Jump to content

User talk:Primefac/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

online? urgent

are you still around? kindly ping. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, failed to read. yes? Primefac (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Would please process the three U1 requests from User:Usernamekiran/CSD log? They are from my userspace. It would be appreciated a lot if you do it soon. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
you didnt ping by the way —usernamekiran(talk) 18:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I made an attempt, but forgot that it only pings if you put a new/second signature on a line. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for processing the request. And also, I apologise for the trouble. I was not sure if you'd be still online; so I contacted two more sys-ops that were recently active. You caught both of these communication by the way. Sorry again. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Succession box template

Hi.
I would like to create a template for a succession box similar to {{S-gov}}, where can I find the related source code, and a few tips about that? (this time, you are the only one receiving the message as you are one of the only three editors that I talk to, who I think can do this [others being Xaosflux, and JJMC].) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I mean, the source code is just |-
! colspan="3" style="border-top: 5px solid #bebebe;" | Government offices which you can see from view source; creates one row of a table; colspan means the government offices text appears across 3 columns Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher)
@Galobtter: Sorry for a delayed reply. I saw your comments a few hours ago actually. I had a different doubt in my head. I cant remember it, but all I can recall is that it was silly. Thanks :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

db-move of Makruk

Hi. Regarding this edit, per the WP:BRD, shouldn't the undiscussed move be reverted first, then a new RM initiated to determine whether it should be reinstated? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I was dealing with an unrelated move war and got a little caught up. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Primefac. It seems you recently deleted an article entitled Brickbat. I would like to use its content to create a WP-acceptable article. Please could you restore it - maybe to a subpage for me - say User:Trafford09/Brickbat?

Thank you, Trafford09 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but please note that if you return it to the article space with little more than the definition currently present at Wiktionary it will just be deleted again. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Point noted, and thank you for facilitating userfication. Would it be possible, please, for you also to restore the article's Talk page? I'd like to be reminded of - & perhaps make use of - its contents. Presumably User talk:Trafford09/Brickbat would be a sensible place? Thank you, Trafford09 (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Sorry for pinging you, but I wasn't sure if you'd seen the last bit. Trafford09 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have, but I've been dealing with other things. I'll get to this shortly. Also, I don't need to be pinged on my own talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies - I wasn't sure if the system alerted somebody to any edit on their page. One learns new stuff! I do hope not to have offended you. Trafford09 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Shogi archives

Hi Primefac. Do know how to resolve Talk:Shogi#Archives. I know that the talk page has been set up to archive and I know it is (or at least was) archiving, but I cannot find any links or search window for the archives. I'm wondering if they were accidentally removed as part of all the page moves that have recently taken place. I think this macron on/macron off thing about the name might have been previously discussed and that might be buried somewhere in the archives. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The archives aren't showing up because when the page was moved the archives weren't (not everyone has the ability to move subpages). Thus, the archives are sitting here. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I went ahead and moved them to the proper archive location, leaving a redirect behind however as to not break any potential links. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Thank you TheSandDoctor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Contested RM

Talk Sarah Brown

I'm not married to using either the request dates or close dates; however, from what I've seen it seems customary to use request/nomination dates in the Old move and Old moves templates. Best of everything to you and yours!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You're exactly right. Will get on that sharpish. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Looks like someone beat me to it. But I'll remember that in the future. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 1#Template:USL_Premier_Development_League_Southwest_Division_stadiums

You recently relisted this tfd, and thank you for that. Could you go ahead and close the discussion as a merge? I just created the merged template and intend to place it in the relevant articles within the next 24 hours or so. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Jay eyem, if the consensus turns out to be that these individual templates are desired, then the individual templates will be kept and will continue to be used on the pages where they're currently located. If you want to try to convince the "keep" voters to change their opinions, you should ping them at the TFD itself. Just because you think it should be merged doesn't mean everyone will agree. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Uh ok, sorry to bother you geez. No need to emphasize the "you". Jay eyem (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
You asked for my help/opinion, and I was giving it to you. If you interpreted my comments as rude or condescending that was not my intention for them to be taken that way. I was merely stating that I feel that the discussion should run its full course, especially when new information like "there's a new/merged version to look at" comes out. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neutral_admin_needed

I have made a terrible mistake of starting the thread. I merely wanted to request a help. I didn't believe starting the thread like that is a topic-ban violation. Anyway, it was a bad idea. Could you close the thread? I'm just so terrified of the reactions there: as if my interest was to cause disruptions and apparently whatever I do is a mistake. -- Taku (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Greetings!

Here is the 5th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM
BAG
BRFAs

We currently have 6 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

While there were no large-scale bot-related discussion in the past few months, you can check WP:BOTN and WT:BOTPOL (and their corresponding archives) for smaller issues that came up.

New things
Upcoming

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 03:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Another dodgy draft

Hi Primefac, a couple of weeks back you deleted an article in draft space when I pointed out that it was the same as the original version of one that has been moved to mainspace and then deleted at AfD. I forget what the article was but there are a sock involved somewhere.

A similar situation now applies to another one. If you have time to go to the last two threads at User talk:Darrenmong, all should be made clear. Is this another CSD candidate? - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like everything's been deleted? Primefac (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No, sorry, it is my fault because the talk page got longer after posting here! See Draft:The Living Legends of Mithila. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Meh. It's unsubmitted, it's in the draft space, and it will be G13'd in a couple of months. Unless there's an older master which I didn't see, it doesn't qualify for G5. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

AFC submission declined template issue

Hi, I noticed you've done a a lot of the editing to the AFC submission templates so hopefuly you can find this issue, or point me to where I should raise it. Some of the decline notices are coming out weird. See Draft:Curve Fever Pro and User:Ashokgajjala1/sandbox for example. Its not happening for all decline reasons just some. I've been looking for the error so I could raise an edit request but have failed to find it yet. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: I went ahead and fixed the first one, but I think Enterprisey broke the script here. Primefac, we might want to roll those back in the mean time. Nihlus 18:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Thanks, I had just realised it was an issue with AFCH rather than the templates - thanks for locating the issue. KylieTastic (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup. I've rolled back. Will attempt to figure it out. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I've just been back through my last reviews to fix up, but I guess a lot of other people will have got these off declines. I assume there is no easy way to fix apart from a manual trawl and fix? KylieTastic (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Correct, manual is probably the only way. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking a piece of advice

I still feel like whatever I do keep creating more drama: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Draft:Level_structure. What is the correct reaction? Ignore the attack? Is there a response that will be a violation of the topic ban? I'm quite dismayed that even reverting the wrong redirect is not possible. I'm not trying to fire up things and I keep being blamed for the disruption like in the thread. (The dispute like that in the thread seems to be leading to the eventual indef-ban; in fact, happening. Sad. I should have just stick to the content development.) -- Taku (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what to tell you. I (and others) have given you a wealth of advice, the most important being "just walk away" and yet whether by their design or your own stubbornness you've walked right into a proposal for a community ban. I really do apologize, but there's nothing I can do to help you; I tried, and it didn't work. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No, thank you for trying. I thought I was trying "walk-away"; e.g., interaction ban. Anyway, I failed. I thought I'm not the type of an editor who get banned and yet. I don't know what I have done wrong; I feel like I have to keep avoiding the traps set-up by them. And I finally got caught. (And apparently seeking advice counts as a ground for a ban...) -- Taku (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:If preview

Considering that the module it calls is only semi-protected, it doesn't make much sense to template-protect {{if preview}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. I've matched the module protection. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata template protection level

Hi, I noticed that you increased the protection level on {{Wikidata}} and {{WikidataOI}}, but that you didn't do the same with Module:Wd, Module:Wd/i18n and Module:Wd/aliasesP while the templates use these modules as a basis. I would suggest to increase the protection level on the modules too. Thayts ••• 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In any case, it doesn't make much sense to keep the templates template-protected considering that the module they call is only semi-protected, unless the module gets the same level of protection. Thayts ••• 08:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Updated. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox school unsupported parameters

Hi Primefac, do you know if there is a bot that can remove the unsupported parameters from pages using Infobox school? There's over 6,000 in Category:Pages using infobox school with unsupported parameters. I've been doing it manually bit by bit, very boring and time-consuming but decided to do it as no one else seems to be cleaning it up. Just looks a mess, please let me know - thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh.... yes and no. Would it be trivial to remove the roughly 600 instances of |assistant_principal= now that it's been deprecated? Sure. Would it involve (and should it involve) removing everything that isn't on the list? Dunno. I can see someone misspelling |etsablished= - it shouldn't be removed, but fixed. Some of those "mistakes" could be fixed, such as Caption instead of caption, but I don't think one would be expected to fix every misspelling possibility.
If you can get me a list (other than |assistant_principal=) of the most commonly used improper names, I'd be happy to put in a BRFA. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Here are some, I saw these in some of the infoboxes when removing the unsupported parameters manually, these need removing and some pages have these where they haven't been filled in. But if someone in future fills these in, it will flag up as an unsupported parameter. I can sort out the misspelling ones manually. Please could you have a look at these: |assistant_principal=, |assistant_principals=, |assistant principal=, |Vice Principal=, |vice principal=, |asst principal=, |campus_Bound=, |viceprincipal=, |viceprincipal_label=, |viceprincipal1=, |viceprincipal2=, |viceprincipal3=, |viceprincipal4=, |vision=. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
BRFA filed. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac, I hope the bot can be used and whatever is left in the unsupported parameter category should be just misspellings, which I'm happy to sort out manually. There may be other unsupported parameters, if there is, I'll let you know or you will probably know anyway. A lot will be cleaned up with these parameters removed Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Primefac, any update on the bot? Its been a while now since you completed the trial Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Not up to me. Been busy lately so I haven't really thought about it much. You're welcome to flag down BAG with {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah okay, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Template editor rights

I see you have protected a template to which I contribute. How do I get template editor rights ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Although it seems to me that you probably wouldn't be granted such a right, given that as far as I can tell you have made no edit requests to protected templates at all, which is WP:TPEGRANT criterion 5. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Robertiki, I've reduced the protection level. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) --Robertiki (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Primefac,
Had I known about the whole attribution thing beforehand then I would've properly attributed it,
Anyway could the edit summary be un-revdelled providing I state state the diff as well as the article in that second comment ? .... My whole !vote is more or less centered around that comment and I feel like without it my entire !vote is pointless,
I can only ask but if "the damage has already been done" then you may want to revdel this too[1],
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If you give proper attribution for the edit summary, yes, I will restore it (feel free to ping me when you do so). I have revdel'd TRM's post as well, so you might want to ping him as well. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Davey2010, you can make a null edit to cure the attribution. Since it is an edit summary, I would go with Edit summary for revision XXXXXX was text copied from [[Foo]], see that article's history for attribution TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi both, Okie dokie If restored I'll then add "Edit summary for revision XXXXXX was text copied from Foo, see that article's history for attribution" and I'll also add the diff and article name to that comment too, Bear with me I'll find it all, –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Primefac & TonyBallioni - Does this look okay ?, Just wanted to make sure before I copy it all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done - I assume it was okay so I've gone ahead and added it to VP/Proposals[2], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I've restored your summary. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Brilliant thank you :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 14:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in science communication

Hello! The Wiki Education Foundation is developing a guide to help students write about all topics related to science communication, and I’m reaching out to a small number of experienced editors with interest in science topics on Wikipedia to see if they’d be interested in providing feedback. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that students consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. We’d appreciate any feedback on the draft by 3/12. Would you be interested in taking a look? —Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

' vs ’

Hi. Would you please take a look at special:diff/829223270, and share your thoughts which one is recommend by enwiki? Also pinging Cabayi. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

update: In the template it was already '
When I created the article it was still showing redlink in the template. I realised it was being caused cuz the article title has ’ instead of '
Which one is recommended by enwiki? Sorry for bringing up such silly point. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
sort of solved. enwiki prefers the ones without curls, but not sure whats the take on article titles. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Straight quotes are recognized by pretty much every software, but curly quotes can't always be parsed. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Quotes are straight, & toilet paper goes under. One of those has more community approval than the other. Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion for Adda52

Is there a way for me to find the previous deletion discussion? I was unaware that an article on this company was posted previously. Slipandslide (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adda52? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Firnas Airways

Hi Primefac. Could you take a quick loko at the deleted version of Firnas Airways - does Draft:Firnas Airways qualify for G4? Deletion discussion here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Practically speaking a draft should not be eligible for G4, since the entire purpose of drafification is to improve on a page that is insufficient for the article space. To answer your question though, the original was three lines of text, and while this one is four lines long, only the opening sentence is the same. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

DC Breeze Page

You marked the logo I uploaded to this page for speedy deletion because I don't have proof that I have permission to use it. I could get the owner of the Breeze to email the permissions-en@wikimedia.org email but I was wondering if there is another way. Do bigger sports teams really have to get the owner of the team to email this person just to give them permission to use a logo? This seems like a little bit much in my opinion.

Also I know they are technically primary sources but why can't I just use the official website for the AUDL and DC Breeze as sources. The only things I'm citing are facts such as where they played, who coached them, and their score. There really aren't any sources besides these that have this information.Tylermachanic (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

​The file you uploaded, with the permission you have released it under, are not acceptable. You can either have the owner(s) email permissions releasing the image, or you can upload a low-resolution version and change the release to a fair-use image similar to how you did for the jerseys.
As for primary sources - there's nothing wrong with using primary sources for things like records, stats, and the like, but they do absolutely nothing for demonstrating notability. The tag is on the page because there should be more independent sources, not that the existing sources necessarily need to be removed. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok so if I get the owner to email the permissions email what should he say? I've been looking at bigger sports teams' pages like the Washington Nationals. They don't cite their scores and the citations for their stadium and coaches are just the MLB (their league) website. Why do they get to cite their league's website without getting the tags I did for doing the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylermachanic (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
​It looks like someone has modified the permissions so that it is acceptable for use on the article.
As for the Washington Nationals - sure, they use primary sources for stats, but they've also got 75 references, the majority of which are not directly connected to the team. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for uncontroversial information such as statistics, but an article should not be supported only by primary sources. As a minor note, just because there might be a page (or pages) that don't adhere to Wikipedia's standards doesn't mean that we should create more sub-par pages. Every page should be judged on its own merits. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Phil Hanes Wikipedia Entry

Primfac, 

           First let me thank you for being helpful.  My first interaction with an editor has not been the same and it's really turning me off to Wikipedia.  "Conflict of Interest" Yes, this is obviously the first page I have worked on.  I was asked to edit this page by my employer, the widow of Mr. R.P. Hanes.  I did not know and never met Mr. Hanes.  His widow assigned the basic construction to a young man (with better computer skills) who utilized reference material as well as the bibliography from Mr. Hanes's published book.  Once complete, I using materials the gentleman did not have, began to edit the entry.  At no time has Mrs. Hanes been involved or directed the page in any way with the exception of providing a personal photo of Mr. Hanes (which is also now being questioned for copyright)

    I was initially pleased with the page.  I had discovered during my research that Mr. Hanes had committed nearly his entire life to the Arts and Conservation issues.  This had resulted in a dearth of awards and honors over a long lifetime. I edited this down while still attempting to show the span of this man's work. Even after editing I admit, it was lengthy but then I considered that this was a bio on Wikipedia and was meant to reflect the truth of the life being recorded so I edited the list in.  It was immediately completely removed by a Wiki-editor (GMG Go Means Go) who stated that "this was not a resume service".  I find this off-putting when we are talking about an individual who has been dead for nearly eight years and is in no need of employment.  I sent a message to GMG explaining that, being a novice, I was having trouble entering the references needed for the Awards verification and could he assist.  His response was nothing but rude and arrogant.  He offered no assistance whatsoever but again insisted this was not a resume service.  Primfac, I realize that you are concerned regarding content but as these Awards & Honors are verified and a part of the whole truth of a bio, what is too much? Who makes that decision? I want nothing but for the page to be complete and correct in recording this biography.  However, my first interaction with an editor had soured me on the process and for the first time made me seriously look at the content of Wikipedia articles.  Can you help?  Thank you for your timeTwilder43 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Twilder

What's gonna break things?

Hey! Primefac, you recently did something on my talk page with summary 'that's gonna break things'. I am not sure about what you did there and thus, I want to know the same. And I wanted to ask this random question: Why aren't you or Kudpung in the ArbCom? *just asking* Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dial911, Arbcom menbers are seleted by election once a year. It is every editor's personal choice whether or not they wish be considered for election. The committee members have a heavy work load. Many admins prefer to continue with content work, and normal admin task which c an also be time consuming.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung, Okay. Dial911 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Dial911, I removed an   from the end of your minthreadsleft. I'm pretty sure the bot can parse/trim out normal whitespace, but I'm not so sure it can avoid text-based HTML whitespace. Thus, I removed it. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, I get it now. Thanks! You are generally not this late in replying, is all good? Dial911 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You sent me a message at 1am. I was sleeping. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, waow! Haha Dial911 (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Connected contributor (paid)

Template:Connected contributor (paid) has been nominated for merging with Template:Connected contributor. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Kindly delete this draft

Hi Primefac, trust you're great! Can you kindly help me delete this draft. I started the articles some days ago, but couldn't complete it in a go, so I said to draftify it till I have time to continue. Unfortunately/fotunately someone else created the article and I dont think my incomplete version is worth keeping anymore. Please is there also any mechanism put in place to prevent this from happening again. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted it for you. You can add {{db-u1}} to any pages in your userspace that you would like deleted. That will place them in a category to be deleted. ~ GB fan 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks GB fan! I've used that a couple of times too. My major concern was if there was a way to prevent these kind of thngs from happening (two editors working on the same article independently without knowning ). Regards, Mahveotm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahveotm (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Mahveotm, the short answer is "not really". The long answer is that unless you search the article space, draft space, and user space for the subject that you want to write about, there isn't much of a guarantee you'll happen to stumble upon it. Now, often you can check the article Foo and it will say "there's a draft at Draft:Foo" but those are the obvious cases and I think you're referring to slightly more obscure stuff. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

AfC over redirect

Hi, Primefac. I was going to accept Draft:Danielle Jonas but Danielle Jonas is a redirect. Can you wave your mop and either do it or delete the redirect so I can? Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

GRuban, done. As for a histmerge - the article and draft are substantially different, but Danielle Deleasa should be redirected to Danielle Jonas. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

request to merge TfD discussion

Can you merge discussions on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 9 since same reason, same voter and same nominator, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No. While they are all in the same family, they do have slightly different rationales for deletion, and the nominator did merge a few of them so I'm going to assume they know what they're doing. It's not ideal, and depending on what happens in the next six days I might merge them upon relist, but at the moment there's no harm in having them as-is. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Update: Nominator has merged those, but thanks a lot. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Metropolitan City of Turin

Hi, Primefac. I've just noticed that you protected a page some weeks ago that I'd like to edit: "Template:Metropolitan City of Turin". I just wanted to fix a link, that is the name of the Italian comune of "Cirié" which is currently spelled "Ciriè". English, Italian and all the other wikis have the correct name, and since this error is inside a template lots of pages are involved. Would you fix the link in my place, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.164.113 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.165.94 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian Zawadzki

Eish - sorry about that. Normally I'm better with checking for copyvio. Thanks for fixing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. For some reason I thought I had checked it over as well and didn't see anything. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Hi Primefac, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Account_creator#User:Danidamiobi. — xaosflux Talk 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

ECP protection

Not to criticize your ECP protection of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, which I think will be helpful in the long run; I am under the impression that pre-emptive protections are generally not exactly the best practice. I have just a couple minor concerns: 1) Perhaps I am just unaware, but was the AfC criteria of "must" ever discussed before? Because the wording, although long-standing, seems contradictory to the consensus in WP:PERM, in which criteria are meant to serve as guidelines and granting of permissions are meant to be discretionary. I assume this is because mandatory requirements in principle is probably against the open nature of Wikipedia, so if the AfC project continues to grow at the current pace, there should probably be more minimal non-existent oversight like PERM currently enjoys. 2) If the precedent of ECP protection is going to be set for a page like AFCP, shouldn't a discussion take place somewhere, since this is a page that may concern all administrators? If consensus emerges, perhaps we can go ahead and protect pages like WP:PERM/NPR as well, although I think it is highly unlikely. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To answer your concerns: first, we had two discussions (one of which being an RFC) that AFCP should be fully protected because we kept getting unqualified users adding themselves. Second, we are not a PERM, we are a WikiProject. Third, part of the RFC determined that we should not be a PERM (yet). Fourth, I am not setting any precedent, I am attempting to prevent people who do not meet our criteria from applying. I would not (and do not) expect any other project to be mirroring itself off us. Fifth, Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"; it does not say who can edit where or when, and if you're going to get after me for protecting a Wikipedia-space page because it's a "barrier for entry" then you might as well get rid of all page protection. Sixth (and to slightly beat the horse when it's down) we're a WikiProject so it does not "concern all administrators." Seventh, because AFCP is not a PERM, we do not have to extend the logic that "if we protect AFCP we must protect PERM".
Unfortunately I have run out of time to give a longer explanation (work work work) but I am also am finding myself preemptively redacting snarky comments which are inappropriate for civil discourse, so I hope that you can see where I'm coming from in what little I've written. Primefac (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The above being said, we've been miraculously free of garbage access requests recently, so I will mull over your concerns after I go do something more enjoyable. Primefac (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Primefac, would you mind taking a look at User:Ericisunknown21, and delete/revdel as you see fit? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done, ta. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
He's done it again (third time now). I have issued a stern warning and will push for a block if it happens again, but in the meantime could you revdel this revision please (which is a c&p of this). Thanks, Nzd (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. Definitely headed for an IDHT or CIR block. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:BS-daten

You closed a TFD for this template as a convert to subst only. I'm pretty sure there is a template that usually goes on the template's main page to indicate that result. Do you know what that is? --Izno (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you thinking of {{subst only}}? Primefac (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably, though I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a "this template needs to be converted". If you don't know of one... :^) --Izno (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it should be listed at WP:TFD#To merge? --Izno (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, right, it for whatever reason never got tagged with {{being deleted}}. And yes, since it hasn't been actually merged yet, I'd say it should be listed at the Holding Cell. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would you do the honors? --Izno (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello Primefac, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What do I do if an administrator tampers with my talkpage?

Hey! Primefac, DGG deleted the contents of my talkpage. I don't know why would he do that. Also, I can't undone his action. Though I am not very fond of the content my talk page has lost, yet I am concerned about this action of his. Would you know if this is permissible on Wikipedia? Can users deliberately alter the talk pages of another users? See this link and current version of my talk page. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC) https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dial911&oldid=830398442#Speedy_deletion_declined:_Jamie_langton

Never mind, DGG replied on my talk page. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Which criterion I do not meet?

Dear Primefac, you rejected my application for a reviewer status. Could you please kindly clarify which of these criteria I do not meet?

  • a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old.
  • a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles.
  • thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions.
  • a demonstrated understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability categories.
  • a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews.

Thank you, Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Point #2, 500 article edits, was the reason I quick-failed your application. However, I notice that you've done very little in the way of content creation, notability-related activities such as CSD or XFD, or talk page discussions. You also have only 160 edits since 2011, and our policies and guidelines have changed significantly since then. I'm not saying that this will result in a rejection should you eventually meet point #2, but from a quick look over your stats there isn't a lot of editing to support a request. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
With due respect it says "500 ... edits to articles", not "edtis to 500 articles". I have done more than 2875 edits in wiki projects. Would you kindly take it into consideration and change your decision to positive? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You're exactly correct, it's 500 article-space edits. However, you do not meet that criteria on the English Wikipedia. Every language wiki has it's own, slightly different, guidelines and policies regarding content creation, as well as what is and isn't acceptable. What may be perfectly fine on de-wiki might not be okay on fr-wiki, and something on fr-wiki might not be okay on en-wiki. The English Wikipedia has some of the strictest rules and guidelines, so we do not take global contributions into account when it comes to AFC. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I have added a few more edits and now meet the formal criterion of 500 edits in en:wiki. They are proper referenced contributions of different kinds, not just "adding a comma here and there". Would you have a look at them and re-consider your decision? Thank you, Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, thank you for approving the compliance with the requirements. Could you please accept my application now? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please be patient, I do not have much time today to review your application, and I can make no guarantees about when a full review will happen. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Sergei Gutnikov Effective work on AfC requires a good track record in reviewing other people's efforts and identifying inappropriate vs appropriate pages. I don't know your editing history but if you are just squeaking by the minimum requirements you may find the AfC job difficult. I've created a page of steps for editors interested in content curation here that may be helpful in building a track record that will make further permissions easier to get. User:Legacypac/Cleanup Guide is still under construction but hopefully helpful. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, if you don't know my editing history (and did not read the thread above that mentions 2500+ edits in different parts of Wikipedia as well as 500+ in English Wikipedia, why do you write in this talk? To promote your page? I appreciate this but it would be more appropriate to do in my talk page when I am accepted as a reviewer. Hopefully, Primefac will make his positive decision soon when s/he's got time. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
You know - I'm trying to help you - but you accuse me of some other agenda. I regularly respond to requests on a number of Admin talk pages (its called talk page stalking) as a way to reduce work for Admins. I did not dig into your contributions deeply but I can see you just passed 500 at En Wiki which is the bare minimum for AfC work. Have a happy day. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Rasun

Please advice on how to get Rasun back. I edited the page initially since the page should have been about Rasun (the band). Not Rasun Jahmal Dinoto (the person). But another user kept reverting my changes with the comment that it was not about Rasun Jahmal Dinoto (the person). So I created the page Rasun_Dinoto to reflect him as a person and copied the content of the (as from the other user believed) personal page over. And added my changes again. Which then again were reverted, and then shortly after the page was deleted. As well a the new page Rasun_Dinoto was deleted.

Not there is nothing about Rasun anymore. Please advice so I can propperly set up a page to reflect Rasun (the band). -- Badmonky (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Badmonky, I would encourage you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. Make sure your draft has plenty of reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, thank you. I will do that. -- Badmonky (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:REFB and Help:Your first article might be useful to read up on as well Badmonky (talk page stalker) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, Would you be able to undo the delete though? Since now i feel like i caused to get the original version deleted. The edit before today on the original page rasun was not from me. And that should be back online I guess. I will then go through the Wizard to create a new article, as you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmonky (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Badmonky, I can restore it to the draft space if you'd like. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, I created a new one in the draft space, and went in to IRC last night to get a little more feedback. I also did some research on the topic last night in order to find better sources, and get better at writing a proper article. Would certainly appreciate any help form you as well. I will incorporate the better sources tomorrow, and rewrite it accordingly. Badmonky (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Australian politics/name and Template:Australian politics/party colours

Hi - I wonder if these could be knocked back down to autoconfirmed/confirmed protection? They need updating pretty regularly and have no history of vandalism or misuse; they're also fairly easy to edit without breaking. Frickeg (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Guarding against vandalism

Hey Primefac. Certain parameters in infoboxes are high targets for vandalism, and I would like to reduce the number of times that occurs. For example, in Template:Infobox ice hockey player, the position parameters is vandalized often (see this diff). There is a small, finite number of possible, not-vandalism-related positions that exist. If we compile that list, probably by taking a bot and harvesting all combinations of that parameter (mostly to see if right wing/left wing, or other combinations exist), we could lock down the template to allow those positions only. Thoughts on work vs reward? Kees08 (Talk) 23:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm chatting about this with you on IRC, but for anyone else interested, it's probably not the best idea for this parameter on this template. The |parameter= parameter is used on over 15000 pages with 50+ unique values, so sussing out what those are will be problematic. If this were a brand-new template (or a parameter that didn't see much use or had a smaller value subset) I could see it being tweaked to have an {{rlp}}-style switch statement, but it's just not worth it. Interesting question, though. Hope I satisfied you. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

18:51:07, 19 March 2018 review of submission by 18.111.1.124


Hello, Thank you for your review. I am confused about the notability comment on the company. Company seems just as notable if not more than many other similar medical device companies that have comparable published articles on Wikipedia such as LivaNova, Globus Medical, Abiomed. Many of these are also only well known because of their products. I have added a few more references and details regarding the company, but please advise how to better improve this in the future. Thank you.

18.111.1.124 (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is very possible that those pages should not be on Wikipedia; sometimes poor pages manage to exist and when they are found they should be improved or deleted (i.e. not used as a reason to make more poor pages). In order to demonstrate notability there needs to be significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which your draft does not have. See WP:42. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

CS1 subst?

Would you happen to know if there's a script somewhere that can convert cite web templates to a hand-built reference style? Purpose is to cut down on template inclusion limit on a large list, where Cite Web is the biggest culprit. I can manage to perform a subst, but that's not very clean compared to old-school hand built refs. -- ferret (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not that I know of, since the whole point of the CS1 templates is to get a uniform reference display on an article. You could of course create a "knock-off" template that would hard-code the values in their positions (e.g. {{{last}}} {{{first}}}. ({{{year}}}) etc), which could then be subst and would format properly. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

shortcut

Do you think there can be some sort of shortcut, or workaround, to format the tables in Draft:Marguerite Chapman filmography? I think I should add asterisks, so that we can perform a find n replace later. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If they were all formatted the same (e.g. date / title / type) then I'd say use AWB and some creative regex to convert everything. Since that's not the case, you could pop the list into Excel and and rearrange the cell order after you imported it before using "concatenate" with || between the cells. But I don't know of an "easy" way to convert list entries into table entries without going through some sort of intermediate program. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
courtesy ping. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
yeah. The problem is, I dont have any experience with excep except reading. I think I will go with one thing at a time. see you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Retired

Could you please change its protection back to semi? Among other reasons, it's a purely userspace template... Modernponderer (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Modernponderer my brain hasn't quite switched on, but what are these "other reasons"? It's been edited all of three times since 2015, seems pretty stable. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  1. Per WP:TPROT: Template protection is only permitted to be used as a replacement for full protection. I am extremely skeptical the community would have accepted full protection for a template like this, in the absence of recurring vandalism.
  2. Transclusion count should not be the only criteria for protection. In this case, this template is part of a series (see Template:Wikibreak templates) that is not generally template-protected. Just because it has more transclusions does not in itself justify different protection levels.
  3. Whether useful edits have actually been made recently is of much lesser importance than whether such edits could be made in theory. Even one lost edit from an unnecessarily annoyed user is too many. My own edit made quite literally the day before your unjustified protection increase would not be possible now, and like many other users I am so frustrated with arbitrary Wikipedia policy interpretation and application that I may not have bothered to make an edit request. Modernponderer (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Um... okay. Chill out. I was going to do it anyway, but I was curious. No need to get upset. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant, but I've faced a virtually identical situation before and wanted to make sure my reasoning was very clearly stated this time. (Well, that and I was a bit annoyed that you added the heading wikilink after I specifically chose to avoid it.) Modernponderer (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I add wikilinks to headers (or text) so that I can easily get to the link. Apologies for the frustration. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-posting of flagged photo

Primefac,

I was told to get consent rights for the Hanes photo. I got this and the site submitted it's consent but I have yet to see the photo displayed. Is there a delay or additional process that need to do? Thank you for your assistance--Twilder43 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Twilder43, simply saying "the company said it's okay" is not acceptable for licensing purposes. Please have the copyright holder email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; acceptable licenses are discussed at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing>. Please have them include the URL of the original image so that it can be undeleted. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Primfac, The copyright holder DID email their permission to Wiki as well as emailed me back that they had completed the process. Still no photo. Confused--Twilder43 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Permissions requests take a little while to process (there's something like 600 pending requests for Commons alone), but I've found the related ticket and will contact a Commons admin about getting the image restored. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Twilder43, the image has been restored. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Primfac, Thank you so much for your assistance. This is still very foreign to me and I am trying to do my best. Again, thanks and regards.--Twilder43 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox request

I'm not sure how possible this is but can {{Infobox rugby league biography}} be amended such that as an alternative to parameters like goalsN and fieldgoalsN there can be a parameter that can be used as the sum of those two and displays across the two columns in the infobox?

The output would look something like this (first row is current output)

Years Team Pld T G FG P
year1start–year1end club1 appearances1 tries1 goals1 fieldgoals1 points1
year1start–year1end club1 appearances1 tries1 allgoals1 points1

The rationale is this - for a long period of the game's history all kicks were worth two points regardless of whether they were conversions (place kicked goal), penalties (place kicked goal) or fieldgoals/dropgoals therefore many of the records don't differentiate between the two parameters that we use. This leads to articles showing just a total in one column with then long winded explanations in the text or as footnotes. If the combined total can be centred then that need goes away more or less. I'm just glad there are so few goal from mark to be dealt with in biographies! Nthep (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the colspan could probably nested in there with an if statement. I've been meaning to clean up that template (if only to make it so it's a little more obvious what goes where) but I'll see what I can do in the meantime with this. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I just remembered this. Tagging so that I hopefully remember to look into it. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Nthep, it is done. See the new result at Test case 1. Open to wording change suggestions. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Mavrodi

http://dailypost.ng/2018/03/26/mmm-founder-sergey-mavrodi-dead/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Savin (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A.Savin, you should make an edit request on the talk page. Also, you should have used that as a reference when you posted the change the first time (especially since the page was semi-protected minutes beforehand to stop unsourced changes). Primefac (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you simply unprotect the page? --A.Savin (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
No, because it sounds like hearsay - "According to a report by Moskovsky Komsomolets", never mind the fact it's the Daily Post Nigeria. I think a talk page discussion would be best. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Wow. --A.Savin (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the third case I have been involve in like this where a questionable source has been presented regarding someone's death. In one case the subject was dead, but didn't actually die for another week after the first reports. In the other case, the subject was still very much alive. Thus, I tend to err on the side of caution. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Chipko Movement

Hello, I noted this on the relevant talk page but I wanted to notify you directly. Because the page is locked and I am not established, I cannot correct the phrase "as a last retort", which is not a good description of the movement's actions and is a highly awkward phrase in Modern English. If you agree, could you do something about it? I may be nitpicking but it was bothering me. Majordouglas (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits on Chipko movement

Hi there,

I have been trying to add this detail on the page Chipko movement - "as a last resort, to save the environment even at the cost of their own lives" - a few folks were hounding the edits, without any valid details or counter viz User:L293D and User:Gazal World with their disruptive edits.

I am adding a link which mentions that for record, 383 people from 84 villages sacrificed their lives in this event.

Source - http://www.india.com/buzz/what-is-chipko-movement-heres-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-historic-drive-to-save-environment-2963494/

A simple definition is actually required to let people know at a single glance, as to what happened.

Requesting you to please let me know how this is wrong?

Regards. User:PIC16F (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

PIC16F, regardless of whether you are "right" or "wrong", you made an edit and were reverted. Per WP:BRD, the onus now falls on you to take it to the talk page and discuss your changes and why you want to add them. If no one objects to your proposed additions (after leaving an appropriate amount of time for others to comment), then you can re-add the content. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Primefac Are you some joke or crackhead? Why did you remove them in first place, when you yourself did not know why you were doing this? I am going to report this imbecile account for disruptive edits! This is hooliganism.PIC16F (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
PIC16F, I removed nothing relating to your edits, I merely prevented what I felt was disruptive editing to the article. I removed a dangling half-sentence that didn't make sense, and was there before you started editing. You're welcome to report any of the involved editors to the appropriate noticeboard, but it is extremely likely that it will backfire spectacularly. Just go to the talk page and discuss the issue. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
PrimefacWait and watch. We'll see, what backfires and how spectacularly.PIC16F (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

AN

I don't think I've ever seen someone send an OTRS verification to justify an external links, but that's where I keep ending up in my head at least. Not that that's necessarily a helpful comment on the discussion as a whole. GMGtalk 15:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That might be a decent idea, though we'll likely not get any more than what's already on the thread itself currently. If someone really doesn't believe the chain of events we could always take the OTRS route. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I mean, I typed out a long response much along the lines of what you put there regarding the chain of intellectual property rights, but... although a separate copyright is clearly created in the making of the transcript, it can't... 'possibly not be a derivative work of the recording. I think you're a little off though, in that the copyright for the recording apparently goes normally to whoever owns the equipment used, and not the "person doing the recording" as such. GMGtalk 15:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
True, though I suppose depending on how you interpret my statement it means that if I were working with the orchestra (and thereby using their equipment) it would be theirs, but I don't think that the equipment owner is the copyright owner - if I borrow your camera and take a picture, it's not your copyright. Similarly, in one instance I actually borrowed some equipment from the radio station I volunteered at, and that would be a strange chain of copyright if they ended up owning the content... I'm pretty sure (though it's been a few years since I looked it up) but basically whoever does the work owns the copyright, but if they're acting on behalf of someone then the entity owns it. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Erg. I did not intend to get an associate's degree in intellectual property rights this morning, but at this point I just want it to make sense in my own head. Having read for way to long on this by now, it looks like the ownership usually, barring any legal agreements to the contrary, breaks down like this:
  1. The underlying "work" - Usually owned by the creator
  2. The performance - Usually owned by the performer
  3. The recording - Usually owned by the studio, as the UofM puts it, 'maker' usually refers to the person who owns the equipment the recording was made on, such as the production company, studio, or record label.
  4. The broadcast - Usually owned by the radio station
  5. The transcript - Covered under literary copyright, usually owned by the transcribe-er
What's not clear is whether the transcript would be a derivative work of the "underlying work" or derivative of the recording, or both (or whether they're both derivative of the original). And it's not clear what would determine that, and if it would matter if it...was faithful to the recording in a way that would be distinct from being faithful to the underlying work. GMGtalk 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Request: protection

I request you to semi protect this page: October (2018 film). Harsh Rathod 10:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It's above my pay-grade but I'm not seeing any evidence of clear-cut vandalism, at all.And, the last IP edits have been immensely helpful.Frankly, I don't get the rationale behind your request and will oppose any protection.~ Winged BladesGodric 10:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
One IP removed so much content without explaining anything. Harsh Rathod 11:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
And, so have I.We are not meant to be a house of trivia on film-stuff.If you wish to contend the edits by the IP/me, please start an article-t/p discussion.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 11:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let's do this! Harsh Rathod 11:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Make other drama wiki page

Mind making 118 Reunion, Mind Matters and Doppelganger Wikipedia page cause other dramas has it but I can't seem to make as I got blocked and need to add sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.65.33.39 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have a rule about not helping blocked users with anything other than giving advice on getting unblocked. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

AfC

To save me searching everywhere, do you happen to know what the average ratio of Accept:Decline is, pre ACTRIAL and during the trial? Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

​I have fairly good records for between Nov '16-Aug '17 and Oct '17-Feb '18 (pre and during ACTRIAL) and in both instances acceptances were about 10-15% of all reviews. It's kinda nice to know we're consistent, even when the total number of drafts increased during the trial. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's something I had no idea about. It's certainly interesting to note that 85 - 90% get declined which is not far off the same as NPP in pre-ACTRIAL times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Better Call Saul (season 2)

Hey there! Thanks for helping me out with the draft, Onel is not responding to the re-review request, also there wasn't any copyvio as pointed out by Drovethrughosts, so who else will review it if the original reviewer won't? The Optimistic One (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Optimistic One, Onel might not have responded but they nominated the redirect (which is holding up the acceptance) for speedy deletion, so I assume that as soon as that's taken care of they'll review the page. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 26, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ta. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

U1 refund of other user

Hi.
I was wondering if one can get copy of a deleted draft that was in userspace of another editor. I wanted to have copy of this page, but I am not sure if it is possible. I also thought I coummunicated about this page with Location in the past; but i couldnt find anything in my talkpage, his talkpage, or on the talkpage of the deleted page (it is still there). The closest I could find, is the discussion here.

Anyways, I was wondering if getting a copy would be possible. Also, I would have asked Location about it directly, but he hasnt edited since like 5 months now. So, is it possible? —usernamekiran(talk) 04:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

​Not sure, but you're always welcome to request it at WP:REFUND. I don't see anything specifically saying that someone else can't request a refund, but I'll leave it up to those folks (since they do it often). Primefac (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

Quite stupid of me, to be honest. I should've known better. I think I thought (does that sound right?) that it was some form of interpretation or explanation of the Declaration. I blame lack of tea. :-P Jiten talk contribs 19:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

S'all good. I would much rather decline a revdel request than have someone not request a valid one! Primefac (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Participation request in Articles for creation

Hello, @Primefac:, can you see this right here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants can you review my request to be a participant please? newroderick895 (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll get to it when I get to it. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
what does that mean newroderick895 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It means I'm rather busy today and probably won't get to it. It also means you should be patient. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
This is my last message with you and i dont want to make you angry, What are you busy with? Newroderick895 17:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Newroderick895: Does it really matter? Presumably it is something offwiki (though I do not know). If they are busy, they are busy. Please be patient and they (or another administrator) will get to your request shortly. (talk page stalker)--TheSandDoctor Talk 18:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not beating a dead horse, Just left it so he can read it. You should soft down a bit, so stop treating as if i said a vulgar language to you, What have i done to you then? Newroderick895 18:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
You did not do anything to me nor did I intend it to come across as such. I was merely intending to state that it might be personal business (and therefore not really our collective businesses) unless Primefac states/stated otherwise. I have reworded slightly to make that clearer. My apologies Newroderick895 (talk page stalker) --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox dam overprotection?

Hey,

I noticed that you recently set Template:Infobox dam to indefinite template-protected status due to it being a "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions". However, you set Template:Infobox power station to the same level of protection with the exact same reason on the same day (the edits were even both submitted at the exact same minute), then later reverted it to indefinite extended-protected status "by request". I'm wondering why you think that Template:Infobox dam warrants template-protected status rather than extended-protected status, and I would like to request that it be changed to extended-protected status like you did with Template:Infobox power station, as I can see no reason for it to be template-protected given that it only had ~3500 transclusions as of October 2017 (compared to Template:Infobox power station's ~2500 transclusions), that there had been no notable history of vandalism or other issues that would have warranted such a high protection level, and that Template:High-risk suggests that high-risk templates should have at least 100,000 transclusions (and says that templates with only 2000–100,000 transclusions should fall into the Template:High-use category instead). Would you be willing to fix this, or if not, explain why you believe that Template:Infobox dam warrants template-protected status rather than extended-protected status?

Thanks! Garzfoth (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Garzfoth (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Election box templates

Hi there, could you weigh in on a discussion between myself and Neveselbert over some changes to templates? I understand you have only just granted the user template editor rights. Thanks Kiwichris (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be great if my edits could at least be reviewed rather than reverted. Here's one diff.--Neve~selbert 13:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Replied at Neve's talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

PERM

Hi Primefac, would you check on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover when you get a chance? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 19:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Module:Age protection

The following modules are used in several templates (see list at Module:Age) and they now have 545,000 transclusions. That is increasing because I have been changing more templates to use the modules:

Date requires template editor to edit or move, but Age requires autoconfirmed to edit and anyone can move. Please review. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. Would you please apply a suitable level of protection to Module:Age which has over half a million transclusions. I'm asking here because a few weeks ago I saw you protect many templates. As I recall the template editor right was required to edit or move some templates with a few thousand transclusions. Or, do you know where I should ask (WP:RFPP doesn't seem quite right). Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
RFPP takes requests for modules... --Izno (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess it's ok that anyone can move the module? Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
That was weird. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for granting permissions and the reminder. I will remember. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 19:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Janet Boyman

Why did you make the changes that you did to the Janet Boyman article? Eric Corbett 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Because {{reflist}} doesn't need to have a |30em| parameter, especially if there are only 5 references. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't asking you about {{reflist}}, I was asking why you opted to wreck the layout of the entire References section. But in any case, it is not for an editor without prior involvement with the article to arbitrarily decide whether or not it is better to include the |30em parameter to {{reflist}}. Eric Corbett 15:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Does it particularly matter? I made a bold edit based on past experiences and personal preference, and I was reverted. That's how the system works. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC) And for what it's worth, nothing I did "wrecked" or even came close to breaking the page, so the hyperbole is a little much. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that it doesn't really matter that you're going around wrecking the layout of articles? That's a strange attitude coming from an adminstrator. And I really don't understand why you feel compelled to lie about what you did. Eric Corbett 16:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
If you re-read my statement you'll see that my first question was slightly rhetorical, as I proceeded to answer it. Also, I'm still amazed that you're saying I wrecked the page, when nothing I did actually broke anything. So yes, please lay off the hyperbolic nonsense; I have no further interest in the page (especially if this is the response I would get to a simple edit). Primefac (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Lie? what lie? Primefac (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The lie that all you did was to remove the |30em parameter to {{reflist}}. This diff shows what you actually did. Eric Corbett 16:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for ignoring your non-question, but I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for. I made a bold edit, you reverted, and there's nothing to discuss because I have no further interest in the page (especially with the vitriol that will undoubtedly face me if I attempt to do so). Primefac (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Module:Navbar

please revert your last edit because it bugged everything wumbolo ^^^ 12:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Link: Module:Navbar

At the very LEAST change (line 66): 

div = mw.html.create():tag('div')

to 

local div = mw.html.create():tag('div')

this will fix the problem. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Module:Navbar error message

Hi Primefac! I am seeing an error at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates stating "Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 66: Tried to write global div." Since you were the last to edit Module:Navbar, I am not certain whether this message is related to your edit, or if it is something on my side and I just need to purge the page or something similar... Can you please take a look? Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 13:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

if you can edit please change (line 66): 

div = mw.html.create():tag('div')

to 

local div = mw.html.create():tag('div')

this will fix the problem. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@FlyingAce: pinging. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@FlyingAce: the problem was fixed. wumbolo ^^^ 13:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a problem with navbar templates

I saw the message "Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 66: Tried to write global div. Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 66: Tried to write global div." appear on varius pages. Since I lck any clue where the problem is, I think it's best toreport it here. Examples: WP:CIVIL and Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (navbars "Indian Christianity" and "Nasrani people" removed by yours truly in leu of a solution). Since you appear to be the last one editing it, I report it here. Please help. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

if you can edit please change (line 66): 

div = mw.html.create():tag('div')

to 

local div = mw.html.create():tag('div')

@Kleuske: pinging. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like everything's been fixed. Thanks to Trappist the monk for catching/fixing it. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: AWB access for E to the Pi Times I

You may want to see this post on ANI about E to the Pi times I. That and possibly rethink his AWB access.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, why? Have they abused AWB? Primefac (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you look at the post on ANI ? They were blocked then unblocked for disruptive editing, mainly edit warring on certain policy pages, I don't believe AWB was used to do that with, however, granting them a toolset to allow semi automated editing with that against them at this point doesn't look like a great idea.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  18:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well, call me if they start abusing it. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

More bad protections

You template-protected Template:Lua, but it does nothing but call Module:Lua banner, which is semi-protected. For obvious reasons, the protection level of these two pages should be the same. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I've added some code to Module:Lua banner/sandbox that detects such cases and files them into a tracking category (on the template), which maybe should be synced to the main module. How meta this is ... {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done (to both). Good thinking. I'll look into those modules. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I recently talked with Bbb23, who told me to contact you about this. The user Cæsey posted a message trying to appeal their block on the Simple English Wikipedia's AN (where I saw it), as well as on the change username page on metawiki. I found it a bit odd, as the SPI had been closed as unrelated, and they were still blocked. Thanks, Vermont | reply here 00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"Template:Yes" tfd closure may be creating issues with tables

Specifically, edit Special:Diff/836168059 is causing the table at Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers to be distorted because there is now a newline after <noinclude>. I think so at least. If not, this is probably an issue to talk about at WP:VP/T. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Nina Teicholz

This person passes WP:GNG. But it is create protected. Dial911 (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done,​ protection lowered. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I see

thou wast kind.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"I ain't sayin' there's any peace to be had, but on the off chance there is, they deserve a little of it". Primefac (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

+::Amen, brother.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

I appreciate the unblock and your willingness to review and be objective.Ryantheviking (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. I know sometimes we come down a bit hard on new folks, so I try to keep that in mind when evaluating a situation. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello all you happy people

I've been staring at this draft content for so long my eyes have started blurring together. If anyone happens to notice any major (i.e. neutral, "this is important content") differences between it and the article I plan to replace, please let me know below. I know I'm going a little heavy on the NPOV trimming, and at this point I'm not sure what's important and what's just aggrandizement from editors who might not be as neutral as one may think. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC) And for what it's worth, anyone who helps out will get a mention when I copy it over to the main article, because I plan on just deleting the draft when I'm done since it's basically just a sandboxed version.

On 11 October Pakistani troops encountered carrying the family in the Kurram Valley, shooting out the tires and rescuing them. You forgot a word here. Kees08 (Talk) 04:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh, whoops. I had rewritten that a couple of times. Good catch. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Does seem controversial/unclear, but why they were going to afghanistan does seem important - or at-least something I was wondering while reading the draft. Another thing would be where they were held - seems like somewhere they were moved from afghanistan to pakistan sometime, but the draft doesn't talk about it at all. Seems like there are contradictory reports etc, but something that seems like it should be discussed somewhat. The draft has "near the Pakistani border" in the rescue section; means inside pakistan but could as easily mean "in afghanistan near the pakistani border"..probably put that location of Kurram valley there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Cool, thanks. I'll put that info in there. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Outstanding

This is truly unbelievable. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what I get for hanging around clerks too much. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

knock knock,it’s probably a sock

Does this not seem an awful lot like someone you recently blocked? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Make ten edits and then start editing semiprotted LTA pages... hmm.... never seen that one before. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, about sourcing

Greetings. I'm an AfC reviewer. Recently, an editor asked me why some articles in mainspace have no sources at all. I am not quite certain on how to reply this question. Perhaps you can show me some guidance. Thank you in advance. Cheers. EROS message 02:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Heliosxeros: WP:OTHERSTUFF is an excellent response. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Generally, I also go to the extent of asking them for those unsourced articles, which in many cases (esp. in field of CORP/vanity-BLP(s)) can be safely dispatched to AfD.That's a win-win situation. ~ Winged BladesGodric 03:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
As above, pretty much. I sometimes expand on the OTHERSTUFF argument by saying "just because one poor article exists doesn't mean we should create a new one; poor articles should either be fixed or deleted". If I'm feeling snarky I'll mention the fact that we only have a few thousand active editors at any given time and 5+ million articles (so they can do the math). Primefac (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for your enlightenment. It was of grave help to me, thanks. EROS message 11:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Always happy to be a fountain of others' information! Primefac (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_17&oldid=1045688694"