User talk:Primefac/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Fabergé eggs

Greetings! I've just closed the RfC discussion at Talk:Fabergé egg#RFC on egg naming convention with the result "Adopt Proposal 3" - it appears that this may create some rather fiddly work for you & I'd like to offer any help you need (as in an additional pair of hands, I'm not saying you can't do it!) with carrying out moves or tweaking leads etc. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that Exemplo347! I think I managed to get everything sorted, but if you see something I missed feel free to fix it! Primefac (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's no problem at all. If I spot something on my usual travels I'll give it a whack! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

REVISION OF ARTICLE: 13:47:17, 2 April 2017 review of submission by 217.92.118.193

• 217.92.118.193 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Scoxit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer,

I refer to the recent rejection of my article entitled "Scoxit". I would like to assure you the article is not a hoax and I have provided three external links to mainstream news articles to prove that this is indeed a current issue in European politics. I have also made minor changes to my article so that it better reflects this.

I believe you will find that this article shall be of interest to readers of articles about European politics and is a useful complement to the existing articles which are on Wikipedia on this topic.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.118.193 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2017‎ (UTC)

I declined as NOTCRYSTAL, not as a hoax. Scottish independence is not guaranteed, and it is definitely not guaranteed to be called "Scoxit". As I said on the draft itself, it would be better to be included as a paragraph on the existing independence article until such time that there is enough information (and certainty) to actually fork it out. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space assistance

Hi there, could you please take a look at the few entries in Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space and see if they should either be in the draft space or have the templates removed? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for you work on the Egg articles

A quick note to thank you for handling of the Fabergé egg renaming discussion and the subsequent renaming of the articles which then had to be done. I think we reached a good outcome on this, and am grateful to you for doing the legwork to carry out the decision. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Behnam Tabrizi

Hi Primefac

Sorry to bug you, but I am wondering if you can explain in more detail why the changes I've made to Behnam Tabrizi's page don't work? His work was the subject of articles in a handful of leading blogs, which I linked to. Is it that the work needs to be included in a leading publication, like the Post or the Times? But I did include a piece where he is quoted as an expert by the Financial Times?

I'm struggling to understand -- partly because I don't have much choice but to do so -- and it is a pretty big deal in the applied business world to have your work endorsed by the Google CEO and your work published by the Harvard Business Review.

I tried sending an earlier message via Talk, but don't see a record of it, so I'm trying again.

Thanks in advance and I appreciate your work on Wikipedia, which I use often as a journalist.

Elizabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editoremacb (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Elizabeth, I've just made some new comments on the article in draft space which I hope will help you. KDS4444 (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Naruto

Hello Primefac,

I asked for protection for the article linked above, and after it was protected again, a productive IP editor who edits the article occasionally issued to me that the protection was unjustified. Could you check to see if that's the case or not, and send the IP a message about it? Thanks. -- 1989 10:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

1989, it's always hard to tell if semi-protection is working (or merited) because the period where it's employed doesn't have any vandal edits ;) It looks like from 9 March to 13 April there were a few vandals, but I think PC1 was probably acceptable in order to keep the page at a "good" status. I'll restore to PC1, and if there are any further issues let me know. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you Primefac!! Rockyrowdy (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hey Primefac,

This IP editor 122.60.13.6 keeps adding original research to multiple articles after being warned. -- 1989 20:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

1989, blocked. Might be worth taking it to WP:AIV next time, in case I'm not around. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Because you're always around at AfC and BOTREQ. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User-multi

do we need a new discussion for Template:User-multi/api, Template:User-multi/ca, Template:User-multi/ct, Template:User-multi/del, Template:User-multi/e, Template:User-multi/efl, Template:User-multi/es, Template:User-multi/lu, Template:User-multi/ren, Template:User-multi/rfa, Template:User-multi/rl, Template:User-multi/sul, Template:User-multi/tl, or can we delete these per the related discussion? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to do so, but some of them are (apparently) still in use. Jo-Jo Eumerus, is that the reason why only some of them were nominated? Primefac (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

which ones are still in use? see this database report for evidence of non-use for a long time. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Very odd. I am 100% positive when I went to check the transclusions there were pages that were using them. Aside from the /doc, /sandbox, and /testcases subpages, {{User-multi/link}} and {{User-multi/template}} are still being used, so I'll leave them. I'll delete the rest. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

two of them (t and c) were either being used by a blocked user, User:Little green rosetta, or left on a couple talk pages due to incomplete substitution. I unsubstituted those, which removed the transclusions of "t" "c". but most of the others are in the database report, so I don't know why those were showing transclusions. by the way, since you deleted "old" you can delete the "void redirect" Template:User-multi/ as well. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason why only some were nominated is because I was scouting Special:ProtectedPages for templates that no longer need full protection, not the "user-multi" templates in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Well, it's not an unreasonable stretch to extend the results of the TFD. If someone complains, I'll refund. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance

On my talk page when you responded to the couple of posts the other day you described it well regarding notability. I was wondering if you could explain it in these two threads? (thread #1 and thread #2) As always, thank you for your time & help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you've got things sorted. Sorry for not responding, was away for a few days. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem and I was just coming here to let you know that it was all sorted as I had forgotten to at the time. Thanks again for all your help and for answering those questions on my talk page that time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Request #2

Hi there Primefac, a user just put a message on my talk page stating that they are annoyed with the behaviour of reviewers (declining their draft) with no question or anything and I was wondering how I should proceed with this comment on my talk page. I was wondering if you could possibly weigh in? Thanks for your time --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, kind of depends on why they're posting. In this particular instance, I can understand their frustration - four declines with almost no helpful comments regarding what actually needs fixing. If they're bitching that their sources are perfect and "how can you be so oblivious" (I think you had a thread like that recently...) you just have to explain to them exactly why their sources aren't great. I sometimes end up listing ref-by-ref why their sources aren't usable.

Of course, if they're just spouting total nonsense, it's perfectly justified to ignore them, or request that they actually ask a question. Basically, take it case by case. This definitely won't be the last time, so you'll get some practice! Primefac (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and I am sure it won't be the last time as well I get messages like that haha :D I used to get maybe a message every few days to a week - now I get notifications & messages every day, I don't mind haha --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of AFC reviewing ;) Always happy to help out, since it gets the user's questions answered and gives you an example of how it's done. A win for everyone. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:2017 Metfone C-League

In declining the speedy deletion of this page, you said "we don't A10 drafts". May I ask why not? I don't really the point of retaining a duplicate copy of an article that already exists in the mainspace. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, if you want to get really pedantic, it's because A10 is only valid for Articles (and not Drafts). As for practical reasons - sometimes new users don't realize that they can just edit the article directly, and feel they have to "draft" out their updates before replacing the existing version (I've stopped wondering why people think how they do at this point). When they do this, there's often usable material that could actually be incorporated into the existing article. By declining as a duplicate, we not only let the user know why their submission wasn't acceptable, but also leave the draft so that they haven't lost any work. Some admins might IAR and delete the draft anyway, but as a long-time AFC reviewer I tend to err on the side of making other's lives easier. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense, even if it isn't really applicable here. The whole reason the draft exists is that the editor who created it can't edit the mainspace version. The page is currently semi-protected due to sockpuppetry from this editor. (It's not the first time they've duplicated it to by-pass protection.) I guess I'll renominate it per WP:G5 once SPI manages to clear their backlog. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, if it's a sock situation, then by all means G5. If you put the master in the nomination, I'll take care of the blocking part. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Though I'm not sure blocking the IP will actually accomplish anything due to IP hoping. I've asked for a range block in the SPI case, but I'm not sure if that's actually feasible. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Eh, it's better than nothing, and at the very least leaves a trail of past history that can be used to find future socks/ducks. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ayaan Chawla (Entrepreneur)

Had created an article with some notable links which has been deleted by you under speedy deletion criteria (G4, G5). May I know why? Because I can understand earlier it was created and removed because of not notable links. Also G4, I can still understand as it is of Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. But G5 is for Creations by banned or blocked users and doesn't anyhow apply over my account. Vinay089 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation has been opened into your account due to the continued pushing of "Ayaan Chawla". Your behavior is potentially in line with the socks and based on the prior technical evidence, it's worthy of a second look. This is why you were tagged as G5 as well. -- Dane ^talk 23:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm also a very old user, not as much as you are but still raised number of articles for deletion, done edits, etc. I don't understand this situation at all, does Wikipedia mean that once article is deleted due to non-notable links the same person's article cannot be created again? Can't that person/company/band, etc. rise in the meanwhile? Vinay089 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Vinay089, I honestly have no thoughts regarding the G5 nomination. However, it was pretty similar to the deleted version, which is why I went with G4. Using Twinkle, it auto-fills the deletion summary based on what tags are placed, and I didn't think to remove the G5. If you're interested in writing about Chawla, I highly suggest using the Draft space, because it will allow you to get it reviewed in the context of the previous deletion discussion without worry of it being G4'd. Primefac (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac Thanks for your concern. So you mean if I work in Sandbox and ask for review that would be a good practice, right? Who & how anybody will review it, kindly assist. Because this article have many notable links. What you think? Vinay089 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Vinay089, if you use the Article Wizard, when you create the draft it will have a template that you can use to submit the page when it's ready. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for your suggestion will give it a try. But as a user who deleted the article, may I know what were the concerns that I can rectify? Because this article have many notable links. Vinay089 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Vinay089, the AFD is here. In order for you to improve the page from its current most recent incarnation (which looked to have a couple of good refs) I've undeleted it and moved it to Draft:Ayaan Chawla. Feel free to continue working on it, and submit when you think it's ready. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for sorting this out. From my side I'd created this article with information which is precise & notable. Do you think it's the right time to submit for approval or need to work on something? Looking for your advice, as you're here from much longer time period and handle such content. Vinay089 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Vinay089, I would replace or remove the Facebook and YouTube references, because they are not reliable sources. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, As per your suggestion I've removed Facebook link and replaced it with company's official blog. Is that right way? But regarding YouTube link, what can be done because the award video is reference that who that person is. Looking for your suggestions. Sorry for disturbing you constantly. Vinay089 (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Vinay089, blogs (even official ones) aren't considered to be reliable sources, and I also noticed YourStory, which is not reliable either. Otherwise, you're welcome to submit if you feel it is ready. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I think now I'm getting this. The article require some more notable references, can we use other references in other language or only English? I'll try to gather some more references, and might disturb you again :) Vinay089 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-English sources are fine. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect of Edaakoodam

Dear friend, why you redirected Edaakoodam to some Burr puzzle How you measured the information to merit . Of the article? What happened to the style in Malayalam langauge? And we never heard of this Burr puzzle? Why are you not notified me before a complete deletion of information and a redirect ? And the Talk page of Edaakoodam is still empty. Please suggest what I want to If I want the page back ?

The page saying that this Burr Puzzle was first found on 1698. I can give enough reliable source of Edaakoodam before this 1698.

--Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Edaakoodam. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Tropic talk

Expound your view on this promo piece 120.147.37.23 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 14, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well....

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in French television

I guess that's that then. TimothyJosephWood 00:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It means we can't do them all in one batch, but I think there are some groups that could merit deletion. It just might take a bit longer. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll defer to you for the next go at it. Shar the lood. TimothyJosephWood 01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I decided to go with a slightly easier target. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this AfD. I had actually been anticipating it after seeing it at ANI a while back. Commenting on the new one. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup redirect

You recently deleted Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource instead per TfD.

However, Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource redirects to the above and it should also be deleted. It was discussed here with a procedural close on the basis that it would be deleted if the main template was deleted. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess they really wanted to make sure it was deleted! Explains why I didn't see it a a redirect, though. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC not gathering comments

Hello, I have started an RFC as you required, but it doesn't seem to get much traction. What do you recommend? Please reply here, I'm on a dynamic IP. Thanks. 2A02:C7D:DA0A:DB00:21B4:FACE:4FE4:7235 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You started the RFC what, 24 hours ago? Most folk probably haven't even notice it's been posted. RFCs run for a minimum of 30 days so that it can receive the most exposure. If you want to increase the number of people who will be notified about the RFC, you are welcome to make a post (using neutral language of course) at places like WT:WPT or WP:VPT. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh OK, I was just being impatient then. Thanks. 2A02:C7D:DA0A:DB00:FDF9:7737:C3B5:AD7A (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Schools RfC

Hi, I see you were one of the closers of the recent schools RfC. I think I may be misunderstanding something and certainly Necrothesp seems to think that I am. Can you or one of your fellow closers clarify in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mother's International School, Upleta, please? I don't want you to !vote as that would be canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this issue seems to be happening in a few places, eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar. The "keep" argument is that there is longstanding consensus and precedent that high schools are notable. That, to me, seems like an invocation of SCHOOLOUTCOMES in all but name. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, I'll keep an eye on the AFD, but I ec'd with another editor who basically said the same thing I was going to. I think it will take a while for the idea that "long-standing precedent" (which technically is SCHOOLOUTCOMES) is no longer a valid argument to make, and undoubtedly there will be some people who never accept it. But such is life, and this is why we go on consensus and not just pure vote counting. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That was probably me and my fumbling incomplete thoughts, based on the comment here. Maybe you can take the Kokrajhar article instead? :) --Izno (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to both of you. I was seriously thinking that I had completely misinterpreted things. It is going to be an issue if the same few people keep popping up to use the same outmoded rationale because, if school AfDs are anything like caste AfDs, participation rates tend to be low and dominated by a few people. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Busan International Foreign School is another. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Just happened to spot this+1 Sitush----Almost oin every school-AfD, the same set of few people and esp. Necrothesp dish out the same keep rationale--as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus which essentially strikes me ass something which directly contravenes this RFC .What I want to know is that how admin-folks who close such discussions weigh such arguments when placed without any associated evidence of notability.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The concern that I might express is that the user is an administrator (from 2004). --Izno (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately, Izno, they seem more interested in !voting than closing discussions. That means they're no different than any other user. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. And "fortunately" neither are you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep the personal attacks out of the discussion, shall we? As an admin I am still allowed an opinion as to how such a confused close should be interpreted. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy, an oligarchy or a dictatorship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: A personal attack it was not. I noted a fact. As an admin, you are allowed to keep any opinion you wish. You may not, in the context of a community process regarding a topic's suitability on Wikipedia, espouse that opinion: the expectation is that you follow, or reference, or both, guideline and policy. As an administrator, you are expected to lead by example. The existing guideline and policy on schools is "Meet the terms of WP:NORG or meet the terms of the WP:GNG".

As it happens, you are also mischaracterizing the close as precisely what it was not, and when pointed out to you, you doubled down on saying "no, no, my !vote is exactly what the close says". I expect, after Primefac's comment here, that you will no longer make that kind of !vote. Will you do so? If so, I will beat Sitush to the punch below and bring your behavior up, either at ANI or AN. --Izno (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You appear to be telling me that I have no right to an opinion on AfDs and that as an admin I am obliged to only follow the "company line" (which, of course, doesn't actually exist, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy)? And that if I do not you will "report" me? Despite the fact that if you actually read it you will discover I have not broken any of the rules of administrator conduct which you yourself cite (have I been discourteous or uncivil? No. Have I contravened any policies? No. What exactly do you think I have done to deserve your threats?). Well, frankly, words fail me and I won't even dignify your completely inappropriate comment with a further answer. Other than to say that it's attitudes like yours that make me wonder why I bother to continue contributing my time to this project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Winged Blades of Godric, while I haven't personally closed any school AFDs, I would treat a SCHOOLOUTCOMES/"precedent" argument with relatively low weight, akin to an ILIKEIT or OTHERSTUFF argument. If no one else can find evidence of notability, then the page is deleted as not notable. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification.Thus, the relists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar was probably good.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But that is only useful if the closer sees an opposing argument pointing out that Necrothesp is completely misrepresenting the RfC outcome. Such an argument is not guaranteed to be placed and the closer cannot take into account arguments that are not presented. I'm sorry but if Necrothesp - and one or two other similarly-minded people - keeps on with this charade then something will have to be done. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, if a user voted "We should keep this because it's a great article" it would be discounted. By now (based on AN, ANI, RFC, and the number of fights I've had to break up) I would be extremely surprised if an admin didn't know about the OUTCOMES RFC. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac and others did a great job of closing the RfC, but what we are seeing now that wasn't written in the close is that if we had to sum up the in two words the entire outcome of that RfC it would have been no consensus. WP:OUTCOMESBASED exists, but it is also just an essay like WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so now you have two competing essays, and people are basically going to have to explain why they are !voting the way they do on a case by case basis. Godric, I think the relists were good, but I also think it was a bit too close to a super vote to reference the RfC in the relist: people are going to fight it out, and everyone is aware of the RfC by this point. My prediction is that at some point we're going to come to another essay-based compromise and move on. Its just too much time to have secondary school be this big of a fight. Anyway, my 2¢. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:--The essays hardly compete.Whilst one is a trend of AfDs conducted over the years, the other one is meant as a supplementary guide to deletion.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Now I am confused again. If the RfC was "no consensus", why did the closers not say that? The points that they made had to be based on their interpretation of consensus in the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, the question asked was "are schools that exists automatically notable", to which there was no consensus. In that light, it means that schools are not inherently notable (i.e. status quo). The rest of the close was simply observations based on the points discussed and clarifications on the ramifications of said "no consensus" result. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry if my wording wasn't helpful. As someone who helped draft the RfC this is my take on it: The RfC was meant to see if there actually was a consensus that all schools were to be presumed notable. That consensus didn't exist, which I accept. The RfC did have some practical results beyond just the question asked: WP:OUTCOMESBASED was established and editors were told to avoid circular logic, which I think people who tend to be pro-keep should do (I've adjusted my arguments personally.) It also told us to consider systemic bias and basically repeated WP:NPOSSIBLE without citing it. What it did not do was establish whether or not the community had a consensus on how to deal with secondary schools.

The result is that there is now some confusion, and I take part of the blame for that in that we just asked a simple question rather than have a full proposal when we started the RfC. Now what we have is people arguing what the totality of WP:N (not just GNG) would have us do with schools, which I do not think we have a consensus for. If we did, we wouldn't have all of these contentious school AfDs currently ongoing. My comment above was by no means a critique of Primefac or the other closers, just noting that we are seeing in practice what we saw in the discussion: the community doesn't know what to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And therefore the best option is to continue as we did before. It worked, it was sensible and it was generally accepted (except by a few whose main aim seems to be to get as much of Wikipedia as possible deleted - odd for people who have presumably come here to help build the same project as I have). All the RfC and its confused close has done is muddy the waters of a consensus that was already clear-cut and opened the way for the deletionists to nominate even more articles for deletion, which was, if I remember correctly, actually advised against in the close (note that most secondary school articles AfDed since the RfC have continued to be kept). I really fail to see what has been achieved here other than to confuse things and give the deletionists some sort of hope that their weird ideas on how to build (or, rather, shrink) a global encyclopaedia have been somehow accepted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"I'm sorry but if Necrothesp - and one or two other similarly-minded people - keeps on with this charade then something will have to be done." My God, but that's an arrogant statement. AfDs are about opinions. They are not about rules. If notability was governed by unbending, monolithic rules then we wouldn't bother to have AfD discussions at all. Maybe it's time that some editors took that fact on board and stopped trying to turn Wikipedia into a bureaucracy. Editors can express any opinion they like in an AfD discussion. It's up to the closer to consider all opinions (and not just dismiss them because they don't follow some non-existent "rule", incidentally) and close appropriately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An admin misrepresenting the conclusions of an RfC is not A Good Thing. I'll take you to AN if I must. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You will note that most editors seem to be confused about the conclusions of the RfC. You are yourself confused about the conclusions of the RfC. You seem to be on a rather high horse here and I would suggest you get off it. We are all entitled to our opinions. I am misrepresenting nothing. I am stating an opinion. As are you. As we are both entitled to do. Threats are neither productive nor in the spirit of discussion and I can't see why you (or indeed Izno) feel the need to make them. The claim that I have misrepresented anything is, frankly, insulting, since it suggests a lack of integrity on the part of a very experienced and productive editor, which I can assure you is most certainly not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually going to side with Necrothesp on this one. Having an opinion is not an ANI-worthy offense. This whole discussion makes me think of a few AN discussions regarding RFA - there are two or three serial "opposers", and it was determined that they are welcome to make the same arguments on every RFA, and the strength of those arguments would be judged accordingly. If the consensus on a particular AFD is that a page should be kept, it will be kept. If the consensus is to delete, we don't immediately chastise the keep !voters for being idiots. Obviously I can't stop you from taking Necrothesp to ANI, but I would strongly advise against it, as it won't go anywhere and just cause more drama. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. And that's exactly my point. It is up to the closer to determine consensus on an individual AfD. A contributor can express any opinion they like so long as it's a civil one. And to accuse an editor of misrepresentation just because you don't agree with them is not civil. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

we don't immediately chastise the keep !voters for being idiots is a red herring. We haven't called nor even thought that he's an idiot. We're calling him out for having an opinion, at AFD, which does not match what the community consensus is regarding the kind of !votes he is making on a sustained basis. That's the same reason editors have been walked over to ANI (or WT:RFA or BN or wherever) when other editors have continued to make un-supported-by-policy-or-guideline assertions about the suitability of some thing (whether an article, an RFA, or otherwise). We expect better of long-time users, whether documented in PAG or not, and we expect better of admins (and that's documented in policy).

The second problem with comparing this to RFA is that those generally get into the 100 count, and so those serial opposers are trivially lost in the noise, if even they aren't actively discounted. When the typical AFD gets 2-5 editors, multiple of which are !voting to keep articles not meeting our standards for inclusion, that's a concern (though not a serious one, of course, since it can and will be corrected at some point--but not if the behavior is not stopped [voluntarily or by force] or you somehow convince people familiar with such standards to start commenting on those AFDs). While I trust our bureaucrats to see through the bullshit at RFA, should I trust an administrator-acting-as-normal-longtime-editor at AFD? That's really concerning--his opinions get repeated by well-meaning new and newer editors who believe that really is the state of things (whether he is an admin or not), and then we have issues later (and ultimately lose more editors than the half-baked "return threat" above would suggest we would).

This issue was a consensus you sought to evaluate and close. The administrator in question is directly-making !votes in contravention of that close. Even if I back off on suggesting that he's wrong to hold an opinion (whether I'm right or wrong), it's trivial to verify with one of the closing editors what was intended by the close in question and accordingly move along in the same spirit as community consensus would have us do. But, sure, I'll drop it, and start watching schools-related AFDs closely. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So you actually do think I'm wrong to have an opinion! And you do think I should be prevented from expressing it "by force"! And you even seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't contribute to AfDs (or that's how I read your third paragraph). How utterly bizarre. I am, as we say here, gobsmacked! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You should re-read everything I wrote, because I said none of that. But if that's the kind of reading you'll do in any further discussion, I am most-definitely not responding to you here again. Cheers! --Izno (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's exactly what you said. "We're calling him out for having an opinion, at AFD, which does not match what the community consensus is..." (i.e. I shouldn't have an opinion; because opinion is just that, opinion; if you say someone should have a particular opinion, then it's not really an opinion, is it?). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Necrothesp, I do think you lack integrity on this issue. That's an opinion. So sue me. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice! And completely uncalled for. But, par for the course really. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Par for what course? Another pointless snipe from you, then. It isn't that you hold an opinion, it's that you misrepresent the consensus. As such, you are a liability if ever you perform an admin action. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough. I'm fine with my talk page being used to discuss what (in fairness) is a valid point of contention between editors. I am not fine with insults and veiled threats being bandied about. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed, so it might be best if we all just walk away from this one for a bit. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFF arguement

Where I have used the OTHERSTUFF argument on my talk page, I have done so correctly, right? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any issues with it. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, just checking. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

About abou el fotouh

The reason the page does not seem to have enough information is because any more information will have 0 sources to backup, other than that, alot of zamalek sc's players have wiki pages which just say that they play in zamalek sc, without mentioning anything else.

And to answer your question, Abou el foutouh plays in the main squad, you can look for yourself in the wiki zamalek sc page. He plays as a left back and has played numerous times.

About the name, I would change it, just that the name in english has diffrent spelling.

If i fix the draft now, will it be accepted? I don't want to waste someone else's time reviewing it, so if possible, can you tell me all the things to fix? Teky500 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see now. I've accepted it. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac Thanks for accepting it. Just one question, if the article becomes better, will it get a better grade? or are you stuck with the first grade you got when you made the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teky500 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Teky500, if you're talking about the article assessment, that's just a measure of how "complete" an article is. An article with only a bare minimum of information is a stub, whereas a full-and-complete article will be ranked as a "Featured Article". All articles generally start around the stub/start level and as they are improved their assessment is adjusted accordingly. For more info, see Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle sock puppet report function giving error

I am attempting to report a possible sock puppet however twinkle will not allow me to.

Here is the report of User:Rex Judaeorum

Possible sock puppet of User:Rex Iudaeorum due to the text on their user page being "See User:Rex Iudaeorum" and the similarities in the username (a 'J' instead of an 'I' but otherwise identical).

TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that bad? I just don't want anyone else having the one with the J Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rex Iudaeorum Given that they've linked the two accounts, and that Judaeorum hasn't made any other edits, I think this is a case of VALIDALT, and per SOCK#NOTIFY is allowed. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was not sure and wanted to bring it to the attention of administrators in case it was an issue. I wonder why twinkle was giving me an error. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No idea why Twinkle gave you an error, but it's always a good idea to ask questions if you're unsure! Primefac (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I made another account actually maybe that's the problem. User:Rex Iudorum sorry that was a spelling mistake I don't want it Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rex Iudaeorum, as long as you disclose your alternate accounts, you've not done anything wrong. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit worth deleting?

Does this count as an edit worth deleting from edit history of this user's talk page? Hahafakeha has made a lot of edits like this (and is continuing to do so) to the page and has been reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not serious, I don't see any reason for revdel. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just checking. I see that you blocked them. Just out of curiosity, what would constitute revdel?--TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the full list of criteria. Basically it needs to be extremely harmful, dangerous, or derogatory. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean, when in doubt, better to ask for revdel and be declined (as long as you're not always wrong) than have something that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and this is the only time I have asked about revdel within this context (last time was asking about trying to disassociate my account with a page that I did not 'create' - the user removed a speedy delete tag on a redirect and started a whole new draft/article that I am now credited as creator of) so I don't think I have anything to worry about there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like numbers 2 and 3 to me. "Loser", f*** a-h*** and what seems to be "get lost you son of a bitch" in Malayalam. Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why they're blocked, but it's not bad enough to merit a full revision deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Incred Finance

Not that I'm fond of articles created by socks, but your deletion of the article per WP:CSD#G5 was incorrect. Initially, the accounts were blocked on March 27, after the article was created. There were no previous blocked socks. I'm not going to restore the article; that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23, you're absolutely right. I misread the timeline. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

14:02:27, 28 March 2017 review of submission by Dansmo

• Dansmo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Emanuel Congregation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your first comment was that you don't see our building as historically significant. We didn't mean to imply that it is, rather it is part of the historically significant Emanuel Congregation. The submission is for Emanuel Congregation A Chicago Reform Synagogue who's historical significance dates back to 1880. The building is a piece of our history, but certainly not the focus. Perhaps that is how the page is written in your view, should we perhaps reorder what it included in the page? In the wikipedia page we list every Rabbi who has ever served since 1880 including Rabbi Felix Levy and Rabbi Herman Schaalman, who collectively served from 1907-1986, both were significant leaders in Chicago's Jewish history. The page describes our Czech Torah that was recovered from Nazi Germany, the Arc that houses our Torah's that was commissioned by a now famous Designer, our historical impact on OSRUI the summer camp. Chicago has a long history of Jewish culture and Emanuel continues to be part of it. We have not sought much media attention, but I would think nearly 140 of existence in itself provides some credibility as to our relevant place in history. We have studied many other Wikipedia pages for Jewish Synagogues and we attempted to provide color and historical significance of our organizations . Can you please provide some additional feedback on what you are looking for. --Dansmo (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dansmo, my apologies for the long delay. I have looked back over your draft in light of your comments, but I still find the Congregation to be non-notable. In looking through your references, only one (Edgeville Buzz) actually talks about the Congregation. The other references only mention rabbis that worked there, or are from the Congregation itself (which as PRIMARY sources are discouraged). You need to find more sources that talk specifically about Emanuel Congregation. Hopefully this helps. I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

TFD - rugby biography

Thanks for starting the discussion, hopefully it will kick start some discussions in the two projects about contents. Nthep (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

20K Tie

You and Drewmutt tied. ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw the edit-summary; I thought you'd spent 20 grand on a tie :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving 2 Kendrick Lamar song pages

I want to move "Element (Kendrick Lamar song) → Element (song) along with Duckworth (Kendrick Lamar song) → Duckworth (song) but both these new articles exist and are redirects to Damn (album). I want to move these because there is no other song titled "Element" and "Duckworth" so having "Kendrick Lamar" in the title is unneeded. But because the new pages exist and are redirects, I don't have the authority to move them. Could you help me out with moving them please? I ask because I saw you moved Draft:Loyalty (Kendrick Lamar song) → Loyalty (Kendrick Lamar song) (thanks very much for that). – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV, it's done. Primefac (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sweet thanks very much. I appreciate it – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you the way you are?

I attempted to benefit my school's wikipedia page and you had the audacity to call, arguably the largest social phenomena on campus, a minor piece of trivia. Feel free to go and fix your statements, you talk page stalker, thanks. DelaneyG — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelaneyG (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

EFM

I was closing Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Granting_Edit_filter_to_Chrissymad at the same time as you, feel free to edit the closure if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Nah, you're good. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Psychosocial interpellation and histamines

Hello Primefac,

Nice to make your acquaintance? I have been suffering medicament induced inner Psychosis but had a clarity. The page that Huon has deleted has permissions and conditions regarding Wikipedia. It gives permission for use and is separate from the rest of the copyrighted material. Could something be done about this. Here is my CV: The website research is a Self-Behavioural Analysis (SBA) of mentality clarity of research involved at many top research sites.

Kind regards,

Harry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwhomark09 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Not sure about the rest, but it was a G13 deletion so I'm not fussed restoring it. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Stockholm Resilience Centre

Did you read my counter argument to your speedy deletion request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffithsHR (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

GriffithsHR, I did. The main issue was the copyright violations, which had to be deleted. If you're working on a new version of the page without the copyright violations, that's great. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 10:25:45, 4 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by P markov

• P markov (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:T-Class Shooting Sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I understand the concept of referencing a particular subject with a particular web page of a web site, but sometimes when you try to explain a new term - like dynamic shooting for instance, it is more useful to quote the entire website, so that anyone can get an idea about the whole sport and not the specifics. Also, more of those websites related with shooting disciplines are not very complicated sites, with tons of info. So, there aren't many sections within the sites themselves to be quoted specifically.

On the second reason for the decline: there are many differences between F-Class and T-Class, which are explained in the article. The most important one is that F-Class is a stationary sport for shooting at fixed distances, while T-Class is dynamic shooting sport with known and unknown shooting distances. I agree with the conclusion that it could be a section of the article about long-range shooting, but so is the Precision Rifle Competitions section of the same article. It is described in the article and nevertheless a whole other article about Precision Rifle Series exists. That is the reason for which I decided to describe T-Class as a new article. According to your logic - every shooting discipline should be just a section of one gigantic article, which will be difficult to read and comprehend by anyone.

P markov (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

P markov, sorry for the delay in replying; there a few things to mention:

• When you have a phrase like In USA, the Precision Rifle Series is the most popular shooting event in this relation you can't just reference the Precision Rifle Series website. We need sources that talk about the PRS, or the ITCC, or any of the other organizations you've linked to. In other words, we need independent reliable sources that specifically talk about the subject being discussed.
• I know there are differences between the F- and T-Classes, but I can see how my decline rationale could be misinterpreted. I was suggesting that you add T-Class as a subsection at Long_range_shooting#Competitions, which then explain the class differences. The actual details of T-Class are relatively small, and could easily be folded into the existing article(s) on precision shooting.

I'm not saying that the draft will never be acceptable as a standalone article, and you're more than welcome to continue working on the draft, but you must add better sources. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong volume

The reason why some end up in the wrong volume is because the way Wikipedia orders names in categories is not necessarily the way others do it. In the case of {{Bryan (3rd edition)}}}} it is usually do do with whether "van", "de" etc are included in surnames. see for example those under from the letter P in the category volume 1:

• Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, volume 1: from P

There can also be others who are known under more than one name and that which was popular 150 years ago may not be the name they are known by today.

-- PBS (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that would do it. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

Didn't wanna tackle that myself, since it might have merely broke things in a new way. Is there a way to edit back each section to older versions, BTW?

Would you mind if I inserted a reply to Oshwah (talk · contribs) in the section about this you've {{hat}}-ted? I've run into this stuff all the way back to relay BBS days. Anmccaff (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, if the edits were in sections that were unedited in subsequent edits, then yes, the change could be undone. However, some of those sections were edited by others, so I couldn't just undo the edit automatically (and there is no way to roll back specific sections). You're welcome to post inside the hat, or just post here for Oshwah since they're now most definitely aware of this conversation! Primefac (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, he'll already see it here; I'm just wondering whether it might be good to have it mentioned again at ANI. First, this problem could cause considerable devastation which might be seen as vandalism, especially if the user was less experienced, and couldn't explain it after the fact. There's another matter connected to this, also, but I dunno if I want to give those people any tips or hints. Anmccaff (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anmccaff! I see that you have concerns, but I'm trying to understand exactly what they are. Can you elaborate further and explain exactly what's concerning you? I'll be more than happy to discuss anything you're concerned with; I want to make sure that they're addressed. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Oshwah, I agree with you about the likely cause, fellow with a furrin font on his word processing software makes a small edit, as he sees it, and all hell breaks loose. That's got some real potential for problem children to play with, don't it? Anmccaff (talk)

Anmccaff - Sure... I mean, certainly any troll could make that kind of disruption purposely; hell, after 8 years of recent changes patrolling and reverting vandalism... I've definitely seen my fair share of disruption that were both very sneaky or extremely problematic. But if you think about it... it would be no different if I had opened that page and used the "Find and replace" tool in my browser to do it; The resulting change would literally be no different. It's just like pretty much any tool or user right that's available... there's always a way to use it to reek havok ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, one keystroke beats 5 or sixteen, and, since this would mostly effect odd characters, with other changes that might not be intuitive, I can see that this would be a helluvalot faster. No decision time on what to change, either, and it seems to be slightly harder to spot in some cases. Anyway, IMO, and worth every cent you paid for it. Anmccaff (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Account Block

I was in the process of filing a WP:SPI on Cilla1987 when I noticed you already blocked this user. Thanks for saving me the trouble! CBS527^Talk 00:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, always happy to help! Primefac (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 00:27:16, 28 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Reginazhou2017

• Reginazhou2017 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:1955 Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reginazhou2017 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi my article was rejected after a review. I have edited and submitted. I like to check if it has been reviewed again? (Reginazhou2017 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

The draft has been properly resubmitted, but has not been re-reviewed. In general I prefer to give another reviewer the chance to see it, mainly to avoid bias. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help

Requests_for_undeletion#LIST_OF_INDIAN_TALENTS The above article was deleted with request of article creator.

Deleted page LIST OF INDIAN TALENTS (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND (TW)) ,The article creater only requested for speedy delete,the article relented to hundreds of talented persons..so i or some other can improve the article and also before deletion the administrator given option for retrieve..

This article relented to happiness of talented persons,,,

Please help me to un delete...

(Jipppoor (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

You've already made the official request, but if I think about it I might check it out later. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just FTR, that article was created by a sock of Nsmutte so is not eligible for restoration (it was tagged as G5, created by a ban violating sock, but I suspect the sock got in there to tag it as author requested.... it's the kind of ham-fisted WP:GAMING he enjoys.) And Jipppoor is another sock, who has also been blocked as such. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Bonadea, thanks for the heads up. In truth, I had no intention of following up, because if someone's going through the official channels why should I let them skip the queue? This will just add another reason not to do randos favours. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

PPPPPP (disambiguation)

Would you be able to delete PPPPPP (disambiguation) pending the outcome of the RfD for PPPPPP? RussBot created it in error since PPPPPP was categorized as a disambiguation page since {{Disambiguation}} was not encapsulated in {{Tl}}, causing the page to be categorized as a disambiguation page, which triggers RussBot to create the related {{R to disambiguation page}} redirect. (If consensus is to convert the redirect to a disambiguation page, then the {{Tl}} encapsulation from {{Disambiguation}} can be removed, and then RussBot will recreate the redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, beat me to it before I even saved the previous edit. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

just so you know

• two weeks of silence = death in the family
• also was not notified, but then nobody ever notifies the WP:PNT people.

see prior comments ad nauseum

However, fine. Some of these articles do need to go; I just think the strategy will backfire and disagree about the level of emotion expended on this.

Meanwhile I will try to help make sure the right ones are deleted/kept. I just don't feel heard or valued is all. My comment is just that -- neural nets are already here. Or we can be Luddites. What do I know :)

just saying

Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby, sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

alright. Go ahead and delete the comment then, no worries. I tried to call you on an assumption you made a couple of weeks ago that stuck me as faulty but doing so was a bit passive-aggressive anyway, and it wouldn't matter at this point anyway no matter what either of us did. X2. Don't worry be happy. I will go deal. Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby, the other option would be to actually tell me what you're talking about. I mean, at least give me a page or something. This whole "you're an ass but I won't tell you why" thing really isn't helpful. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I do understand that it would be passive-aggressive to apologize for being passive aggressive but not tell you about what, hehe. I did tell you though the topic though, seriously. The X2 we-require-translators to use quill-pens rule ;) Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Standards Leadership Council

You deleted the page I created just a few days ago. I was in the process of responding to the claim that it justified "speedy deletion." Specifically:

• I had explained in the Talk page why it was relevant as an encyclopedia article
• I was in the process of obtaining the copyright release of the text that was quoted from the SLC Web site, as well as the logo, and as of earlier today I have received the e-mail from the SLC chair, using the Wikicommons template about copyright release

You did not give me a reasonable amount of time to respond to the request for copyright release, and it seems you were just trigger-happy and didn't even try to tell me why you weren't going to wait.

I request that the page be restored. If there is a formal process to appeal the deletion, please let me know.

Claude (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Baudoin1, copyright violations must be immediately from Wikipedia because they're, well, in violation of copyright laws. If you have received permission to release the text to be used by anyone, for anyone, for any purpose, then you'll need to contact OTRS via permissions-en@wikimedia.org. When doing so, explain that your page has been deleted and that you would like it to be restored. See DONATETEXT for more information.

The other option, of course, is to recreate the page without copying directly from anywhere, which will avoid the entire issue. Personally I think this is the better option, as OTRS is a rather long process and doesn't always pan out. Let me know if you have any further questions. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not really understand

...the "bee in the bonnet" you have, regarding me, but please understand: repeated false accusations are a serious matter, and your continuing to speak to motive for the ways in which I edit are just that—false. I have responded to the topic and IP ban/block, on learning of it, here. Try to be thorough in your research before accusing/prosecuting, and fair-minded in your interpretations of the evidence. Or, if you cannot be, recuse. There are plenty that share your aversion to an accurately tagged article. You do not need to muddy that important, possibly WP changing conversation, with false-accusations of attempts to deceive. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the repeat edits, people keep deleting my reply to the noticeboard charges. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Conversation seems to be at User talk:Leprof 7272#Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Fig Tree Hall Wikipedia Page

Hello, you recently deleted the page 'Fig Tree Hall'. I would like to retrieve my writing and dispute the deletion. Every other college at UNSW now has a wikipedia page except Fig Tree Hall. This is extremely unjust. I wrote a completely new page for Fig Tree Hall that was different to the previous one. You should not just automatically delete pages without reading what you have actually deleted first. The Fig Tree Hall page was the most comprehensive Wikipedia page out of all the UNSW colleges.

Salomėja Nėris (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Salomėja Nėris, I like how you make the assumption that I just up and deleted the new version without checking the old. I read both pages, and while the content was different the same issues from the AFD were present, namely that the page relied almost entirely on primary references. If you'd like, I am willing to undelete the page and move it to the draft space, on the condition that you submit it for review and do not move it back to the article space yourself.

As for the other halls - I wasn't overly thrilled with any of those pages, and they could very well end up deleted themselves. Just because one page exists (good or bad) doesn't mean we should have a similar page. Every page is treated on its own merits. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok that is fair, I will submit the article for review and not move it back to the space myself. The point I was trying to make was that The Fig Tree Hall article should not have been the first article deleted since the other colleges had much worse quality articles. I think the Fig Tree Hall page is being unfairly targeted. The Fig Tree Hall page had 26 references and was not reliant just on primary references. Thanks for your fast response. Salomėja Nėris (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done, page is at Draft:Fig Tree Hall, University of New South Wales. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Salomėja Nėris, I've removed your resubmission of the draft, because you haven't actually made any changes to it since it was declined. "These other pages exist, so this one should too" is not a valid reason for accepting a page. We call this an "other stuff exists" argument; just because one page (or a dozen) exist on Wikipedia doesn't mean we must have one more. Every page is reviewed on its own merits. I've given feedback on the draft itself, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, but repeatedly resubmitting the draft without improving it is considered tenditious editing and may result in outright deletion of the draft. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I would ask

...that you refrain from insulting me on my Talk page. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, I would love to know how my responses are insulting. It will help ensure I don't do it in the future. After all, a person can't improve if they don't receive constructive feedback on their activities. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh.. re Talk:Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg)

Whatever happened, I didn't do that, or if I did it wasn't intentional... I dunno if it was a software bug, or some kind of edit conflict thing, or what. There are two edits by me with the summary "liddul tweak" when I know for a fact I only made one... odd... sorry that happened. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, no worries. These things happen. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. Anyway we are both "oppose" votes so it would be unlikely to be deliberate. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Hi, if Edgar181 doesn't beat you to it, could you please delete revision 778667050 from Third-wave feminism under criterion RD2? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

ToThAc, while it's clearly vandalism, I don't think that falls under the "grossly degrading" category (it's just mildly offensive). Primefac (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Canizales

Did you see CAT:CSD just now? Crikey, the page should have had a NSFW warning on it!!!! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. And then I made the mistake of doing a GSearch to see if it matched anything existing online! Primefac (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at one, and decided the rest of the deletions could be done by someone who isn't going to run the risk of their spouse or kids peering over my desk and wondering what on earth I'm doing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh, no kidding. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Burning Pillar (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Template:WhatCulture Pro Wrestling

Sorry, but why you moved the template to draft if it was already accepted because is unacceptable because you don't like WCPW? And if it is unacceptable tell me why?

Because I want explanations.

TheBuilder456 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)TheBuilder456 It was moved back to draft because WCPW does not yet exist as an article and because the template only directed to items within the draft/article itself. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Heading text

PAGE DELETED Hi! I am the owner of the page IBM strategic management. I was just doing an assigment for my universty class called Strategic Management. Can you tell me how to change my information in order to have the page working in 24 hours that my teachere is going to grade it. Please!MayteOquendo (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Responding on their talk. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Richard B. Spencer

Hello, Primefac. You recently made this edit at talk:Richard B. Spencer, giving WP:BLPTALK as a reason. I understand and agree that BLP needs to be respected on talk pages. Unfortunately, your edit removed a very large amount of legitimate discussion over article content, discussion that could in no way be construed as violating WP:BLP (for example, my comment that "Spencer's opinion on Islam matters for the obvious, common-sense reason: Islam is an important force in the world today and it influences politics" was not a BLP violation, but part of a reasonable discussion over article content). Hence your edit was overkill. I would respectfully suggest that only content that actually violates WP:BLP should be removed from the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. As good as your intentions appear to have been, the redaction was overkill and did not facilitate discussion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I erred on the side of caution. Seems like it's been corrected. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For the talk page block of User talk:38.135.32.22. It's another of the unending socks of User:Bigshowandkane64, if you did not know. Might it be possible to have some revdels done of the more abusive and racist edit summaries. Again, thanks for the blocking. Cheers!  :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

LSRNoTransclusions

I didn't realize that you created User:Primefac/LSRNoTransclusions...I added a tracking category to catch redlinks that can be manually reviewed, but this is a lot easier. I'll go through this when I have time, and G6 those for which an article on the software was deleted (and fix or TFD the others) Can you also make one for Template:Latest preview software release? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Train2104 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Train2104, I think your #if statement is a little off; Category:Software release templates for nonexistent articles shows templates that do have existing articles. But thank you for reminding me about this, I've been meaning to kill off some of these templates and keep forgetting to do so. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of that is job queue (I fixed a bug with more edits), some (like Template:Latest stable software release/FileZilla Client) is because FileZilla Client is a red-link and the back to link is not generated by the template. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. In which case, the template should be moved to the base name of {{Latest stable release/FileZilla}}. That will also help with cleanup efforts. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, still not sure. {{Latest preview software release/FileZilla}} is still in the cat, despite FileZilla existing. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

On that one, the article parameter is "Filezilla Client". Fixed it, but your list should be the one to work off, as it catches such things as users hardcoding release info into the articles. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Aye, fair enough. To be honest, we could probably TFD that entire lot as unused and just get it over with. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Because seeing someone quote Firefly always makes my day better. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

%%title%%

So, out of curiousity, I was wondering what the difference between {{subst:PAGENAME}} instead of %%title%% actually was. So, through a single AWB edit, it seems that the former doesn't include the namespace (Test1 with PAGENAME, Test2 with title). However, {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}} did work. And then there was this comment at the original discussion at BOTREQ.

Just thought I'd pass that interesting titbit on. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. So for this particular venture it doesn't really matter (since it's all article-space and nothing will be in ref tags, but I'll definitely keep this in mind for future reference. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

23:51:40, 30 April 2017 review of submission by Marino73

• Marino73 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Ding Dongs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Respectfully regarding the Ding Dongs article that I submitted, I would make the following points:

1. They are referenced in six different books, as mentioned at the bottom of the article. In regards to the Ding Dongs gimmick, they are also spoken about in several podcasts that are also referenced. 2. There are numerous website references that are provided for them, most pointing out that their run as The Ding Dongs was regarded as one of the worst wrestling gimmicks of all time. I also provided a New York Times reference in the Wikipedia article. 3. The History of WWE website is not a fan site (I'm not certain what the actual definition of that is), but a comprehensive reference site containing match histories going back to the late 1970s. I used this to flesh out their match by match history, as they provide results for multiple promotions. Their results are available for sale in several books , . I have added this book reference into the article as well. 4. There is far more documentation that is provided for them than other jobbers (Job (professional wrestling)) who have wikipedia pages such as Brady Boone, Tiger Chung Lee, Mr. X, Barry O, Reno Riggins, Barry Hardy, Scott Casey, Los Conquistadores, George South, Dusty Wolfe, Mike Sharpe, Salvatore Bellomo, Scott Armstrong Mario Mancini, and DeWayne Bruce can all have Wikipedia pages, why cannot Evans and Sartain? Their gimmick was more notorious than any that the above had, and none of these wrestlers were mentioned in the New York Times as these two were.

Marino73, here's the issue. If you wanted to write about Greg Evans, you'd be fine. If you wanted to write about Richard Sartain, same thing. If you want to write about Evans and Sartain, you could probably have a page about them as a tag-team. But to have an article of that length where the actual information about the subject is literally only 20% of the total content? No. To rephrase, an article about the Ding Dongs should be mostly about the Ding Dongs, with smaller sections about the wrestlers themselves. Right now you're doing the opposite. The overall information about the Ding Dongs is short enough that it could easily be merged into an existing article, but if you're dead-set on trying to get a page about them then you'll probably need to scrap everything and start from scratch. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Dariush Borbor

Dear Primefac,

Thank you for your excellent and careful editing and remarks.

I have made a complete recheck of all the references, modified, changed, deleted or re-added, according to your advise and my own findings. I have deleted all the so called “talks about Borbor” references according to your wish, except one. Please note that an organized panel discussion about a person by four distinguished professors in a well-known international conference (organized by one of the oldest and most respected publishers in the world, Brill Academic Publishers) is not simply “being spoken about”. Such panels are very rare and they usually take place to discuss the life and work of a person who has had a lifelong, notable track record of influence and contribution in his field.

(“This round table is presented to consider the life and work of Dariush Borbor by a number of distinguished scholars and professionals each having been involved with different aspects of his various activities” (“20 Years Of Iran And The Caucasus: A Breakthrough Conference”, ASPS Newsletter, no. 37, Fall 2016, pp. 6-7; http://persianatesocieties.org/PDFs/Newsletters/ASPS%20Newsletter%2037%20(Fall%202016).pdf)

I think the modified version is concise, up to the point and well balanced, but I will be pleased to consider any other points or remarks that you may have.

Monshibashi (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine, has been resubmitted. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

03:23:51, 3 May 2017 review of submission by 2605:E000:1300:428C:C80E:3CEF:6440:E80B

• 2605:E000:1300:428C:C80E:3CEF:6440:E80B (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Alpine Fellowship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Further clarification needed.

Dear Primefac,

I just wanted to see whether you could give us some more guidelines as to what you thought wasn't right about the last version of the 'Alpine Fellowship' page.

In particular:

you mention us 'cashing in on inherited nobility': does this mean you want us to remove references to the people that have attended? Or just be more clear about what the Fellowship is apart from the people who have come there?

I will now be editing a bit in line with what I think you might be wishing us to do.

Hope this gets to you, and to hear from you soon.

All best,

Jacob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:1300:428c:c80e:3cef:6440:e80b (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2017‎ (UTC)

Well, you haven't actually added any new references, so there's that issue, but the prose looks a bit better. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dialogic Pedagogy page

Dear Primefac,

You have speedily deleted a page that my colleague Eugene Matusov and myself are starting to build -- for the infringement of copyright. While you found the identical page on PBWorks wiki, it was our page that we wanted to move to Wikipedia. We have now removed the PBWorks page to which you referred as infringement of copyright - so there will be no infringement. However, we have spent a considerable time working on the Wikipedia page on Dialogic Pedagogy, and would like you to restore it if possible, so we do not have to repeat the tedious process. We are just learning to use Wikipedia, and we would like your support, rather than your harsh punishment.

Please let us know if you can restore our page!! We contest its speedy deletion, since we have now removed the PBWorks page.

"12:55, 3 May 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page Dialogic pedagogy (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://dialogicpedagogy.pbworks.com/w/page/106164477/Dialogic%20Pedagogy (TW))“

Thanks for your help

Eugene Matusov and Ana Marjanovic-Shane

PS Your own guideline do NOT work. It says, “If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled ‘Contest this speedy deletion.’” The mentioned page does NOT have the button labelled ‘Contest this speedy deletion.’

Ana Marjanovic-Shane 15:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anamshane (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Anamshane, I've restored the page. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC...

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

Winged Blades ^Godric 19:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: and PF: Email inboxed. --Izno (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric, Izno, DatGuy, Samwalton9, and There'sNoTime: - RFC closed. Front half need to cosign and back half just FYI. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Izno (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Samuel Neaman Institute

hi, I looked at other wikipedia think tank pages so i can see what the references in my draft are missing such as Adva_Center or Jerusalem_Institute_for_Market_Studies and by that example I think my references are sufficient. Could you explain the difference? what am I missing? I added more references anyway. Also if the Neaman Institute is mentioned in a wikipedia page - Think_tank#Global_think_tanks can I use that as a reference? thank you. Golan789 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Golan789, the main issue is that most of your draft is unsourced. You have phrases like The research findings and recommendations are serving Isreal's decision makers at various levels - who said this? Where can I verify that SNI is actually influencing Israeli decisions?

As for the other pages: other stuff exists. In other words, simply because one page exists (whether good or bad) doesn't automatically mean we should create a second page. Every page must be judged on its own merits. It's very possible that those other pages should be deleted for not meeting our standards, but that's more likely because no one has noticed that they're poor articles over "we just let in any old junk". Primefac (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dylan Cozens (baseball)

Foolishly on my part, I created the article mentioned without a thorough search. Is it possible to move this edit history to the redirect page?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone else dealt with this. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)