User talk:Primefac/Archive 8

Active discussions
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Articles copied from

Hello, I was adding an attribution tag to the article TPY-2 created by user Izaiah.morris as per this talk with NinjaRobotPirate. Citizendium content is published under CC-BY-SA, so I think there is no copyright issue. Advanced Extremely High Frequency (satellite) was already tagged by me with the attribution template. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Primefac and Crystallizedcarbon: Not commenting on the deletion itself, but that user has been blocked for sockpuppetry and impersonation, so G5 would probably apply in any case; so I'm not sure we can't weather the loss:[1]. Just FYI. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 18:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Crystallizedcarbon, would you prefer a list of their deleted pages or just those two resurrected? I deleted them G12 (not realizing the CC-BY issue) but most were actually tagged as A10 (and/or converted to redirects). Primefac (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
<Edit conflict> Yes, I think I can live with it  , In any case, I would like to know what would be the right way to handle the articles if the user would not have been proved to be evading a block. To know how to act in the future... Should an article that has some referenced information that could be used to improve the encyclopedia but was copied from a CC-BY source be deleted or should it be tagged with the attribution template? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I think 1995 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony may have some content worth merging into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but I leave it up to you to make the decision. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, those three pages have been restored.
In the future, completely duplicate pages (like most of their uploads) should either be tagged A10 or redirected/merged to the main article. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The rest I think can rest in peace. You saved me a lot of work. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I did tag many of them as A10, I could not tag those two as they had at least one valid reference (also some that were not WP:RS) I also added merge tags for both. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cue sports bios

Hey Primefac. I just noticed the deletion of this template. Since I am the creator and was not informed about the nomination by the nominator, and would have had much to say about it, I drafted a deletion review nomination but then realized of course I should speak to you first. Since I already put it in draft, though, I'll just post it below since it contains my reasons for contesting the deletion (but I've nowiki'ed the pings I had included in it).

I am the creator of this template and was not informed about its deletion discussion and only discovered it today (nor were any other substantive editors of the template informed: {{U|SMcCandlish}}; {{U|Armbrust}} & {{U|TonyTheTiger}}).

The TfD also did not list its previous deletion nomination, where every rationale for deletion, such as they were, mentioned by every person in the current deletion discussion (just the nominator and one responder), was directly addressed by me at some length––which might have informed and changed the position of those participating, or drawn in lurkers to participate, or resulted in the closing admin coming to a different considered decision since I believe the deletion grounds included were effectively debunked by my response in the prior, undisclosed discussion.

None of the facts grounding my points in that prior discussion have changed: There's still only a handful of articles that meet this template's express criteria for inclusion, and over the intervening four years, the number of articles in Category:Pool players by nationality, has barely expanded (210 pages; it may have actually dilated through deletions), meaning the nominator's objection: "Never possible to be completed" (which I interpret as an ambit objection; the potential for indiscriminate, infinite inclusion), is ultra-hypothetical. That is, 16 years of Wikipedia activity still only allows about 20 articles to be included in the template under its inclusion criteria. If that potential objection ever comes close to being reality-based, say in 250 years at the current rate, it can be revisited then.

Are you willing to undelete based on the procedural and substantive infirmities in the nomination (and change your close based thereon)? Thanks for looking into this, and keeping TfD functioning. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, I have re-opened the TFD. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Fuhghettaboutit: Please try to be succinct at the reopened TfD. I read some of your arguments at the last TfD, but they were quite long and difficult to get at the heart of what you were arguing. ~ Rob13Talk 01:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Rob, this is a writing project. As an admin that has closed hundreds of discussions, what I appreciate most of all is cogent analysis. Of course, I will not be participating in that illegitimate, tainted discussion as if the genie could be placed back in the bottle by reopening it and that reopening it was the proper path in response to me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Um... I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish, Fuhghettaboutit. You said that you had not had an opportunity to participate in the discussion and wanted the deletion reversed. I provided you an opportunity to do so (and reversed the deletion) and now you say you don't want to participate in the discussion which would potentially allow the template to be kept? Personally I don't really care if you post a block of text at the TFD; it might sway others to !vote keep. I do find it odd that you feel that TFD, a place for templates to be discussed, is somehow an illegitimate venue for discussing a template for deletion. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


You made this revert on Ardrossan with the bizarre edit summary "unhelpful edit". Now it is many months (to the best of my recollection) since I've ever been reverted, so that is strange enough, but I don't think by any stretch of the imagination that my edit could be called "unhelpful". There is one small error I overlooked in the Infobox, but I doubt that could justify a wholesale revert on the grounds of "unhelpful".

I have therefore undone your edit and fixed the error in the Infobox. Now, could you please explain what is "unhelpful" about any of the following changes I made:

  • Fixed the nonsense English at the end of the lead: "is situated in a three-towns corroboration act[clarification needed]"
  • routine addition of {{use dmy dates}}
  • replaced the "Irish Election box" templates, which look silly for a Scottish election
  • switched to column-width formatting for the reflist, per the MOS
  • made the wikitext of the Infobox much easier to read and edit
  • made the structure of the cite templates within the Infobox much clearer (reduces the risk of future editing errors)
  • made the cite templates much easier to read and edit (vastly improves the flow and readability of the wikitext)
  • corrected the silly redirect for Kenneth Campbell, VC (ridiculous to have him as a "soldier" when he's an airman)
  • several other routine formatting improvements

I appreciate the change in style of the cite templates might be a surprise, even though the new format is explicitly designed to be easier to read and edit ("easy to visually parse", or ETVP). There is already a partial explanation on my talk page of ETVP, which I've been meaning to expand for some time now, but haven't got round to yet. I recommend you read it.

If the change in cite formatting really (and to me, inexplicably) upsets you that much, then the correct action to have taken would have been to post a note on the talk page, with a ping to me so that it can be properly discussed, rather than just a lazy revert.

--NSH001 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

NSH001, what you've done above largely amounts to cosmetic editing. There was no reason to expand the citations (and I see you have not gained any sort of consensus for that, even on your talk page). I reverted your changes because I saw nothing helpful (though I clearly missed the actual changes through all of the cosmetic ones). The edits were unhelpful, in my mind, and with no obvious content changes there was no reason to start a talk page discussion about it. You say that my edit summary was unhelpful, but your edit summary was just as cryptic, which was another reason for the revert.
The article has also experienced a fair amount of vandalism, so I apologize for reverting what was on the whole fairly innocuous edits; I guess I just got a little trigger happy when I didn't see anything actually being changed. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Your apology is appreciated. Important points to note:
  • My aim, as noted on my talk page, is a long-term one, namely to completely and totally get rid of LHTs (long horizontal templates) from the body of all wiki articles. Edit-warring on individual articles won't help to achieve this goal.
  • Articles full of LHTs are impossible to edit, except for trivial changes such as spelling corrections, or edits that can be done via a script. Even spelling corrections are made difficult, time-consuming and very unpleasant indeed by LHT clutter.
  • I therefore take the problem of LHT clutter very seriously indeed. If I can't edit articles, then I will leave Wikipedia. There simply isn't any other choice.
  • You seem to have missed the point of the notes on my talk page, where I did not, have not, and am not seeking any consensus (yet). The notes are intended to be a work in progress to enable me to deal with objections, and to form a basis to document (eventually) my script or scripts that I am using to get rid of LHTs, and eventually for others to use to do the same.
  • As noted on my talk page, in-line ETVP templates are only one way, out of about four or five possible choices, of getting rid of LHTs. In-line ETVP templates are probably the least likely to be used in practice, but still have a role IMO. Bear in mind that anything at all is better than LHTs, even manual citations!
  • There is nothing wrong with cosmetic editing when done manually, or using a script provided the diff is carefully reviewed (one reason why I make heavy use of the preview and show changes keys T156141). (But cosmetic edits by a bot are a different matter; I suspect that consideration may be overly influencing you here.) To say that you can't make wikitext cleaner and easier to view and edit is silly in my view. And in my case it's vital, as otherwise I will leave Wikipedia.
  • There's no substitute for looking at examples. For a good example of how articles can be written without using LHTs, see the series of several hundred articles on Aboriginal Australians that I'm currently working on with Nishidani.
--NSH001 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) NSH001, some people view changing the format of cite templates from "all on one line" (horizontal) to "on many lines" (vertical) as a violation of WP:CITEVAR. This is not the venue for discussing whether those people are bananas, but you should not be surprised if you encounter resistance to changes of that type without prior discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Jonesey95, I've been aware of that for a very, very long time, one reason I make this type of edit so rarely. More will be added to my talk page about the best strategy for getting rid of LHTs. BTW, you make two important errors: I'm talking about ETVP, not "vertical", and the supposedly "all on one line" version is on one line only in the sense of occupying one line in the wikitext; in the edit window (which is what matters) it also occupies many lines. The difference is that its display is arbitrary and unpredictable, while "vertical" is at least predictable and ETVP is explicitly designed to be easy to read. --NSH001 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S. For the avoidance of doubt ("bananas"), my use of "bizarre" refers to the mass revert of many useful changes, not to the (almost) predictable resistance to change in citation style. -NSH001 (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I use the syntax highlighter and do not have much trouble following prose with citations in it. I find prose interrupted by the vertical citation style more difficult to follow. Again, though, this is not the venue for that discussion; WP:CITEVAR probably is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

  Administrator changes

  AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
  RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for being a useful guide to how some things work on here. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


Sorry about this, my mental maths has never been that good, would probably have been apt to check with a tool or something. DrStrauss talk 19:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for your willingness to help, but I found it. Wikidata. McKay (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Research help

Hey Primefac, thoughts on marking this as {{historical}} rather than deleting it? I imagine that it might be useful to refer to in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The ed17, I'm not overly inclined to do so, given that a) it was only used in a pilot program (widely, but briefly), and b) it's literally one wikilink with an image. There just doesn't seem to be anything "historical" about the template itself. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
For sure, I totally see where you're coming from, but I suspect people are going to want to refer to the template in the future and see how it was implemented (either to argue for or against something similar). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


Why is he calling himself a newbie? He's been a SPA on Fomenko and New Chronology pages for years and has made at least one edit summary saying that my comments on dendrochronology were just pov, so he's not entirely ignorant of our policies. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that there's an 8 year gap in their editing history (2009-2017) there's a good chance they've forgotten/missed a bunch of rules/guidelines. Copyright infringement should be a no-brainer, but who knows. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


I rolled back your edit because you said it's being deleted. The conversation ended but the consensus was explicitly to not delete. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if that would happen. Technically I closed it as "keep" but I guess when the script added it to the holding cell it put {{being deleted}} on it. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Request on 03:07:09, 6 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonathan629

Jonathan629 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxRequesting for Reviewing and Publishingxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello Primefac,

Previously, You have reviewed "Draft:Gokul Shrinivas" where i'm currently working on and left a comment "Need of Reliable sources"

So on that, I have two more sources - The Hindu Newspaper & Times of India Newspaper. I have snapshotted both the newspaper where Gokul Shrinivas's name is mentioned. You can find those in these links - The Hindu dated December 15, 2016. - Times of India dated February 17, 2016.

This is my first article I'm writing in Wikipedia, So please guide me and help me to finish it off successfully. Thanks,

Jonathan629 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)jonathan629

08:57:39, 8 March 2017 review of submission by Logistics.topics

Hello reviewer. As per your suggestion I have added more sources outside the field of automotive logistics and linked to a German source already dealing with the topic of Fourth party logistics (4PL). Please review my latest submission. With thanks, Logistics Topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logistics.topics (talkcontribs) 08:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Sher Aziz

Hi there, I need your help this account User:Sher Aziz is blocked this user can't unblock request because ip is blocked please unblock this account or user talkpage(Proxoris (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)).

Closing TfDs - !votes lost

Hi, why are you removing !votes when you close a TfD, as with this one? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64, thanks for the heads up. Clearly it's a script issue - why would I remove valid discussion? Will close manually and alert script creator. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Pimonov draft


There is a chapter "Volodja" in "Searching for Bobby Fischer" by Fred Waitzkin. It describes in detail the life and work as well as chess activities of Vladimir (Volodja) Pimonov in the Soviet Union. It is the SAME Vladimir Pimonov as in in the draft. The Russian name Volodja or Volodya is a synonym or nickname for Vladimir, as in English Bill is a nickname for William. If you read a story of Pimonov's life and work on Pundit Wire written by an American diplomat and professor Dan Whitman (see ref. 1) entitled "Vladimir" you will discover, that Whitman calls him both "Vladimir" and "Volodja"'and actually refers to "Searching for Bobby Fischer" confirming it is the SAME person. Please check up ref. 58 describing Pimonovs human rights activities before he left USSR and emigrated to Denmark. Again - it is the SAME Vladimir (Volodja) Pimonov as in the draft.

Regarding Russian name Volodya alias Vladimir: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Pimonov as a chess master. There are references only to 2 games in the modern chess base as he stopped playing chess in the 1980's But there are references to tournaments: the USSR quarter final in 1972 and USSR junior championships. For sure he had played hundreds of games in his life.

Regards, Thomsen (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)thomsen

Regarding Citekill. Some reviewers demand multiple sources in different languages to show significant coverage. That is why the sources provided are multiple in different languages - English, Danish, Russian. Kind regards. Thomsen (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Primefac,

I have just re-edited the draft trying to resolve the issues pointed out by you in your review and comments.

1. At your request the draft is now split up into separate units (early life and education, career, activism, chess).

2. To resolve CITEKILL I've trimmed down a number of references and sources - now again at your request - there are max. 3 references for a given statement. I have also deleted some references to the articles on banks in Iceland - an internationally covered story (criminal investigation in Iceland is not fully completed and dozens of bankers have been convicted and still in prison) and left only 2 sources referring specifically to Vladimir Pimonov (the same Vladimir Pimonov!) who (working with colleagues at the Danish daily Ekstra Bladet) broke the story in 2006.

3. Regarding "Volodja" Pimonov in "Searching for Bobby Fischer" by Fred Waitzkin.

In his essay on Pundit Wire about Vladimir Pimonov (essay called "Vladimir" - please, see ref. 1) Dan Whitman, a ret. Senior Foreign Service officer at US Department of State and Foreign Policy professor at American University in Washington, writes that Vladimir Pimonov "appears in 1988 book, "Searching for Bobby Fischer", by Fred Waitzkin".

This confirms that it is the same Vladimir (Volodja/Volodya) Pimonov in the essay by Whitman and in the 1988 book by Waitzkin. Whitman calls Pimonov both "Vladimir" (in the title) and "Volodya" (in the text). In both sources (essay and book) Pimonov is described as a journalist, Shakespeare scholar and chess master (who left the Soviet Union and settled in Denmark).

4. Chess master. Neither computers, nor internet existed when Vladimir (Volodya/Volodja) Pimonov was an active chess master in 1970's and the games were not electronically saved in any archive. Many games were lost as they only were registered on paper. Modern computer chess base does not include all games from 1970's - just some games played in very important tournaments. E.g. Pimonov's chess game with Dzindzichashvili, R. (see reference in the Chess base) cited in the draft, was played in the USSR quarter-final tournament in 1972. Pimonov's opponent in the game was the same Roman Dzindzichashvili, who later moved from USSR to USA and led the US Olympiad Team and was US Chess Champion:

5. Some linguistics: Vladimir Pimonov and Volodja / Volodja Pimonov. It is the SAME NAME. In the Russian language the name "Volodja" or "Volodya" (depending on spelling tradition in English - British or American) is a derivative or diminutive (a short name) of "Vladimir" which is a full official name registered in the birth certificate. Apart from "Volodya/Volodja" there are diminutives of "Vladimir" like "Vova", "Vovka" (usually used by kids).

Other examples in Russian: Sasha is a diminutive of Alexander, Masha is a diminutive of Maria, Tanya is a diminutive of Tatyana. The same phenomenon found in English: Bob is a diminutive of Robert, Bill is a diminutive of William, Al - diminutive of Albert etc.

I hope I have resolved the issues and the draft can be accepted.

Kind regards. LWHVLWHV (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:RollerCoaster Tycoon (video game)

Could you do a WP:HISTMERGE of the deleted revisions here? There shouldn't be any substantial overlap (parallel histories). --Izno (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done Primefac (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Kudos and coffee

  Kudos on closing the fabergé egg RM (and the wise choice of a followup RfC). I had noticed it in the backlog for a while and was pleased to see it closed :). Enjoy some coffee! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


Hello P. I am working away on removing the rmv per Template:Fox NFL Sunday from the pages it is transcluded to. One of the ones listed is User:Pppery/noinclude list but it is not there as the template. I am guessing that one of the links P has there include it. Is there anything that needs to be done or will the removal of it from other pages eventually cause it to disappear there. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: Looks like it is gone now. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's basically just a TFD tracking category. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know P. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for ....

closing the RfC at WT:COI. I'm sure that one was not easy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Taito franchise template

Hi there, I seen that you declined the speedy deletion. I just wanted to let you know that the template was created by NamcoKid47. This user was aware that all Taito franchises are stored under

Matter of fact, the Square Enix franchise template was around longer than the Taito Franchises template. I've investigated this Taito franchise template, and a lot of entries are not even franchises. They're standalone games. This template is not necessary and acts as a duplicate. I will be placing another speedy deletion because there is no value in keeping a duplicate template. All Taito franchises are already on the Square Enix franchise template. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied at the template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Slight glitch

Hello again P. Your edit here has caused that redirect to be thrown into the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I am pretty sure that all you have to do it add {{pp-protect|small=yes|expiry=indef}} to it. Now, I have not dealt with this specific situation before so if I'm wrong we might need Redrose64's expertise. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD, it was actually the redirect template {{r fully protected}}, which should have (and now is) {{R template-protected}}. Thanks for letting me know! Primefac (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please don't use {{pp-protect}} and related templates on redirects. Instead, there is a family of templates intended specifically for redirs, these include {{R template-protected}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Redrose64. I am glad that you both got to the correct template. I apologize for leading you astray P and thanks for fixing things. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Teaching Trouble Deleted page

Hi Primefac. I saw you just deleted my article about a short film called Teaching Trouble. Can you explain in detail what happened please and why you deleted it.Superpilot123456 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

COI close

Hi Primefac, your close of "milieu 3" (outcome 1) contradicts this RFC from a few months ago where the idea of a special committee was rejected (four supports, 21 opposes). Also, "milieu 3" wasn't accurate in its wording: "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF". That isn't true. People deal with COI privacy issues all the time, in lots of ways, almost never involving the ArbCom or WMF.

I think you would need to hold a dedicated RfC about "outcome 1", widely advertised, including on CENT. SarahSV (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall, what are your thoughts regarding this new information? Primefac (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That was a proposal to create a secret mailing list for Arbcom officials. This was a proposal to create a task force appointed by the community that will be able to deliberate in private. At first glance the two don't appear all that similar to me.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, the two proposals were the same. This recent COI RfC made no mention of a "task force"; that aspect of the close seems to be a supervote.
The Aug-Sept 2016 RfC asked to set up a dedicated functionaries mailing list to handle COI-related privacy issues, and the response was no. This recent one was posted with no knowledge of the previous one, and it proposed the same thing: "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF, but other bodies could be considered if there is consensus for this."
An additional problem is that "Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF" is false. It wasn't a well-formed RfC, and it's not a good close, because (a) the close ignores that the RfC was poorly formed; and (b) the close ignores that the RfC paid no heed to another recent RfC on the same point that delivered the opposite result. SarahSV (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 expressed concern a few weeks ago that the RfC was poorly formed, so I'm pinging him in case he wants to comment. SarahSV (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (already was commenting) I fully agree on the supervote aspect. Fleshing out such a committee would need an RfC of its own. We've found consensus for M3, which states that the community approves of a "gatekeeper" of sorts handling private information. It doesn't say what that gatekeeper looks like or even requires such a gatekeeper to differ from what already exists. Fleshing out all of the specifics of this group requires community input, not an executive decision by two admins. The establishment of a task force with all the details provided by the closers is clearly not something approved by the RfC. ~ Rob13Talk 22:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) SlimVirgin, I've been chatting with him off-wiki. I've reverted the close (sorry S Marshall), there are just a few too many things I'm not comfortable with now that I've taken a third look at it. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC) re-ping. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. :) Primefac being uncomfortable with it, I'll accept that the close should be vacated and redone by someone else.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, thank you for reverting it. SarahSV (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Primefac, someone wrote that you're reconsidering your close, i.e. that you're going to close it again. Is that correct? There's a concern that the same problems will emerge, because of the way things were worded. It wasn't always clear what people were saying yes or no to, and lots of editors who normally comment on COI didn't take part. SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, I wrote that. I reverted the closure because of concerns with the wording, not with the overall result. Another editor (or two) to add to the close discussion will result in a much more polished result. I see no reason to not partake in that discussion. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If this is going to be closed again, I'd suggest two things: first, a team of three admins to close it; and second, that that team advertise the "task force" section at CENT and let it stay open longer, because that part of it is contentious.
I didn't comment on the RfC earlier because there seemed no point; there weren't clear proposals and people were interpreting most of the questions differently. Looking at it as an admin, I would say no consensus could be derived from it, though a couple of points could have been re-proposed for separate, dedicated RfCs. Anyway, thanks for the quick response. SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal from AFC helper list

Hi Primefac, at over 500 edits and many months (years) editing, I'm an extended user and do meet the edit count criteria. Hope this helps. I'm going to add myself back and assume this was in error because the tool doesn't let you add unless you do in fact meet the criteria.DavidWestT (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DavidWestT, you are incorrect on a couple of fronts. First, it's 500 undeleted article edits (you only have 399). Second, any EC editor can add themselves to the AFCH list, but only those who meet the criteria are kept on it. Usage of the tool is only based on being on the list. There just isn't any way (other than permanently protecting the page) to keep everyone who fails the criteria from adding their name to the list. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Primefac (talk). In my profile I see 515 edits and 2 deleted (ie that's a net 513. Also, that particular page is in fact protected from editing by those under 500 edits, I promise. I saw "view source" a few months ago whereas "edit" on that page is now available.
Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Extended confirmed users, Users
Connected apps: Manage 1 connected application
Number of edits: 515
Registration time: 23:25, 2 October 2014
I might be going blind at my age so let me know what I'm missing? :) DavidWestT (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
DavidWestT, check out the labs page for your edits. You have 399 article-space edits. Extended-confirmation is given to anyone who has 500 overall edits, not 500 article edits. The AFCH list is for users in the latter category. As I said above, the page may be EC-protected but it's not perfect, since clearly editors can have EC without having 500 article edits. I'm happy for your enthusiasm, but please be patient. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.DavidWestT (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

revised draft


I've revised this draft according to your and various other editors and the notes on secondary sources.

I've revised the section under main concern to expand all references, quoting from the transcript of the program and then also from various other peers of the playwright who spoke to publications of record. I've also expanded the next section in the same way, and included a new paragraph that also contains more substantial text.

How is it looking now?

Would you mind taking a fresh look at the submission and letting me know if it's on track for approval? I really do appreciate your help.

Thank you again for taking the time to review this for a second time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby union biography

Hi there, After your recent updates to the above template, there is now a big misalignment of information, caused by team names wrapping to the next line, but apps/points not shifting down. Can you please insert a {{nowrap}} around all fields? Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done. I was working on that problem yesterday when I lost power. Thanks for the motivation to get it finished! Primefac (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Nagging helps! Thanks a lot for the quick fix! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, there is still a problem with the very first team wrapping; you seemed to have inserted the nowrap for teams 2 onwards. Can you please do this for the first team too? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry, me again. I just noticed there are some articles where the different fields (i.e. years and Club/team) now don't align, eg. Deon Davids. This is especially the case in the "Coaching career" section, where there a coach might have had different job titles. There were carriage returns in the old template, which now cause problems. Now, surely, one key objective in merging templates is to retain the best features of each underlying template? If carriage returns previously could be used, but now can't, surely it's a step backwards?
I also noticed the "currentclub" needs a "nowrap", there is some unexpected wrapping occurring... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Giant leap backward for accessibility

see here. I am sure you had the best intentions, but that was not the best way to merge the two templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for being patient with my help me request. The issue is resolved. It was indeed AutoEd. Here's something for your efforts (and also for the other work you have probably done as a Helper). Mr. Guye (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I hope you know that I am not trying to be a bad editor here. Try typing in almost any short name or country name in caps and see that thousands of redirect pages have been created this way. Why am I being targeted?? OBAMA CHINA JAPAN USA etc. PoisonAppleBite (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

PoisonAppleBite, it's very likely that those redirects could be deleted. Many of them appear to have been created in 2010 as minor edits, meaning people might not even know they exist! Other than saying "these other pages exist, so mine should too", is there any reason why I should consider uneleting these pages? Primefac (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that they would be useful on the grounds of somebody leaving their caps lock on to type, like my mom does all the time. I just don't want others creating pages and not getting chastised but then I do. Sorry if i've caused any trouble. PoisonAppleBite (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
How about a barnstar instead for that range block? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I second RickinBaltimore's barnstar! Also here's some cake and wine!     CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That rangeblock is going to make a positive contribution to my sanity after dealing with Atorres50 socks for over a month. Raymie (tc) 17:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I third that Barnstar. The blocked editor is question obviously has an axe to grind against User:Bonadea. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Boomer Vial It's not just one LTA either but 4 and 2 very active! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Four LTAs in one rangeblock? You could make the case that the duration should be extended with that many LTAs at once. Raymie (tc) 23:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

12:06:17, 24 March 2017 review of submission by Piaadibe

Hi and thanks for your valuable advices - I am a total beginner with Wikipedia articles. Selecting sources has been challenging for me. Now that I have a quite long list of fine secondary sources I wish to approve it beforehand. As I understand subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, I wish you find my evidence (below) by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.

Listed below are media appearances for (and feature articles on) George Siedel from May 2013-April 2016. Here are links to a dozen of these appearances, including a sampling of foreign articles. Could you please advise me further, which of these are proper sources for wikipedia? Thank you very much in advance.

IndustryWeek: Poets & Quants: World Economic Forum: The Motley Fool: Forbes: CIO: Poets & Quants (paragraph 4): Business Insider:

Here are some examples from the foreign press. (Please click translate to read them.) Treviso Today: Stratego : Impresa Mia: Wise Society:

2015/16 "The 10 Hottest Online Classes for Professionals in 2015" (Siedel's course is ranked #2.), Inc. 2015 "Most Popular MOOCs of All-Time", Poets and Quants 2016 "Coursera's Hottest Business MOOCs", Poets and Quants 2015 "Coursera 2015 Ten Most Popular Courses", Tech News 2016 "6 Free Online Courses on Coursera to Boost Your Career Skills" About Careers 2016 "10 Online Courses for Event Planners" (The course is listed #1.), Crowd Flow 2016 "12 MOOCs to Grow Professionally in Summer" (translated from Italian), Empleo Carrera 2015 The listed media appearances, which include some blogs and other websites, mention him and/or his "Successful Negotiation" MOOC. There are dozens of similar 2015-16 media appearances, in a variety of languages. Here is a small sampling. Grasshopper Insights for Entrepreneurs, InterPol, IBL, Minority Business Directory, Project Engineer, Sofia Vergara, BitofNews, LinkedIn Pulse, Librarian in Training, Class Central, The Muse 2016 "Educators Embrace Forces of Change in Online Learning"

His course is also mentioned in two other 2016 FT articles: (1) "Is Adding MOOCs to Your CV Finally About to Pay Off?" and (2) "A Selection of Courses From the FT's MOOC Tracker.", Financial Times 2016 "31 Elite Colleges That Offer Free Online Learning", MSN Money, 2015 "9 Free Online Resources That Will Help You Advance Your Career", World Economic Forum 2015 "43 Free Career-Advancing Courses You Can Take (And Actually Finish) This Summer", Newsweek 2015 "Michigan Ross Makes Popular Courses in Finance, Leadership, and Negotiation Available to the World Online", Business Wire, Reuters 2015 "In Arbitration, Someone Will Lose" (translated from Croatian), Lider 2015 "Trading Strategies" (translated from Italian), Impresa Mia 2016

2014/15 Best business courses, Panorama 2014 Four techniques to make you a better negotiator Business Insider 2015 Essential MOOC Courses Poets and Quants 2014 Courses that can benefit every entrepreneur, Entrepreneur 2015 Courses for young entrepreneurs Fortune (Greece) 2015 MOOC Tracker, Financial Times 2015 Wealth-Building Skills, The Motley Fool 2015 Negotiation strategies and tools, Business People 2015

2013/14 The role of compliance programs in strategic planning, Healthcare Finance News 2013 Article on my Contract Risk book, Supply Management 2013 Negotiation teaching, CIMBA News 2014 Legal implications of Google Glass, Forbes 2013 Negotiation strategy and tactics, Treviso Today 2014 Balancing preventive and positive law in strategic planning, Workforce 2014 Negotiation strategy, Wise Society 2014 C-level concerns relating to Google Glass, Computerworld 2013 Negotiating strategy, IndustryWeek 2013 EEOC complaints in the media industry, Indianapolis Business Journal 2013

(talk page stalker) Hey Piaadibe. It looks like you have no shortage of sources to choose from, although I would point out that conciseness is highly valued on Wikipedia, and there's a bit to be desired in that realm. Clicking through, some sources are probably not usable, like the Forbes article which would run afoul of the "trivial mention" part of our General Notability Guidelines. But other's, like the Business Insider piece seem pretty in-depth, and their ranking of his online course for example could easily be incorporated into the draft in a way that is neutral and not overly flattering. Although extended use of quotations and personal opinions on negotiation may not be appropriate, or may have to be very carefully used in order to maintain neutrality in the tone of the draft.
But that's what really needs done: finding ways to incorporate reliable in-depth content into the draft, which not only helps to expand its scope and coverage, but more readily demonstrates how the person has been covered and why the coverage is relevant. TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


What is this template for? And could you fully protect that template indefinitely? (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's for a template I created that never got added to the Z number doc. Thanks for reminding me. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, I thought I'd say hi here to avoid filling up that user's talk page. What I plan on doing, when that editor responds, is firstly taking them through the steps required to add the "paid editor" templates to their draft article's talk page and their own user page. Then I was going to review their article for NPOV & balance, reliable sources etc., and then (as I'm on the AfC list) I planned on approving the draft once the wrinkles had been ironed out. If this sounds incorrect, feel free to slap me with a kipper. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Exemplo347, sounds great. Sorry for butting in a bit towards the end, I just kept remembering things (and there was some discussion on IRC since we all received notice of the {{helpme}}). Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully they'll pick up on my message. I'm sure it can be turned into something workable if the reliable, independent sources are there! Exemplo347 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

  For your effort to make Wikipedia a better place. Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to explain you the situation. I have proposed this here Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 27 back in December 2016. It was denied in February. Today I came back with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54 but I have not noticed that you have filled a BRFA yesterday already. My proposal is the following: Since this is a very good task and it will be done via Find and Replace rules I think it's a good chance that many secondary tasks are done in addition to the main task i.e. enable general fixes and enable "skip if no replacement". This will save a lot of multiple bot runs (I hope this time I wite it correctly. I have a spellchecker enabled but it does not catch mistakes when the word actually exists!). Best, Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Primebot magic link bug

Buggy magic link edit. At least two problems: the bot edited inside nowiki tags, and it added a link to the |title= parameter of a citation, which it should not do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Another one. Unlike PMID and ISBN, it seems likely that RFC could have multiple meanings. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Jonesey95, the RFC-is-multiple-things issue is already being handled. Other than the ones in <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags, there is no visual change to converting from magic links to templates, but via templates we can remove the invalid results. I'll add the nowiki check to the regex and make the template-handling a bit more robust. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Look at reference #7 after the bot's edit. The bot created a URL-wikilink error by editing within the |title= parameter. P.S. I looked at a few hundred edits, and I didn't see any other problems. Thanks for not doing general fixes; it makes the edits much easier to inspect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirect info

Thanks for answering my help call Primefac, I'll follow the tips you provided about how to solve my redirect problem. Happy editing! Jscarboro (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. George T. French, Jr

Hi, the account who repeatedly created Dr. George T. French, Jr. (which you then gave creation protection) has created another article at Dr. George T. French, Jr (without the last full stop). Just thought I'd let you know.  Seagull123  Φ  19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I saw. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping Notification from Talk:Bond-dissociation energy

@Primefac: 'Vaughan_Pratt' is just one person who helped on an earlier query. Why did sir use 'they'?
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Bkpsusmitaa, "they" is a gender-free pronoun, used in the third person to refer to someone else. It can be singular or plural. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about relisting discussions

Hello. I'm only curious, as I don't know the rationales behind re-listing, but the discussion in question is Template:Rhode Island Rams navbox. There are three users who support the merge, and one who opposes. How many generally need to be listed before it is closed? I nominate templates, but that is all I pay attention to, not the rationales of re-listing or closing. lol I've seen you do a lot over at TFD, so I figured you're the "go-to" guy! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, Corkythehornetfan, I'm not sure why I relisted that. It's very possible I misclicked thinking it was a different template! As you say, consensus seems pretty clear. Either way, it will definitely get closed this time 'round! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey, mistakes happen! Like I said, I wasn't really sure of the guidelines so I thought I'd ask! Appreciate the help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Could I modify Istanbul City Theatres for copy-pasted content?

Hello, just wanted to confirm that since the CSD G12 was declined from the aforementioned article, just wanted to confirm if I could remove the 'mission' statement from the infobox? It has been copy-pasted from a content that I checked here. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Topcipher, the infobox is the only place in an article where you can put the mission statement (and it's clearly allowed, since it's a valid parameter). It will obviously be copied directly from the source, because it's the group's mission statement, so it will always throw a small copyvio error. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Sorry, should've mentioned this too - the statement is question comes as a part of a paragraph in this link here and from what I understood, it clearly could not have been a 'mission' statement because -
1. It has been written in part &
2. There is no mention of this segment being a 'mission' statement on the website either
I could be wrong here though since it is not from a native that I'm fully familiar with. Will leave it as is if that's what would be best. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, if it's not actually a mission statement, then delete away! Primefac (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Perfect! I've done the same and have added an edit summary to it; in case it comes up again, will take things ahead accordingly. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary change to Draft:Claire Benedict

as the bot failed to notice that all categories were already commented out. Jim Craigie (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Craigie, not that it matters terribly, but you didn't close your <!-- so in fact they were not commented out. This landed the page in Category:AfC submissions with categories and thus the bot edited the page. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Lil Cory

I wouldn't even know how to use or think of using {{flatlist}}. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:

Hey, instead of deleting it can you just put it on a draft page. I really worked hard on it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

IP, you're going to have to tell me which page you're talking about, because despite my best efforts I still cannot read minds. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This one 14:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

So when can I have the draft? 01:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I'm really not inclined to undelete it. You have a half-complete cast list for the nonexistent show "CSI Grand Rapids" and the discographies of a non-notable cover band from Grand Rapids. In other words, even if it is a "draft" it has zero usable information. If you absolutely must draft about something, try drafting a page on the band itself (though a cursory google search shows that they're most likely not notable). Primefac (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, how about sandbox? 01:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

What do you mean? Primefac (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead of putting it in a draft page just put it in the sandbox 02:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

excuse me?

while i can? care to explain how thats not a threat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNeK141 (talkcontribs) 15:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) SNeK141 - Obviously not Primefac but a request to knock it off isn't so much a threat as letting you know that disrupting the AfC process needs to stop. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox deleted

methinks copyright infridgement nonappilcable. i am the owner of contents kickstarter, account just deleted, blog is kept alive by kickstarters. same content is on wordpress, indiagogo, truly sorry to have broken wiki rules. newbie will behave. Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, thanks for attending over there: I didn't particularly want to comment on the issue itself, not having been involved, so thought I would just address the multi-messaging. Cheers, — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Aye, thanks for that. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
copiright letter was sent to emails you have provided. thank you.Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleting my old post as I'd forgotten my earlier comment below. I've just deleted his addition of an anonymous blog. Looking at the deleted sandbox it has some identical wording, so I'm assuming it's his blog. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Was not aware

…that there was such a thing, as non-free images here. Thanks for removing. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:George Ciccariello-Maher

Hello. Could you please move Draft:George Ciccariello-Maher to mainspace? This professor has been in the news several times now, and it is detrimental to Wikipedia's mission to "hide" him in draft space. I can improve the article if you move it. Please remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress, no article is perfect, and I believe he passes GNG. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with you that there are issues with the article (for example quoting Breitbart, which needs to be trimmed/replaced with third-party sources), but if you move it to mainspace with "under construction", it will be an improvement. I plan to cite reviews of his books.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I've begun trimming some of the POV. I can suddenly see "Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes." (only on the draft article) and I need to go to the gym, but my suggestion is still to move it. There are book reviews on JSTOR that we should cite to give due weight to his scholarship. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Zigzig20s I'd recommend resubmitting it for review since it's already been at AfC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write it. We can't afford to waste time. It's just making Wikipedia look bad at this point.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Zigzig20s I'm not sure I understand why an article move from draft space would be so incredibly urgent and detrimental to Wikipedia's reputation... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
He's in the news yet again, for insulting a soldier... We can't claim to be the sum of all human knowledge and "hide" him in draft space.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, please show me where Wikipedia claims to be the "sum of all human knowledge". Primefac (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Famous quote, picked up by scholarship.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting sources. Of course, Jimmy is famous for making rather out-of-touch statements with barely any basis in reality. I think my point was that on Wikipedia itself we do not make that claim. And even if we do make that claim somewhere I'm not aware of, we can't just allow any poorly-written article to exist. We have rules and guidelines for a reason. Otherwise, you and I would be guaranteed pages, and I can guarantee we aren't notable folk. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case, the appropriate way to deal with this professor is to take him to AFD once he is in main space. Not to "hide" him in draft space. I get that the style of the article is not perfect and that we should add more about his scholarship by citing JSTOR, but that can all be done with "under construction" in main space.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The AFC process is designed as a way to keep bad pages out of the Article space. In other words, if the result of an AFD would be "delete" then a Draft should not be accepted. The draft in question is at that point, so I'm not going to waste everyone's time by accepting the page and then immediately nominating it for deletion. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not that bad. I think you should let the community improve the article and then decide to delete it if they want to, in main space. He is definitely notable, even though the article may need a clean-up.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I've trimmed a fair bit. If you have an issue with "Ciccariello-Maher comments frequently in the mainstream media, where he has defended Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, highlighted the role of white supremacy in the murders of Trayvon Martin[4], Mike Brown, Freddie Gray and Philando Castile[5], defended the Ferguson unrest and 2015 Baltimore protests[6], and argued for the abolition of the police.[7]", I can delete it too.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

  Administrator changes

  XnualaCJOldelpasoBerean HunterJimbo WalesAndrew cKaranacsModemacScott

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

  Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Laurie Buchanan

Hey fella, I understand Wiki is not for ratings however everything was referenced and citated correctly - please advise further on how to improve the page, also - the claudio and mckee references seemed fair enough to include in the page. You've taken 15-20 references out which seems slightly unfair given the achievements of the artist in question. I aim to get the page should be sitting at C grade or at worst start class but I feel she is eligible for better than start class? Help appreciated, best wishes -

JermainRobson (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply at User_talk:JJMC89#Laurie_Buchanan to avoid two conversations about the same page. Primefac (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Chang Hsien-yi article created but not showing in 'Articles Created'

Hi Primefac, thanks for reviewing my article Chang Hsien-yi through the AfC process. I'm just wondering, for some reason it does not show up under my 'Pages Created' list at [2]. New article creations usually show up almost straight away, so could there be a technical glitch of some sort? Cheers merlinVtwelve (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

MerlinVtwelve, cache issue most likely. It was on the list when I checked it. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, got it now. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


I guess it was for me, but I still laugh! =D Jeblad (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Pending Changes Reviewer

Can you please remove my pending changes reviewer rights? I just cannot, in good faith, continue to have them after what happened with AfC, and although the vast majority of my pending changes reviewing has been correct, it seems that enough of them have been mistakes that I probably am not competent enough. And even then, the next thing I do wrong will probably get them removed anyways and maybe even get me a block. Morphdog (t - c) 00:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Morphdog, I'm not going to remove your PCR. If anything, it's a good way to get experience with what constitutes a good edit and what's not so great. There are plenty of established users who still get trouted on a semi-regular basis for missing something at PCR. If you are really serious about dropping it, though, I'll do it. I'm just saying that it might be a good idea to stick with it for a bit. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Your insultive comment

You seemed to reply on ANI that I complained ("bitching") about Juliancolton because I got blocked. However I have stated in the first few lines that I am not complaing about the block, but because of his rude comments, false accusations, assuming bad faith. The information about the block is just there to provide background of how the situation developed. Please do not close the complaint based on false reasons, and do not use bad language. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32, having read through your talk page (a couple of times now) I see absolutely nothing that I wouldn't want to say to my grandmother. Juliancolton might not have been saying "please and thank you" but was about as far away from "rude, false accusations" as my bicycle is from a motorcycle. In case you missed the note on your talk page, have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, chill out, and ask yourself if you really want to go to war over this. You were blocked, you're unblocked, and chances are you're unlikely to ever encounter Juliancolton again. Is all this really worth it?
P.S. Generally speaking we don't like people want to Right Great Wrongs, so if you're offended by Juliancolton, well, tough. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I never make false accusations, make insultive comments and assume bad faith on others. Only when the other user does something wrong, I describe him disruptive. I don't throw baseless accusations because such behavior is against the spirit of this place and civility itself. So yes, this isn't something I should let walk away. You have closed my complaint again. Without reading again. You aren't even seeing what the complaint is about. Please reopen the complaint and let me have other administrators to examine my complaint impartially. You are reverting over a complaint and this isn't good behavior. I complained simply because of Juliancolton's comments, not because he blocked me. I even stated that in the starting lines however you have falsely accused me of doing it solely because of the block which is against the rules. Do not make false accusations. You tell me to calm down, but launch a foul mouthed attack for no reason. Open the complaint please now, I don't think you are examining at all nor I think you are impartial. Your own insultive comments are indicating that. Please reopen my complaint and I request you to withdraw from it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You know, it's funny, because I closed the ANI thread to head off the pointless drama that always ensues with ANI cases. I was hoping to save you a massive trouting, but I guess I get to give it to you myself.
  • I never said you made baseless accusations, nor did I claim that you assumed bad faith.
  • I know exactly what the complaint is about. You were blocked by JC, asked to be unblocked, were declined (not by JC, I will note), and JC pointed out exactly why you were blocked in the first place. Somehow this is insulting.
  • I am an admin. If another admin feels like re-opening the case because they feel I've missed something, they're welcome to. However, I highly doubt that will happen.
  • I would like you to calm down. You've now written about 3000 words which have gotten you precisely nowhere. Writing another diatribe or three isn't really going to change anything. Besides, what more can be done? Do you want JC to lose their adminship? It certainly won't happen over this. Do you want them to apologize? Highly unlikely, because they didn't actually do anything wrong.
  • I'm genuinely curious, what was foulmouthed? If you're referring to and is now bitching, then you need to consider that many of "foul" words of the 20th century are now (mostly) acceptable. Hell, you can even say damn these days on TV!
I really don't care if you hate JC for their role in all of this, but I'm certainly not going to reopen that ANI just so you can rant some more. I'm happy to debate this all night with you, but I have a feeling at some point I'll get bored and stop replying. Best save us both the trouble and quit while you're still ahead. Primefac (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. For what it's worth, it's unfortunate that you ended up in this position. Being blocked sucks. Maybe you should try to learn something from this experience? Primefac (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: I read your talk page, your full complaint on the noticeboard and your comments here. I completely agree with Primefac's closure of your AN/I report. There is no inappropriate action that was taken against you. I would also urge you to drop the stick. -- Dane talk 03:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, there's a saying that you should see your own shortcomings before accusing others. Here's what you did:

  • Without even reading through my comment, you decided in a very very short time that my complain didn't deserve merit. You falsely accuse me of complaining because of my block, even though I did not do it as such, this was said in my first few sentences and the complain wasn't even about the block. Had you even gone through it clearly, you won't be making such comments.
  • You re "saving" me from trouting. yet in your very first comment you fire off a completely uncivil comment, accusing me of "bitching". Had I said the same to you or any other administrator, nothing good will happen to me. There's a big difference between some actor saying 'damn" on TV and some person commenting you are "bitching" in front of you that too in real world.
  • I am baselessly accused of making "excuses", 'empty apologies", my comment is misrepresented even though the Jasoncolton knew what i was talking about.
  • You closed my request again with the same uncivil reason.
  • You cannot do whatever you wish to.

Since you are not going to reopen it, I will make another and this time complain about you too, including misuse of your position and completely uncivil behavior. I ask you to stay away as you will also be complained for your uncivil behavior. And please don't consider this a threat or me taking any "revenge". I will not tolerate any rude and uncivil behavior. And User:Dane I am not beating around for no reason, there needs to be some sort of accountability even for an administrator for what they do or say. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dane I am making a new complaint. Please give your opinion when it is made. just don't close it at least multiple administrators (except Primafac since he will be complained of as well) give their opinion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: If you waste everyone's time by filing that ANI I'm liable to block you myself for refusing to drop the stick. Ks0stm (TCGE) 07:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not here to waste anyone's time User:Ks0stm nor is demanding accountability and action against breaking of rules time-wasting. This user closed my complaints in an instant without caring to properly find put happened. That is not proper procedure. If you try to block me or threaten me again then I shall complain against you too for not letting me voice personal and insultive attacks as well deliberately breaking rules, in addition to your intimidation. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: You've now accused 3 administrators of breaking rules or abusing their authority. Clearly, you are not understanding that you are the problem in this equation. No one thus far has agreed that your original complaint had merit or that any subsequent wrongdoing has happened. Please drop the stick now. -- Dane talk 07:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dane I was constantly blamed of baseless accusations against my behavior and character. I did not accuse User:Ks0stm of breaking rules. Only that if he does, then I shall complaint. It is not appropriate to intimidate someone like he did. I am not here to pick up any stick. I just want to complain once but i just request that you hear my complaint out and give your opinion on it instead of someone shutting me down straight away. that's all. If it is wrong to think that your complaint should be serious thought, then punish me as you wish. I'll just request iot once, give your opinion with investigation. I won't complaint again regardless of the outcome. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: Please review WP:BOOMERANG. This is how I will ask we handle your complaint if you file it. Basically, it means you're shooting yourself in the foot. You indeed accused Ks0stm of breaking rules when he warned you to stop with the disruptive behavior, "If you try to block me or threaten me again then I shall complain against you too for not letting me voice personal and insultive attacks as well deliberately breaking rules, in addition to your intimidation.". I assure you, all of these administrators have reviewed your complaint and agreed, or they would've reversed the closure. -- Dane talk 07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dane I didn't accuse anyone. The comment "If you try to block me or threaten me again then I shall complain against you too for not letting me voice personal and insultive attacks as well deliberately breaking rules, in addition to your intimidation." was simply stating that I will complaint if he breaks the rules and tries to block me for my rightful complaint. "If you waste everyone's time by filing that ANI I'm liable to block you myself". I am not responsible for it. have made a new complaint here. Please give your opinion there and review it regardless of whatever you say. I just wanted a proper review, I am not here to complain again and again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Television articles

Well I guess we're in store for some AfD. See User:Timothyjosephwood/Year in Israeli Television. Feedback welcome, or alternatives if you have them. I don't. TimothyJosephWood 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

By my count there are 24 such "List of years in <country> television" master pages, so... 24 AFDs? Even by deletionist standards that seems like a bit much. I think we could probably cram together a few of the less populated ones (Jordan, Turkey, Georgia, etc) which would cut down the overall total. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
If there's no real opposition then we can probably clean up a dozen or more with a mass-mass-AfD, i.e., "the last four were unanimous, so here are the remaining 20". I mean you never know, there could be a frenzy that turns these into worthwhile articles. Only one way to find out. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Now I'm torn on the order. If we do the more-populated lists like Belgium or Brazil and they say "keep", then we'll not be able to use precedent to delete the truly empty lists. However, if we do the above empties and say "see, we can delete them all" then someone might accuse us of trying to slip Belgium and Brazil through. I think it's a good idea, though (doing a small number first). Maybe 50/50? Two empty lists, two full lists? Primefac (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we may be talking across purposes a bit. By "empty" what I mean is the content of the articles, but I suspect that by "full" you mean how many redlinks and bluelinks are in the overarching category. At least to me, the sheer number of empty articles is inconsequential, so long as the all have basically no content, and only enough to squeak by A3. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
You are correct; I'm talking about the bluelinks on the list articles. Now that I try and write a response, I realize that it's a rather silly thing to get caught up on. So yes, let's put forth three or four AFDs, see what happens, and then crack out the rest. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Any particular improvement you would suggest to the version in my sandbox? For the record, I generally dislike mass AfDs, have never nominated one, and rarely if ever participate. TimothyJosephWood 17:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything major that needs changing, though I removed the "750 in total" bit since it's mostly irrelevant to that particular set of pages. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Israeli television TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, we going ahead with the rest of 'em? Kinda forgot about this whole thing! Primefac (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in French television. TimothyJosephWood 09:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting the deleted contents from Professor Awesome PHD

Dear, Primefac

Is there any way I could get the deleted content from the article I made for Professor Awesome PHD so I can better improve it and re-submit it.

Thank You Sincerely, ThomasA518 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasA518 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

ThomasA518, the page has been undeleted and is now at Draft:Professor Awesome. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bot request

Hey. You previously ran a one-off bot request for me a few months ago; would you be open to running another Wikipedia:Bot requests#Episode list sublist template one-off request for me? If not, all good. If so, that would allow me to advance with certain projects. Cheers. -- AlexTW 04:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I'll take a look at it. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
AlexTheWhovian, sorry for the double ping if you got it, but I think I borked the ping on BOTREQ (had a question for you there). Primefac (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Regarding the closure of Faith primary. Perhaps you wan to add something like "according to the suggested modified text" to the word "merge"? Debresser (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, that was my mistake. I usually do leave closing notes like that (see the IB Hindu close right after it), not sure why I didn't do it for this one. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure. It's not too late to amend the closure accordingly. :) Debresser (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixing redirect

Hi there Primefac, could you please fix this redirect loop? Draft talk:Stepa (musical group) redirects to Draft:Stepa (musical group). It used to be the other way around (main page of draft redirected to talk page) but I had to move it to use AFCH tools.


TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, it looks like all that needs doing is removing the #REDIRECT from Draft talk:Stepa (musical group), unless I'm missing something. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
You aren't I was, sorry. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Better to ask and find a simple solution then try something complicated and make it worse :) Primefac (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac! Have a good day/night, eh?   --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Hey, I hope all is well. Can you please tell me more information about my term "Glosec". I want to share this term with your help/tips if it's okay.

Thanks Erman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your page was deleted because it read like a promotional flyer, full of WEASEL words, FLOWERY language, and puffery. Phrases like This is by far the biggest gathering for all the brilliant minds and innovators .... should never be used on a Wikipedia article. The page was also lacking significant coverage. If you're insistent on writing about Glosec, I suggest reading through WP:Your first article, skimming WP:NPOV, and using the Article Wizard to create a draft that will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. Drafts have a much lower likelihood of being deleted. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, can you please review my draft with a few changes? My draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSecureMan (talkcontribs) 21:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on my talk page

Thanks for patrolling my talk page. I was at work and didnt see it until now. Thanks again for answering some of the questions there! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping me at the afc and other places and correcting my (apparently lots of) mistakes. Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

23:56:29, 10 April 2017 review of submission by Parplaywright

Once again, you are ignoring the third party reputable sources that other reviewers count as sufficient. Please see Gavin Creel and Will Chase as examples. The citing and references for Ms Ragusa are more varied than for these two current entries. IMDB and IBDB ARE valid sources as independent third party sources for "countless" approved entries on Wikipedia. In addition, The New York Times, Variety, Playbill, BroadwayWorld, and many other notable periodicals have been cited. I ask that this entry be reviewed by someone with expertise in third party references for theatre professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parplaywright (talkcontribs) 23:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I JUST saw your detailed reply with percentages and very detailed explanations. And for that I Thank You! That's brilliant and appreciated. I shall continue to work toward making Ms Ragusa's entry acceptable. Thank you again.

Question: Should I remove some of the citations in places? Does each show need it? And then try to replace some with better references that are more in line with what you mentioned is needed? Parplaywright (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Parplaywright, I think the references you have in the locations they're in are fine (since they verify that she was in XYZ show). I think what you really need is more info about her. At the moment, the only thing I know about her is that she has a BFA and is married! There has to be more - where does she come from? Does she do anything other than act (help out at charities, adopt dogs, etc)? There are plenty of actors out there - what makes her special enough that people take notice? Primefac (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I had hoped that since she is an award winner and has worked with celebrities and been in numerous Broadway shows (which is rarer than people think) that it would show notoriety as it has with Gavin Creel and Will Chase (to name a couple Wiki entries). Most actors are not union performers and of those a very small percentage have multiple Broadway credits. I will attempt to secure more info and more references. Thanks for your time and help. It certainly is appreciated. Parplaywright (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all your help and catching the mistakes I have made in starting out as an AFC reviewer. Thank you! :D TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Be careful with users barring gifts :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Bots Newsletter, April 2017


The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:


Magioladitis ARBCOM case has closed. The remedies of the case include:

  • Community encouraged to review common fixes
  • Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits
  • Developers encouraged to improve AWB interface
  • Bot approvals group encouraged to carefully review BRFA scope
  • Reminders/Restrictions specific to Magioladitis

We currently have 27 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!


There are multiple ongoing discussions surrounding bot-related matters. In particular:

New things

Several new things are around:


Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know!

Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)

Return to the user page of "Primefac/Archive 8".