’s just a standard. We haven’t really done any updates to the layouts and I doubt they will either (lol). Corky 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pages using Template:CBB schedule entry with a w/l entry

Category:Pages using Template:CBB schedule entry with a w/l entry is no longer needed; I have removed the template code that generates it. I was going to speedy it, but I noticed that it had already had a speedy template removed, and I think that putting on another one is not kosher. So I figured I would ask you, as the category's creator, to get it deleted in a way that makes the most sense to you. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, thanks. Forgot about that. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Small fonts inside navbox/infobox/sidebar

Hello there! Thanks for being brave enough to merge {{Race}}, which looks like a template that might be contentious and is the kind of thing I prefer to avoid (too much drama!).

I tidied up your merge, in part by removing {{small}}, which can't be used on already-small text like normal text in sidebars, infoboxes, and navboxes, per MOS:FONTSIZE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought that might have been the case, but I saw it was in use elsewhere in the template so I went with it. Thanks for the assist. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Template substitution

Hello, I have a few questions about template substitution. I'm thinking of renaming the following templates because they better reflect the subject of the template as a whole rather than suggesting that it is only for a specific year:

• Template:Singapore Parliament 2016 → Template:13th Parliament of Singapore
• Template:Singapore Parliament 2011 → Template:12th Parliament of Singapore
• Template:Singapore Parliament 2006 → Template:11th Parliament of Singapore

I could perform the move, but I'm thinking about substituting the templates on the individual pages as well (i.e. {{A}} ->{{B}} ) to prevent the naming pattern from propagating.

Assuming this is allowed, I can do this a few ways: I have access to AWB, but one thing that bugs me is that there's a policy on using AWB which states that inconsequential edits are not allowed, so my question is, is changing {{A}} ->{{B}} considered inconsequential? I would think that it could be justifiably consequential if it has an effect on loading the page if the redirect was bypassed, something along the lines of allowing the cache to refresh if the template got updated, but I'm not too sure.

The other way is to get the bot to do it (User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster), but I think the policy had changed since the last time I used it. Question: is anyone allowed to edit User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to use this feature for any (legitimate) template substitution, or is this supposedly off-limits to the regular editor?

Finally, I'm a little hazy about this, but what I'm planning to do is technically ok right? Or is it generally preferred to have the original template remain as a redirect to {{B}}? -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

AquaDTRS, just move them and don't worry about the redirects. When the Template:14th Parliament of Singapore gets created it will be done at that location, so there won't be any need to worry about the older redirs. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

79.67.76.38

user:79.67.76.38 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

TPA pulled. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles at the Pan American Games

Hey! Netherlands Antilles at the Pan American Games provides a Dutch flag, as opposed to the Netherlands Antilles flag. Can this be changed? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, can do. On the surface having it default to the Netherlands makes sense, as AHO dissolved in 2010, but on the other hand it probably makes more sense to keep the historical flag (even now). Primefac (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

I am Daniton999, you blocked me. I understood my errors, and wanted to request an unblock. Could you may unblock me? --Daniton9999 (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So you say, but clearly you don't understand. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Tags Question

Hi Primefac, hope all is well with you. But I have a question regarding the tags on my account. I’ve noticed when I occasionally look at my revisions I always see the tags “Mobile edit”, “Mobile web edit”, and “Advanced mobile edit” now my question is are they able to be removed? I’ve noticed some users have them and a lot of users don’t have any at all. I’m assuming maybe you have to reach a certain amount of edits in order for them to be removed? I tried looking at WP:TAGS but couldn’t really find much information regarding the removal of them. Pillowdelight (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Tags, not WP:TAGS. The long and the short is that such tags are added to all edits IF they meet the criteria. Users with 100 edits or 100,000 edits will show the "Mobile edit" tag if they make a mobile edit (i.e. they're not tied to the status of a user). Depending on which user and what sort of editing they do, you will likely see a lot of different tags (or none at all). For example, the majority of the tags that show up for my account are either undo/rollback or AWB, since those are the only "tagged" edits that I tend to make (though occasionally "blanking" will show up). Primefac (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay gotcha, so it’s really nothing to major to worry about? Pillowdelight (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, just another method of bookkeeping. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Another question if you don’t mind me asking, how is the “Twinkle” gadget enabled? I feel like I’ve read somewhere where you have to reach at least 500 edits in order to access it. I’m pretty much half way. Pillowdelight (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You can enable Twinkle in your Special:Preferences (see the "Gadgets" section). Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Sociedade Brasileira De Engenharia De Televisão (SET)

This new article should not have been deleted. The text used to describe the organization, while similar to the original, was based on a straightforward, non-copyrightable statement using plain English language. algocu (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It was identical to the original. While it is true that some statements can't really be copyrighted because there's only one way to say them (for example, a list of "this, that, and the other" can only be changed trivially by rearranging the order) the text copied in this instance could easily have been rewritten, reworded, partially omitted, etc. You are welcome to recreate the page, but please make sure you write everything in your own words. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi guy what's up, I've earnestly contributing to Wikipedia over the year and possesses a humongous amount of over 6k edits and repeatedly thanked and and appreciated by fellow Wikipedians of more decent status at the organization. I just wanna be an admin. It'd a great favour of you if make me admin. Thanks a million

SHISHIR DUA (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi SHISHIR DUA, while I am glad to hear you are interested in becoming an administrator, unfortunately that is not something I can do. If you have read through Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates and still think that you would stand a good chance of passing, then read the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate and post your nomination at WP:RFA. Please note, however, that passing an RFA after only a year on Wikipedia is extremely unlikely! I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have about RFA and/or the process. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and reply. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN "Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" - what's happening with them?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ""Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" - what's happening with them?". Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

How is adding more sources unnecessary information?

Harvey Weinstein has an entire section devoted to his misdeeds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein#Allegations_of_sexual_crimes

It feels like you are censoring my edits to protect someone who has been accused of sexual misconduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeCorrect Or (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Weinstein also had complaints from dozens of women over decades, and was tried and convicted. I'm not saying the information that Zwerdling was allegedly sexually assaulting his coworkers shouldn't be in there, but when you put external link violations, unnecessary quotes, and undue emphasis on the claims, it becomes a WP:NPOV issue. At this point, the issue should be discussed on the talk page.

(edit conflict) As I said above, not trying to censor; the information is still in the article. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Good luck

I'm off to buy stocks in the Acme pitchfork company. Regardless of what the close says, I suspect there will be a bunfight :-) I presume you'll be discounting sockpuppets (e.g. RandomCanadian)? Guy (help!) 15:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the plan. Reminds me I need to restock my boiling oil. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for addressing my emailed issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Always happy to help :-) Primefac (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Robynthehode. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Unicycle, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Robynthehode (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode, why are you warning an admin and oversighter for changing the format of an interwiki link? What Primefac did was useful because it shows people we still need the article while linking to the page on another project. I’m restoring Primefac’s edits, but WP:DTTR is a thing, especially when what they’re doing is correct... TonyBallioni (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni. Was using RedWarn and made a mistake so not intentional. The entry I reverted has no citatioon, no article and the German Wikipedia link doesn't mention that the person was a unicyclist as far as I can see. So not notable and no reliable source and not verifiable. What's the problem? Also don't see how its 4 reverts when one was for different information and one was a mistake re Red Warn as I have mentioned. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you, but I'm seeing an awful lot of "mistakes" happening with RedWarn recently (or rather, since it was created).

To do with you - I will grant you that I probably should have just removed the entry (and potentially, so should have you), but changing an (improper) interwiki link to an {{ill}} link is a gnome-level task, something that should be seen and ignored as "part of improving Wikipedia." Just something to keep in mind for the future.

For the record, I don't particularly view my status as an OSer (or admin) as relevant to this issue, but do try to be a little more cautious with your button-pressing. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hi, Primefac Draft:Nathaniel Cleophas Davis is copied 99.6% from (https://cherryclassics.com/pages/Davis). For record I have found Douglas Yeo July 10, 2020 and COPYRIGHT © 2020 CHERRY CLASSICS MUSIC in the website. But now a new user has contested the speedy delete with this message

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I, Douglas Yeo (wiki name Fuseduletecil), authored and own the copyright to the biography of Nathaniel Cleophas Davis that appears on the Cherry Classics website and which has been posted in this draft entry about Davis on Wikipedia. My name is clearly associated with the biography of Davis that is on the Cherry Classics website and I intend to work to improve this Wikipedia entry about Davis with proper sourcing and images. Since I own the copyright to the biography of Davis (first posted July 10, 2020) that is on the Cherry Classics website and I give my permission for my work to be the basis for this Wikipedia entry, the entry should be approved and it should not be deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. --Fuseduletecil (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Already placed a copyright and donating copyright material notices on the both editor's and draft's talk page. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You've done the right thing by linking to WP:DONATETEXT; until they've released or otherwise removed the content on that page, it's under copyright and cannot be used here. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixing capitalization

Hi Primefac, I was wondering if there was any way you could fix the capitalization on Head over Heels (Paula Abdul album) | Head over Heels]] when you hit the redirect, it’s very visible that the “O” in “over” needs to be capitalized. I tried messing around with it not too long ago but didn’t want to mess anything up with it, so I figured I’d reach out to see if you’d be able to fix this issue. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The page was moved to the current title in order to meet the naming criteria. If you think this was done in error, you should start a move request on Talk:Head over Heels (Paula Abdul album). Primefac (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox drug

These edits by you in {{Infobox drug}} surprise me. I was working on this in the sandbox, I announced it for discussion, and you engaged.

Then, instead of talking, you unilaterally skipped the process and forced an edit (using TE rights). I am astonished. Why not cooperating? -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, you broke the template. Please revert. -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was a trivial change (similar edits to a few other templates I've updated), with the exception of the last header (which I've now implemented from the sandbox). I didn't really think further discussion was necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You are (ab)using your WP:TE WP:TPE rights, even doubling down right now. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You made a request, I implemented it, you let me know I missed something, and I fixed it. Where did I abuse my permissions? Primefac (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No I did not make an (edit)request. I created a proposal, and I started a discussion.

I did not let you know you 'missed something' at all. Quite simple: had you executed my 'request' as you claim, you would have used the (my) /sandbox proposal, even when not finalised. Instead, you went on coding in the live template right from scratch (is why you 'missed' something). Incidentally, apart from skipping the talk you used three edits in the live template, which is bad coding practice especially since a /sandbox version (described, tested, & under discussion) was available.

I point to Wikipedia:Template editor-ship, which rights you have and (ab)used in these edits. Throughout, WP:TPE states that you should act upon discussion & consensus. What you did here is not following these (and other) requirements. Even worse, after I pointed out this problem here, you went on to do so once more. Apart from acting not Wikipedia-like, this is also frustrating editors (me in this case). And still you have not replied as understanding that this is problematic behaviour. (Must say, I cannot remember having met such behaviour by you before, which makes this extra astonishing). -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My only point of confusion/contention is that this is an entirely uncontroversial change; it's been done to dozens of other templates, it's an improvement in the code, and there are zero objections. You proposed changes and I implemented them. There was no need for discussion. Proposed changes to template-protected templates can be uncontroversial. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. As I wrote, I cannot remember bad interactions btwn us. While in this case, you might be mistaking. In short, a TL;DR: WP:TPE says one (i.e., you) should service other editors and check edits and help and such more. What you did re {{Infobox drug}} did not match these requirements. (Actually, even today there is a diff that says: you did not perform, not even check, the proposal). To me, this still looks like a serious trespassing of TPE. And, more seriously, you evaded the Talk. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, I don't think we've ever really had major disagreements in the past. I'll do what I can in the future to engage more fully in potentially controversial discussions. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. I'm fine leaving this thread right here right now. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure I cannot stretch this topic too long (unless others expand it uh), so I think I should not reply much more. But anyway, I am still very sensitive re TPE issues. All the best, -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage you to discontinue this line of disruptive behaviour, DePiep. I'm highly unimpressed at the way in which you've gone after the last administrator to block you, making numerous allegations of tool abuse with no foundation. I'm particularly unimpressed given Primefac was actually trying to help you and was undertaking the edits you've requested. I suggest you make a friendly apology to Primefac and then discontinue any further borderline harassment you were thinking of pursuing. Nick (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick ??? -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick. AFAIK, we never met. You are abusing this thread, and editors. Thereby spoiling the discussion at hand. What is your point? -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: The suggestion that anybody who does things in a way different to your expectations is somehow 'abusive' is not an acceptable method of conducting yourself here on Wikipedia and should stop. Your allegation that Primefac has somehow abused their TPE permission, something you describe as "To me, this still looks like a serious trespassing of TPE" is simultaneously laughable and saddening. I say saddening because it is clear that Primefac has done nothing at all but try and assist you and the wider project through their edits. Editors all do things in a different way. You need to cease being so hostile, you certainly need to stop with your insinuations and accusations, and be more collaborative in your interactions with other users. We're all trying to pull in the same direction. Nick (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

HI Primefac hope u doin fine

The Page of Ruturaj Singh should be renamed as per the refrences,His name is Ruturaj Sinh,and if verified the article then u can denominate the request for deletion of page thank you regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK1818 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If the name is incorrect that can be fixed (if the page is kept); if you think the article should be kept please comment at the deletion discussion. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

U CAN CROSS VERIFY THE LINKS GIVEN IN REFRENCE SECTION AND DO NOT DELETE THE PAGE BECAUSE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO IMPROVE THE ARTICLE,AND THE NOTICE OF DELETION OF PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN SOON THANKYOU REGARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK1818 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

VK1818, deletion discussions are very rarely closed early, so please make your case at the deletion discussion; if you have a persuasive argument then the consensus will be to keep the article. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

IM SORRY PRIMEFAC

HEY IM REALLY SORRY IF MY WORDS OFFENDED YOU,I REALLY DIDNT MEANT THAT .I WAS JUST GIVING MY OPINION ON THAT PAGE,I APOLOGIZE YOU AGAIN IF YOU THOUGHT I WAS SHOUTING AT YOU BRO,BUT ONE MORE THING I JUST MEANT THAT REFRENCE I PROVIDED ARE THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON EXISTS,JUST IN CASE IDK WHETHER THIS PAGE WOULD BE THERE OR NOT,JUST GAVE MY BEST TO IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA :) THANKYOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK1818 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No offense taken. Writing in all-capital letters is generally taken as shouting, that's all. As I said, I have no direct control over the deletion discussion; it is up to those who comment and the closing administrator to evaluate whether to keep or delete the page. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bot possibly editing outside of BRFA

I looked through the seven approved BRFAs and couldn't find anything for SporkBot on removing deprecated parameters, I have found several incidences of it while doing WP:WCW stuff. This edit is an example of it doing so. I'd rather not ANI if I'm just missing the bot's approval or request though. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Plastikspork, I think they might be right, unless I'm missing something. There is single-template update approval for Task 3 and Task 4, and duplicate parameter removal in Task 5, but I don't see general approval for removal of deprecated or otherwise invalid parameters. Am I missing something obvious? Primefac (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that edit was supposed to be using my AWB account, Plasticspork, but I forgot to change the login to in AWB. Thanks for letting me know. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I've certainly made that mistake before! Primefac (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Album Certifications Question

Hey Primefac, gotta question for you. A few days ago I had noticed several of Tupac’s album certification numbers in the US on here were very off. Several users are following a source from a 2011 magazine, one of his albums is certified “Diamond” meaning sold 10,000,000 units, the source I am following is coming from the official RIAA company and it is provided. All Eyez on Me is an example, you will see on his “Certifications” In the US it says “Diamond” now several users again are following a source from 2011 from an xxl mag and saying it sold only 5,000,000. After changing it to the correct amount of sales to 10,000,000 a few users have reverted it, I had reached out to them and tried explaining to them about it and one user in particular under the handle “HaeB” says he doesn’t agree with what I’m saying. If you follow the source from the RIAA website that is sourced there, it says it became “Diamond” in 2014. Like I said several users are following a source from 2011 magazine. existing thread Here’s the thread of our conversation and me explaining it all. Please tell me what your thoughts are on this and what should be the next step. I had tried explaining that they aren’t following the correct source for album certifications. It’s getting frustrating.

Thank you.

Pillowdelight (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I should also add that a lot of his albums sales in the US are very off, users are following this xxl mag source from 2011 and not the official RIAA company that actually does the certifications. Tried fixing it to the correct amount coming from the RIAA website that is sourced and users are just not following it. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, this sounds like a content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page. You can always solicit opinions from the relevant WikiProject(s), DRN, or RSN (if it's a question of a reliable source). Primefac (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible WP:GAMING attempt

Hi Primefac I am finding suspicious editing and a kind of WP:GAME attempt by Oranjelo100 at SerieDSD. See page revision history. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 12:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure what sort of "gaming" would be going on - the user in question has 36k edits. I would suggest asking them (on their talk page) what their intentions are/were. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Yes, not gaming but a mistake I think. Thanks for having a look. It has been restored now to original version by an editor. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Merging a template

Hey. Izno suggested you may be able to advise. I'm thinking of a plan for merging Template:Infobox military award into Template:Infobox award. The former has two fields, 'awarded_for' and 'description'. The latter has a field labelled "Awarded for" with parameter 'description', which is a misnomer. To clear the way for a merge, and to fix the naming regardless, my thought was to add a compatibility layer to Template:Infobox award (so 'awarded_for' is accepted for the label), change all instances 'description' -> 'awarded_for', and then remove the 'description' param. Then 'description' could be added for a "Description" label. Would appreciate your advice/thoughts on this plan?

Also started a discussion on whether "Description" should be in the infobox at all (here), but even if it is to be omitted I think the parameter should be named properly. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Genesereth (professor)

Hi @Primefac: I'm trying to move this page from the above to Michael Genesereth, but it says its of the move as You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: You cannot move a page to this location because the new title has been protected from creation. . The article has at least 12 links. scope_creep^Talk 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Now I understand. It has been G2 and G12 in the past for copyvio. scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it to the proper/better location. Not a bad idea with the disambiguator, but always happy to drop protection if there's something needing moving that's protected. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac . I can link it now. scope_creep^Talk 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Karl Friedrich

I began expanding Draft:Karl Friedrich (tenor). I think enough is sourced now to move to article space. I can add the missing bits next week. Notability was no problem, and I'm surprised that you could think it was. Listen to the YouTube, perhaps ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

List of largest stars

Hi Primefac,

This is regarding the article mentioned above.

I was wondering if this question's namesake article could be 'reopened' for editing, so the now extremely long list of stars in the new list can be transported. If you don't want to reopen it yet, at least could you please transport all stars from the new list to the original list? The list is, at least in my opinion, a big mess now. I hope you didn't mind me saying that.

Sidenote: If you do plan on transporting the stars yourself, please check the history. There are a few links their in which un-added stars are catalogued.

Thanks!

PNSMurthy (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the list this weekend and see how things are going. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, thanks:)PNSMurthy (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for unlocking the listPNSMurthy (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Obviously there are a ton of stars still to add (by my count somewhere around 180 stars to at the very least verify) but it's a start. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, you just might have answered my question. See the talk for the List of largest stars. I have raised a question about the missing stars. This means those stars will eventually be added, right?PNSMurthy (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay then, I will start getting to the stars when I have time. I’d think that all the stars in Wd1 would be good, judging by their estimates being confirmed again and again, and that the stars have their own articles. I might just add them again without checking when I have time.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, since you are the only admin I know, how am I supposed to change my signature to look something like the Tenryu guy above?PNSMurthy (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's in your Special:Preferences; see WP:SIG#CustomSig for more. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmf, okay. Thanks for the help!PNSMurthy (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I know it wasn't the place, but couldn't resist. One of the more egregious examples I've seen.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see your comment until I had closed it, actually! I could just see it very quickly getting off-topic and wanted to nip it in the bud. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"List of coastal islands of the Californias" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of coastal islands of the Californias. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#List of coastal islands of the Californias until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To Administrator

Kindly respond me via talk page of mine and notify me or you can respond me here.

Hello Primefac sir, an article which you deleted makes me sad i guess its is not a good decision an editor approved this page twice but it gets deleted twice. And i would like to contest this and challenge this decision. I know that i re created the page but i get the permission from Mr. RL0919 today and he suggested me to make it draft but an editor Mr. Praxidicae has put the deletion tag on the page i created without even investigating it. this time the references i have added were all different, for your kind information kindly look into this references and let me know how is it not notable?

A page Turki almohsen with a references as follows:

(they have a Wikipedia page here too so this website is not fake)

These are the references of Arabic Newspaper aka Arabic News Website:

(Third biggest newspaper of Dubai) (they have a Wikipedia page here too so this website is not fake)

There are many more references in Arabic newspaper, now may i have your few words on this? that how is it not notable? same happens again on a page which i created because i have seen that page on Forbes Ref Wayne.

I also want to clarify i create Wikipedia pages voluntarily and i am not involved in paid editing, neither anybody told me to create the page nor i know any public figure personally, but its hurt when the page get deleted even with having a solid references.

I hope you will explain this to me and help me in restoring this page.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The page you created is substantially similar to the previously-deleted article, which under the rules of WP:G4 it is eligible for speedy deletion. If you wish to contest this, WP:DRV is the place to do it. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 17. —Cryptic 18:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Edward Pratt

Hi Primefac, do you think the event (unicycling around the world) is sufficiently notable? Do you think the coverage of the event in the references in this draft article (taking into account the list in the draft article talk) is sufficient? Would you be able to suggest a title for the event? Could you suggest whether it should be about this particular feat by this particular person, or about the feat by any person? FrankSier (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is that I'm not overly convinced that the man (Pratt) or the action (unicycling around the world) are notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, it's damn impressive (I've done JOGLE and that's about as far as I ever want to go again!), but when I search for news hits about his accomplishment I'm getting less than 400 articles, which is rather small. However, I'm just one individual, and it might be worth dropping a note at WT:CYCLING to get their opinions on the matter. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi to both, I started the article on Ed as I saw him mentioned here -> wiki/Unicycle#Notable_unicyclists He is about the sole person in this list without a dedicated page. Bit odd to call him notable on one wiki page, but not notable enough to have his own page. This is my first article on wikipedia however, so I will leave that decision to others. Having done some more research I found he got a point of light award. I added it to the draft but am unsure of the weight of this award. Its a British thing I'm unfamiliar with, and I cant gauge whether this then makes him notable or not, again i'll leave it up to others. I've made a couple other edits, taking out some details I got from his youtube channel and without an independant source to back that up. Added a bit as well. Also asked in WT:CYCLING what they thinkZyntra (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering: even if Pratt and/or unicycling around the world are not notable enough for the purpose of having their own article(s), could more info be put in Unicycle? (In other words Merging the proposed article, rather than making it a separate article.)

I agree a bit with "Bit odd to call him notable on one wiki page, but not notable enough to have his own page." but also think that it is okay to use "notable" in a different way when talking about the suitability to have own article.

Comparing with articles for other people known as unicyclists on Unicycle#Notable_unicyclists, some of these have fewer references (though one has a note on it about more sources needed) than does Pratt.

Looking to Wikipedia:Notability for guidance, looking at "Significant coverage", I think that the test of being non-trivial mentions is passed because a lot of the references have titles which mention both the person and the act, so these are not passing mentions. Then there is the question of the number of references needed: Wikipedia:Multiple sources mentions 3 as sufficient, or possibly 2 (though there is also the question of being independent, good and in-depth). Primefac, you say getting less than 400 is rather small. There seems to a large difference between 2 or 3 and 400. I am a bit stuck where to go from here on the subject of quantity. Or maybe it is quality of references. On quality: amongst the references in the article and ones listed on the Talk page, we have The Guardian, The Times, The BBC, The Points Of Light Award from the UK Prime Ministers Office, and giving a talk at the Oxford University Exploration Club.

FrankSier (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

See also related discussions in 3 consecutive sections: Talk:Unicycle#Ed_Pratt, Talk:Unicycle#"Wobbling"_Wally_Watts, Talk:Unicycle#Ed_&_Wally,_long_distance/round_the_world_unicyclists. FrankSier (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and approved it. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:My article got declined despite a valid reference:trim

Hi Primefac. Could you take a look a this? I don't think was intended to be created as a template, but someone just did so in the wrong namespace. I was going to tag it for speedy deletion, but I wasn't sure which criterion it would fall under. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted as a test page. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I didn't realize that G2 would apply here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a little bit of a grey area, but it was pretty clear they were trying to do something and it didn't work like they intended. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ranjitpasi47

Ranjitpasi47 (talk · contribs) is a duck for Ranjit pasi (talk · contribs), whom you recently blocked. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if they're a duck or an alt account, as RP47 was registered before I blocked RP, but I blocked them as "close enough". Primefac (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good spot. I should have checked that, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Easy to miss, and in truth I only noticed because I was going to G5 one of their drafts but noticed it was created almost two weeks ago. RP47 only started editing Pasi (caste) today. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Bad template naming structure

Hey. Sorry to bug you with something else, but I have a template question and I figure you're a good person to ask. I was cleaning up the general sanctions templates and noticed what I think is a poor naming structure, but I don't know the best way to correct it. Discussion is here, if you could take a look? Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions#Poor_naming. Thanks again! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio you dealt with

At [3] - I've just found and deleted similar material on the article talk page - the editor said it shouldn't be deleted as copyvio as they'd just started![4] Doug Weller talk 14:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, copyvios are deleted on sight, so they should try starting over again using their own words! Primefac (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

wikiproject shortcut

Hi. I hope you are doing well.
I am again working on wikiproject mafia. I just found out that {{uk-crime}} redirects to {{WikiProject British crime}}.
My AWB regex module couldnt identify it as a wikiproject. Do you think we should delete uk-crime (through MfD), and replace it with WikiProject British crime? Or do you think it is unnecessary? Your opinion/thoughts would be appreciated. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

update: WikiProject Law Enforcement vs WPLE. I think we should update all the shortcuts used as wikiproject banners on talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I know what you're asking, but here is my interpretation of what you're asking:

There is zero reason to not use a template redirect (e.g. I would much rather type out {{WPAstro}} than {{WikiProject Astronomy}}). There is zero reason to delete a template redirect and replace it with its target (especially when the target is more clear about its function).

If I'm missing the mark, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a period around the time you started where at least WikiProject redirects got removed where they were not sensible and WikiProject banners were renamed to be consistent (and from memory one or another of the now-banned-from-botting bot ops was involved). The purpose was to make it easy to maintain the infrastructure. Even now, I am pretty sure there are still some WikiProject templates listed as replacements for AWB. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I thought this was a bot/AWB issue. If kiran's coming at this from that perspective, then I see no reason why it couldn't be discussed at RFD, though I don't think it's the most egregious alt-name template redirect for a WikiProject and seems like a lot of work to replace just because it's not 100% specific (because then you'd also have to nix things like {{astronomy}}) Primefac (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was somewhat talking from both angles. Personally, I think we should avoid using shortcuts on talkpages. I am totally fine with shortcuts like WP:MAFIA. I am not wanting to get the template shortcuts deleted, but I couldnt think of any other way to tackle the issue. It was either deletion, or an RfC; to replace all the shortucts with targets. It would also bring consistency in the wikiproject banners, and it would be better for bots/AWB users in long term (like 10 or 15 years from now). But like you said, it would be lot work for nothing much. This is why I asked for your opinion :)
Because of Izno's comment, I thought maybe we could tell AWB to recognise these template shortcuts? I am not saying including it in my module/regex, I mean like in the original definition set of AWB. Not sure how AWB works though. But it is clear it would increase the size of AWB, and AWB is not used only for enwiki or just wikipedia too. So that project specific definition is definitely not implementable. Are modules in AWB project specific? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Review Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are no auto-replaced WikiProject templates on that page.

Also, out of curiosity, why shouldn't we use template shortcuts on Talk pages? Primefac (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You'll see some familiar personalities in the page history there. Indeed, WikiProjects have not been listed there from a brief review; I assume that's because running AWB over talk pages is generally not for the faint-of-heart or unknowing. --Izno (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your thoughtful close at the Fox News RFC. I know it was not easy. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Closer's Barnstar

	The Closer's Barnstar
	Your thoughtful and concise close at RfC:Fox News did not go unnoticed. It was not an easy task, and you handled it well. Please accept this token of appreciation for your excellent work. Atsme Talk 📧 19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about Fox closing

First, I don't envy having to come up with a clean closing of the Fox News article. I think the panel did a very good job. I do have one question which I think could use some clarification. The closing said no consensus regarding Fox News and scientific topics. Is that meant to apply to all scientific topics or just those with a heavy political component? For example, climate change discussions often have a political component that means the science may be read through the eyes of supporting or opposing policies it might impact. Other scientific topics seem far less political. For example robotics in medicine, electronics, basic human health like a new surgical method. Was your read of the consensus that even these topics should be treated as no-consensus for reliability? My concern is if that door is left open it will be used at some point to try to exclude material sourced to Fox even if that scientific topic doesn't have a political bend. Thanks. Springee (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox should be used with caution for politics and science, but it is not prohibited outright (unlike the Daily Mail); for the less-controversial topics like those you mentioned, there should be little to no issue with using it. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Dragon Booster

Hi Primefac, I was looking up this old show and I noticed that you've essentially deleted the entire page, because it was "unreferenced". The show's over a decade old, back when the internet first launched. Of course, most of the info's not gonna have a reference.

Now, I've read the previous Plot section, which frankly should have been deleted (cos you're right, it was mostly useless info) but that's no reason to delete the rest of the page. There are other TV show pages with similarly low reference numbers that aren't reduced to a shell because they still explain the show well.

As such, I'm asking you to return the "Dragon Booster" page to its former glory (minus the useless Plot section, which I can fix at a later date).

Good wishes, Archfiend487 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archfiend487 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If other shows have similarly poor referencing, then they should be converted to stubs as well. While 2005 might not have been the heyday of the internet, it was by no means in complete infancy at that time; additionally, there is no requirement for online sources to be used. If there are references to support statements, then of course content can be re-added. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The references is the show itself. One of the deleted sections was Characters, which you can't say didn't exist in their own show. Articles about the show are impossible to find these days because the show's so old. Plus, as other sites get updated and changed, referencing links might fail to function at all. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be informative. Things that can be objectively gained from watching the show like "characters" or "plot" should be included on the page, regardless of whether references can be found. Archfiend487 (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Charles J. Hanley is marked as under review by you

I am wondering whether there is a reason you are hanging on to this draft. Obviously it's an autobiography, but you may have other reasons. I confess not to have studied it at length to review it in any way. This is just me being nosy! Fiddle Faddle 12:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because I started reviewing it twice and kept getting sidetracked. Thanks for the reminder, I'll try (again) to get to it today. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

How to use Template:List of largest stars row?

I want to calculate Stephenson 2-18's size using list of largest stars row but instead using the 696,342 kilometers value for the Sun. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That template gives the output in terms of R_☉, so you can't output anything else with it. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh.............

THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Vishwakarma (caste)

Any chance of some sort of long-term protection/ECP/whatever at Vishwakarma (caste)? The disruptive edits claiming that they are brahmins has been going on for years now, despite what the sources say and discussions on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just as a reminder, WP:GS/CASTE exists so I'm always happy to drop sanctions on folks who need it (though I realize that in this case it's mostly IPs). Primefac (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks very much. Apparently, I have been editing elsewhere as an IP recently :) Sitush (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Can help with suppressing that too, if needed (though the tone I read suggests that comment was made in jest) :-) Primefac (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a sense of humour by-pass today :) Any chance of you taking a look at the history at Pulayar? The ongoing issue seems to be that various anons and newcomers object to being described as untouchable but that and its neologism (Dalit) are indeed what the sources say and they say it for the present day, not just the past. It is considered to be a slur, hence the desire for it to be gone or minimised in some way, but a massive proportion of the Indian population fall into such groups and the fact is that even though caste discrimination is now illegal, it goes on. We do sometimes see legal threats about it - people threatening to sue because the law in India says we can't call people that even though levels of recorded violence against these people are very high and thus it is a lived reality, even if (they claim) not a legally acceptable statement in the country. As it happens, their claim is legally flawed anyway - the words are used frequently in the media and academia, as well as by pressure groups representing these people. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. I wonder if it's worth just semi-protecting all of the caste articles... it would certainly be allowed per the GS. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It would save the regulars a lot of time, albeit with some displacement of anguish to the related talk pages. However, I suspect there would be pushback from contributors who are experienced with WP but not with the subject area. Thanks for sorting this one out. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

AfC

Bump for you to check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants when you have time. Hope you are well :) Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 16:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Another one for you

See this - heck of a game of ping-pong going on at that article. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and they are really not happy with me! - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Now dealt with. A swarm of admins turned up. Coming next to an article near you ... an anon restoring the reverted material. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I just keep missing the fun. Internet's been wonky for me today. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:List of largest stars row

I think it's perhaps best to use "|-" in the List of largest stars page since legends will be needed on that page for extragalactic stars like WOH G64. 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:59C1:C361:E314:566E (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "legends will be needed"? My interpretation of that statement means that rows should be coloured, which they shouldn't because only the "provided for reference" values like the orbit of Jupiter should be coloured (and even that's a borderline ACCESS violation). Primefac (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think they should only for extragalactic stars like WOH G64 to avoid confusion if these stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy. 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:59C1:C361:E314:566E (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to discuss the possibility of splitting the stars into two tables (galactic and extragalactic) but until such time we shouldn't be changing things with the template unnecessarily. What sort of "confusion" is there anyway? From what I've seen, all of the extragalactic stars are listed as such. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

for the record

WRT your closure deepfriedokra explicitly told me to bring my request to DRV. He or she asserted that my request was so controversial it required "mulling" at DRV. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

'mea culpa. I apologise if I erred. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: TBH, I'm not sure, "I want to look at the deleted contents myself, "is a valid undeletion criterion. Primefac is wiser than I in such matters. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the quoted point; whether a histmerge is necessary (or not) is something the responding admin is perfectly capable of assessing, and (just as a note) unless the deleted version was copy/pasted from one place to another there is very little chance that it will be histmerged. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, may I paraphrase what I think you are saying? I think you are saying my desire to look at the deleted material, myself, is not a valid reason for it to be made visible?
• I suggest the valid reason to restore the deleted material is to honour the community's decision of early June, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Derek Chauvin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin

  I suggest the decision that Derek Chauvin should be kept applied equally to the deleted revisions of Derek Chauvin (police officer).

• Is it your position that the original closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) requires the deleted versions to remain deleted? Is this your position, even though that AFD was rapidly overturned? Is this your position even though the closing administrator didn't even bother to show up to explain themselves?

  Okay, can you suggest where I should look for an explanation for defying the first DRV?

{{ping}}ing SmokeyJoe, who left a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 30

I think you and deepfriedokra showed normal human fallibility here. Because I too show normal human fallibility I specifically request people not apologize to me, in User:Geo Swan/opinions/On apologies, because apologies are hard, and unpleasant, and I would prefer they use that energy to work with me in a civil, collegial manner. Geo Swan (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have little real interest in this, beyond the procedural accessibility of DRV for reviewing deleted things.
  Geo Swan 06:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC) requested "I'd like to request that the deleted revisions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) be grafted to the beginning of Derek Chauvin".
  This is an irregular request. It lacks a "why". It there an attribution failure due to the deletion of creative content added in the deleted versions that is present in Derek Chauvin.
  These deleted revisions of Derek Chauvin (police officer), (a) why were they deleted (what XfD discussion)?; (b) what is in these deleted revisions, any used or useful content? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Addressing your specific questions: (a) My first numbered point, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 30, named the original AFD that deleted revisions of Derek Chauvin (police officer); (b) I don't know, specifically, what the deleted revisions said. As to whether the content is useful... Did Derek Chauvin genuinely merit a G4 in early June? I've requested userification of articles, and updated and improved them to the point they could be moved back to article space and ended up being kept. When one starts with a userified copy of an article, and works to improve it, with new references, new intellectual content, one has to figure out "have I improved this article to the point where a G4 is no longer a risk if I move it to article space?" It is a judgement call, based largely on experience. My judgement in these cases will be improved by comparing Derek Chauvin (police officer) with the first revisions of Derek Chauvin.
  • In a comment below deepfriedokra says they will defer to you, but implies they still think the original AFD, the one that was speedily overturned, nevertheless remains in force. They seem to be saying that if I specifically wanted to challenge whether the original AFD still remained valid, I should make a 3rd DRV. I don't think this is good advice, and I will not make a 3rd DRV.
  • Forgive me for repeating this point, but I don't think a judgement call was required from the administrator closing the second DRV (ie you), as I think that the first DRV, and the administrative AFD that followed it (also linked in my 2nd DRV request) echoed the community's decision that deleting versions of both Derek Chauvin and the original Derek Chauvin (police officer) had not been appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know if it is related, but on 30 June 2020 I posted at User talk:Geo Swan#BLP warning 2 following an ANI discussion regarding Geo Swan's attempts to name an individual connected with Chauvin. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Geo Swan: I wasn't apologizing to you. As I said, I defer to Primefac on the undeletion of the deleted fork. I recommended WP:DRV for further consideration of that. Certainly it did not meet the criteria for WP:REFUND, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is where my decline occurred. I don't see the link to my decline, but that's the only sort of undeletion I normally take part in.
• @Johnuniq: There is similar discussion at Special:permalink/963962842#Teachable_moments about the naming of that person. That content removal has been discussed ad nauseum. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• @SmokeyJoe: The revdel's are, I believe, those discussed as mentioned by Johnuniq and myself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The link I gave above showed my warning at Geo Swan's talk. That might have been a bit subtle so let me spell it out. @Geo Swan: I will block you indefinitely if you pursue this matter any further. Such pursuit is either an attempt to work around the previous very strong consensus (see 30 June 2020 ANI link in my above post), or is a competence is required problem. You will need to find another website to complain about the awful admins and silly BLP policy. I am posting this here for any feedback people may want to provide. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Regrettably, I'm unable to formulate a comment that is WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, or non-incendiary. I remember OP of old, and am saddened by this inability to back away from the horse. I will neither endorse nor oppose said blocking as I am involved beyond to say, "SMDH". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Johnuniq I left a reply to your warning. One of thing I said in that reply is that it is my understanding that only uninvolved administrators are authorized to implement blocks, and I think the unfair elements of your comments show you should not claim to be uninvolved. Your vague accusation I have been using the wikipedia to "right great wrongs", for instance, came from no-where.
    • Do I need to spell out that my request, above, to fulfill the closures of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Derek Chauvin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin, is unrelated to discussions as to whether a certain individual I won't name ,did or did not measure up to criteria of BLPNAME? Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • You don't get it and should be banned from BLP articles. Wikipedia's policies were developed with the consensus of the community, your own opinion about BLP does not matter nor do your essays that you push on to people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2D20:10CE:28E3:2129:F5FC:A289 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Template: Infobox port

Articles that use Template:Infobox intermodal freight transport don't look right, probably since you moved it to {{Infobox port}}. Those articles show the literal text "1. REDIRECT Template:Infobox port ..." Could you check this please. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There's supposed to be a bot (or three, now that I think about it) that fix double-redirects, but for some reason they don't like me. I've been meaning to ping their owners, so thanks not only for letting me know of the issue, but also reminding me I need to look into that. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'll just ping the operators to this discussion. @Emaus, Xqt, and Avicennasis: I don't see anything in the related BRFAs that precludes the bots from hitting template redirects; am I just unlucky or are they intentionally skipping NS10? Primefac (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

AvicBot is simply down (last edit 25 June 2020). Xqbot and Emausbot do operate in template namespace. I think what actually happened is a quirk in the way double redirect bots work: they patrol the page move log to immediately fix double redirects resulting from page moves, but only get around to fixing non-move double redirects when they appear on Special:DoubleRedirects, which only updates every few days. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought AvicBot might have been down, but figured it wouldn't hurt to ping anyway. Your rationale makes sense, and is likely the reason why my templates-turned-redirect (sans page move) don't always get picked up right away. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

		BAG Barnstar
		As promised. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

MultiFaith Shadi Martini

Hi Primefac,

Thank you for your edit to my recent page... I realized I forgot to site that I based Shadi's bio on https://www.multifaithalliance.org/shadi-martini. This is my organizations website so I have the rights to it. If it will make things easier I can just site it or reword the bio in my own words. What do you recommend I do? Also, are there any other issues getting in the way of making this page live? Please let me know as we are trying to get this off the ground ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multifaith (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Multifaith, you should write the bio in your own words. It is possible to release text already on the internet, but in my experience such content is usually too promotional and gets heavily changed anyway. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse template question

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look at this? The TH doesn't seem like a good place to try and hold a RFC on {{AFC submission}}. I can't even figure out how to properly format the Wikilink because of "pipe" in the section heading. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the RFC header. I'd have to look up the URL code for a pipe to figure out the wikilinking. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Anyone running around removing article on the basis of copyright infringement should become aware that the copyright on copyrighted content eventually expires and becomes public domain. The content in question was published in 1908 this puts it well into public domain. Copyright law of the United States#Duration of copyright

Copyright protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a "work for hire", then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter. For works created before 1978, the copyright duration rules are complicated. However, works created before 1924 (other than sound recordings) have made their way into the public domain. RichardBond (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I hadn't noticed the publication date. I have restored the page and re-listed the AFD.

As a minor note, in the future if you are referencing a specific page (as in this case, with Louis Whitford Bond), it is helpful to actually include a link so I don't have to go digging through your deleted contributions to figure out what you're talking about. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RichardBond (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Rights for Articles for creation

Hello. I was confirmed by you for the AfD a few days ago. Do I need further rights to use the Articles for creation helper script? I have seen the "new page reviewer" permission on other users. Many thanks for your help. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The AFC script isn't a "user right" in the same manner as NPR or other permissions, but you still have to turn it on in Special:Preferences (under Gadgets, the "Yet another AFC Helper" script). Let me know if you've got any other questions! Primefac (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Pings in REFUND responses

There was recently agreement at WT:REFUND that when responding to a REFUND request it is a good practice, although not required, to ping the requesting editor. I see you have recently been responding, and I want to draw this to your attention, as it is a change. It is now in the instructions, but experienced editors may not re-read that looking for changes. Reasons and discussion may be found at WT:REFUND#Pinging requestors DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I thought I did ping the requesting editor. Thanks for the heads up, though. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Mind deleting this for me. It is a fragment of a page move I made. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

draft article

hi In your opinion, this article is not good in terms of wiki and is not a complete article???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.112.224.173 (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of references, seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hey, could you please help me out with User:Mustjaapanlane? He 5 times has reverted the changes of User:TheTVExpert on Idol 2005 (Sweden) and reverted me once even after I left them a message on their talk page (and 2 more reverts at Idol 2006 (Sweden)). TheTVExpert has been implementing the TfD consensus which the user seems to not care for, seeing as how they aren't even responding or using an edit summary. --Gonnym (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a funny feeling any ESL issues will mean they don't get the point until they're blocked, so I've done so. Short one, but hopefully they'll get the point. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Hope this helps. --Gonnym (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)