User talk:Primefac/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Invalid nonconsensus deletion of map templates in use

Please undelete those 2 map templates, and restore all usage revisions. There was absolutely NO consensus to DELETE those maps in use for 2 decades, and recently fixed to pinpoint accuracy and interoperable to high resolution on multiple devices, including newer mobile phones. See:

• Template:Location map DenmarkCIAx
• Template:Location map SwedenCIAx

Next step wp:DRV. Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! -Wikid77 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. For what it's worth, you were the only voice of dissent calling for the page to be kept, so I would argue there was consensus. I've userfied the template. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

and now recreated as Module:Location map/data/DenmarkCIAextended. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That strikes me as WP:POINT if not disruptive. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's happened before, so it's not totally unexplected. Module deleted under G4. Thanks for the notice. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC Helper

Could you have a look at my request? It's been up for a while. Septrillion (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Been busy. The others were quick-fails/accepts. Will try to get to it later today. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems to a lot be slower than other requests for permissions. Septrillion (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a PERM, and it's been up less than 48 hours. Truth be told I'm delaying responding because I keep mulling over whether you actually meet the criteria: you have zero AFD participation and 93% of your edits are automated. Add to that a lack of patience and I'm not overly convinced you'd make a good reviewer. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed my request. I will re-request in a few weeks after I have gained AfD experience. Septrillion (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Septrillion, it's not specifically that you don't have AFD experience, but that we use AFD experience as just one metric to gauge how well you know the inclusion guidelines of Wikipedia. You can be a great editor and really good at using tools, but unfortunately "just editing" isn't enough to demonstrate that you know when something fails WP:GNG or is blatant SPAM. I see that you've removed your request, and that's fine, but that was part of the reason why I hadn't evaluated your request yet - because you didn't have AFD/CSD/PROD experience, I then have to look through your talk page, your contribs, etc, to make sure that if you join the project you'll be making good decisions. The absolute last thing I'd want to do is make a hasty decision and either miss a potentially good reviewer or have to remove a bad reviewer the next week.

I don't necessarily think that you need to go out of your way to vote on AFDs or find new pages to CSD, but at the very least make sure you've read through all of the workflow, review guidelines, etc and maybe pop through some of the declined drafts to see why/how other reviewers are doing it. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As a minor note, it might be worth going to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and getting TW to create a log of your CSD nominations. Makes checking that sort of thing later on easier. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Septrillion (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox school unsupported parameters

Hi Primefac, awesome job with the bot. Has the bot finished removing the unsupported parameters from {{Infobox school}} or are there still more articles that it needs to go through? 3,000+ less now in Category:Pages using infobox school with unsupported parameters which is really good. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The task is complete, yes. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's perfect. I've gone through the template parameters list again after it had updated for this month, and I was wondering if you would be willing to do another bot with the same task? I wish I included these on the first one, that way it could have been done in one go. I have a list of unsupported parameters to be removed (used on 10, 20, 30 and so on pages, some over 100, 200 - there will still be a ton of unsupported parameters left, but these are only used on less than 10 pages which can be done manually), parameters to convert to lowercase and parameters to be changed to the correctly formatted supported parameters. This is almost a thorough clean-up and will bring consistency across all pages using Infobox school.

List of params

To remove: |box_width=, |bgcolor_section=, |bgcolor_label=, |bgcolor_value=, |bgcolor_image=, |bgcolor_address=, |bgcolor_url=, |bgcolor_motto=, |background=, |border=, |custodian=, |vision=, |Athletic Director=, |athletic director=, |telephone=, |tel=, |phone number=, |vice_principal=, |vice principals=, |viceprincipals=, |vice-principal=, |viceprincipal_label1=, |viceprincipal_label2=, |assistantprincipals=, |asst principals=, |asst_principal=, |assistant_principals_label=, |assistantprincipal_label=, |deputy principal=, |mission=, |mission statement=, |type_label=, |magazine=, |classification=, |dean of students=, |calendar=, |iso_region=, |owner=, |facebook=, |native_name_lang=, |curriculum= To convert to lowercase: |Name=, |Superintendent=, |Principal= To change: |homepage= and |url= to |website= |streetaddress= and |street address= to |address= |imagesize= and |image size= to |image_size= |image_name= to |image= |image caption= to |caption= |mascot image= to |mascot_image= |avg_class_size= to |average_class_size= |medium of language=, |medium=, |mediums= and |Medium= to |medium_of_language= |schoolnumber= and |number= to |school_number= |schoolcolors= and |school colors= to |school_colors= |head of school= and |Head of School= to |head_of_school= |bar pass rate= to |bar_pass_rate= |school code= to |school_code= |roll= to |school_roll= |campustype= and |campus type= to |campus_type= |campus size= to |campus_size= |deans= to |dean= |teamname= to |team_name= |fightsong= and |fight song= to |fight_song= |testname= to |test_name= |testaverage= to |test_average= |num_employ= to |employees= |nicknames= to |nickname= |former name= to |former_name= |age range= to |age_range= |schedtyp= to |schedule_type= |athletics conference=, |athletic_conference= and |conference= to |athletics_conference= |schooldistrict=, |school district= and |schoolmdistrict= to |district= |school type= and |school_type= to |schooltype= |teachers= to |teaching_staff= |mottoeng= to |motto_translation= (unknown parameter being used for English translations of the motto) |principals= to |principal= |school song= to |song= |annual tuition= to |annual_tuition= |publications= to |publication= |patron saint= to |patron= |languages= to |language= |color= to |colors= |grade= to |grades= |map_type= to |pushpin_map= - you can try this change manually on Emamreza School for example to see this change works |map_caption= to |pushpin_map_caption= - you can try this change manually on Emamreza School for example to see this change works |feeders= and |main feeder schools= to |feeder_schools= - noticed you had done something similar to this with the previous bot, but there is a slight mistake in Category:Pages_using_infobox_school_with_deprecated_parameters as it says both feeders and main feeder schools use feeders, but should be feeder_schools. If you could change this again that would be really good

It would be amazing if you could do this, I greatly appreciate your help. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I can see the bot is working really well, I've noticed that it's not removing the |border= parameter. Please can you check this, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I was having some issues with nested templates (specifically {{color box}}), and I wrote a fix for it but there might be some that don't get removed because of it. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks for letting me know. Come across another three more; |bgcolor_label=, |bgcolor_address= and |bgcolor_url=. See here for example. Please could you check these, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting limitation of the software combined with the way I had coded the regex; basically it wouldn't recognize two successive parameters. I've fixed that issue. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for fixing it :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, awesome work with the bot. Is the bot finished or is there still more that it needs to go through? It should be going through the majority of the transclusions especially because of the parameters that need to be changed. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it dropped the cat down to 2k pages, so that's something. I was looking at the error report and I honestly think that the remaining ones will all be one-off strange ones - I count over 1500 "wrong" parameters that are only used once, 200+ that are only used twice, and almost 2k parameters that are used 10 times or less (each). The ones with 100+ uses (bgcolors, custodian, etc) have all been removed via the bot run. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure is, really good, thank you :) - The error report will look better when its updated next month. I've also been removing some of the "wrong" parameters that are used once and twice. I'll continue doing these, will take me a while but I'll get through it eventually. The under-10's I'll do last and you've also removed some/all of the parameters which are used on 10+ pages along with the 100+ uses, looking really good. What about the change to parameters? There will be more articles outside of the category Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a little easier - once it looks like we've gotten rid of all the incorrect params, we just remove the ability for the "duplicate" params to be used. At this precise moment there shouldn't be any, but it will keep people from re-adding them in the future. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That will be really good and what about the change to parameters, will you be running the bot again to scan the other pages using Infobox school? Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

We'll see what happens once we get the cats closer to being empty. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Incomplete

Lojbanist has asked for a deletion review of Template:Incomplete. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Serious vandalism

See [this]. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 02:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Lightning fast...

Closed precisely a minute after LegoBot removing the template?! Wow!~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, when the outcome is a foregone conclusion, you can write the close a few days ahead of time ;) Seemed like everyone wanted it done quickly, so I figured I'd oblige. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha! That's a fact:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So what do we do now the RfC is closed? Are the WMF standing by to turn the flag back on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's the plan. I know Kudpung and Tony have been in email contact with the folks involved, and there's a phab task to flip the switch. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Gratuitous computering

I...don't really understand how edit notices work. But this right here seems off. If this was how it worked, I expect I would have seen this much more often at NPP...but I believe this is the first one I've seen. Am I just backward? GMG^talk 16:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that doesn't do anything. this is the correct place (however, creating that page does work to create edit notices for user and user talk pages, which is perhaps why that page was created) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Gotta be a template editor to move it. You've got mover and template editor. Mind cleaning it up? GMG^talk 16:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

AWB and all...

Just to be certain-enough, I guess that there's no restriction in making the type of edits executed by my alt account over the course of today?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass Message might have been easier, but there's nothing inherently wrong with notifying users of an issue (and while I cringe somewhat at the comma usage, I know it's not everyone's strong suit). Primefac (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the page "Liberal adult education in Finland"

Hey,

I want to redo the page that you deleted, how do I go about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adulteducator2 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the page has been recreated. If you have further questions please let me know. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

IPL match scorecards

Hi. You've protected the IPL match scorecards due to edit warring but after the completion of the match the scorecard needs to be completed which I currently cannot. I'm the administrator of the project so I request you to grant me access to the page so that I can fill up the scorecard. Regards. Cricket246 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Cricket246, the templates were protected for a week due to edit warring. You are welcome to place a {{TPER}} on the talk page in order to get them updated. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you help me out with the process please?? Cricket246 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Cricket246 The scorecards should already be updated; I updated Template:2018_IPL_match_22 on an edit request by Abishe and I don't see any other out of date scorecards. If there are any other you can ask me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help, it's all sorted now... Other templates are not protected so no problems in editing those... Regards!! Cricket246 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

your question

Thanks for your question. Unfortunately, the terms of an IBAN I'm currently under preclude me from replying to it on the AfC page and, I think, at all. DocumentError (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am aware your restriction is simply DocumentError is indefinitely banned from interacting with Legacypac. As I specifically asked Legacy not to respond to the query, I don't see how you would be "interacting" with them. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A corollary was added in which I am under command to avoid any area in which I know the subject of my IBAN might be interested. It was also explained to me that should a subject of my IBAN be pinged into a discussion by any other editor they would inherently have interest in it. At this point it would be best if I withdraw my application as I risk an indef if I continue. Thank you for your consideration, however. DocumentError (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can't receive emails, can you summarize?

I don't use that email currently, can you summarize what your message about AFC was? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas, just wanted to check in with you on some AFC stuff, I've received inquiries regarding some of your recent draft acceptances; things like Naiboi (which was both copyvio and incredibly promotional), and drafts that are sourced almost entirely to wikis (or other non-RS). You're one of the "old guard" when it comes to AFC reviewing, so I was a bit surprised when I saw some of the pages you accepted. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kastus Technologies

Hi, I am just wondering why you have nominated this page for speedy deletion. I am aware that the page was deleted and reposted, however it had been rewrttien to remove the material that previously made it unsuitable for Wikipedia. It was then refused for creation a second time as the sources were inadequate, however this had also been dealt with and so the page was created again. What more needs to be done to make this page suitable. Thanks for any help. Caileam Raleigh (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Caileam Raleigh (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Caileam Raleigh, the page that was nominated for speedy deletion was almost identical to the deleted version. When that happens, pages are deleted. If you wish to continue working on the content, I am willing to draftify the page to allow you to continue working on it. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, if you could draftify the page to allow me to continue working on it then that would be much appreciated. Any help you could give me in making the page more suitable for inclusion would also be very appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caileam Raleigh (talk • contribs) 07:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Page has been moved to Draft:Kastus Technologies. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

Oh I am fine with you deleting some stuff that could be personal I get that sorry I am just a little new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, let me know if you have any further questions. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban request

Hi. Thanks for closing the discussion at ANI. However, I need an interaction ban with the other editor. Even after the discussion on the talk page started, they insist to keep "Edit warring by Ktrimi" as the section's name. Although the name of the section is not important, the message it sends is. The best for everyone is an interaction ban, can I request one, and if yes, how and where? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been answered here. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I had asked Doug Weller before you closed the discussion. When you closed the discussion they had not responded yet, and since you closed the discussion, I thought that it was right to consult with you as well. Thanks Primefac. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Try discussing things first. The issue is that the two of you seem to be editing a lot in the same areas, so trying to work it out is overall better for the project because it means that you will both be able to edit without having to worry about accidentally breaking a tban/iban. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that dialogue is the way that satisfies the needs of Wikipedia. However, after more than one year of such issues, I think that enough is enough. During this time I was the first to revert only two or three times, hence I believe I can avoid breaking the iban. I would prefer to not edit Kosovo articles at all rather than interact with the editor. Furthermore, they insist that "Ktrimi is insisting on interacting ban so he can revert and remove sourced content he does not like uninterrupted." It is a matter of time before the usual circus begins again, so an iban would be the only way to avoid future problems. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose. It's entirely up to you which route you prefer to go. I will note that both of you have been notified of the discretionary sanctions surrounding these types of articles, so it is very possible that if you abide by the rules and they don't they'll get blocked for violating those sanctions. 18:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility is that both me and the other editor get tban, with no right to edit Kosovo articles. Conflicts between two editors never look good. Everything is possible, though I would prefer to not edit Kosovo articles rather than interact with them. Editing Balkan articles is very hard, people are emotional, many conflicts are ongoing. Hence I will try to choose the best route, for Wikipedia and myself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Area code 664 (disambiguation)

Area code 664 (disambiguation) doesn't fit the criteria at WP:G6, namely: Deleting a disambiguation page which either: disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. It disambiguates between two extant Wikipedia pages, Area code 664 and Area code 664 (Mexico). For a bit of background, WP:TWODABS have always been controversial deletions, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages for a lengthy discussion a couple years back. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, Tavix, Twinkle needs to be updated, because its language says two or fewer existing Wikipedia pages. I knew it was a debated subject, but I went with the language I was presented with. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The language at WP:G6 is the actual language, not Twinkle. Either way, WP:TWODABS are controversial so they should not be deleted under a criterion meant for "uncontroversial maintenance". -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My point still stands, I was going off what TW told me. Either way, it'll be deleted in a week as an uncontroversial prod... I guess? Primefac (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if no one objects to the proposed deletion. Thanks for your understanding. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

mail

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

same song as before. 2nd verse.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's my favourite dance. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi Primefac, it's me again, hope things are well. Please could you add protection to this school for vandalism for a set amount of time. I removed vandalism as well as unsupported parameters yesterday, but more being added again today which has been reverted by a bot and a user. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Steven (Editor), it may be resolved more promptly if you request it at WP:RFP, as I'm not sure if Primefac is online now. Vermont (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Steven (Editor), I protected it.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Diff

Hi, not sure if this diff should be kept, deleted or scrubbed from the history. -- GreenC 13:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Door #3, Monty. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Smash Wrestling

I have started an article on Smash Wrestling which you can see in my sandbox. I was informed that an article on Smash Wrestling was deleted because it was made by a sock user. I am wondering if I could get a copy of what was in there or if you could merge it with what I have in my sandbox. I see you are the deleting admin. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy to send it via email. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

On-wiki harassment

Would you please advise how I should react to on-wiki harassment against me? Is completely ignoring it the only recommended way?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't know; I've been trying to figure out how to get people to not be jerks online pretty much since the internet kicked off. It doesn't appear that in this case the issues can be "talked out", so my "first step" would indeed be to ignore them entirely. I know it sucks, but if you don't respond and don't make any references or inferences to them, when/if it continues you can show that they are the ones with the issue and sanctions can be potentially be levied. I think the largest issue right now (at least going on the section I hatted at AN) is that it's not entirely clear who is the "instigator" - your initial comments read like a criticism of the other user, which somewhat justifies their responses. If there's a clear "A consistently attacks B" demonstration, that makes any ANI case stronger. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. I actually already tried to ignore them completely, and they have been dragged to ANI twice recently for harassment against me and were told to stop, but did not stop, and, as you see, can show up anytime responding nonsense to my comments which are not even about them. But, well, I will try to follow ignoring them again for a while.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: (talk page watcher) Don't know if this applies, but sometimes the way to extinguish undesirable behavior is to not respond to it at all so as to not reward it. This becomes difficult if the desire for recognition causes the person to escalate in hopes of eliciting a response. But then one looks as innocent as a flower while selling rope, if you don't mind a hashed metaphor.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried that, and it failed, but may be indeed I should try again.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for reviving a deleted article

Hey! I created an article three months ago which was deleted. Now I want to work on this as reliable sources cover her. Northamerica1000 is on semi-wikibreak so I thought of contacting you. Dial911 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. See Draft:Yashodhara Lal. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please semi-protect the two templates I created yesterday?

{{To USD/data/2017}}

{{International dollars/data/2016}}

HOTmag (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Declined – This template is not used widely enough to be considered a high-risk template. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a list of all templates/articles that use a given template? HOTmag (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Use Special:WhatLinksHere. If you're on the template itself, there's a link to the tool on the sidebar. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me the tool.

Is there a minimum quantity of transclusions for a given template, that justify its semi-protection?

So indeed, the tool you've showed me finds 18 transclusions for the last template {{International dollars/data/2016}} I've asked you to semi-protect.

However, as far as the first template {{To USD/data/2017}} (I've asked you to semi-protect) is concerned, the tool finds 170 transclusions for that template. Please notice that you have already semi-protected an analogous template, being {{To USD/data/2016}}, for which the tool finds less (=85) transclusions.

HOTmag (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The semiprot was done to that template because (before you changed the master template) it was catching all of the "default" calls where a date wasn't selected, which gave it something in the order of 300 transclusions. We had an issue with vandals hitting these types of pages, which would then show inappropriate content on hundreds of articles, before it was stopped, so they were semi-protected. Now that you've made this change technically neither template needs to be protected, but removing protection from the other template isn't really necessary. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issue... [Unfounded copyright issue with regard to Battle of Poison Spring page, please restore text]

I readily admit that I am a bit bewildered as to how OSU (or anyone else for that matter) could have merely scanned a U.S. government publication and then "copyrighted it" when federal laws and regulations read to the contrary. Copyright laws clearly state that any work created by a federal government employee or officer is in the public domain, provided that the work was created in that person’s official capacity.

In fact, every volume of The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies that OSU's Department of History has scanned onto their site clearly states in the "[Preface]" that ... "By an act approved June 23,1874, Congress made an appropriation "to enable the Secretary of War to begin the publication of the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, both of the Union and Confederate Armies ... " And because it is a publication in the public domain, numerous academics and nonprofits have repeatedly scanned these ORs and posted them to their respective websites.

Here are but two such examples:

• The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies at Cornell University
• The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies at Internet Archive

Please restore the Battle of Poison Spring text.

Lieutcoluseng (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lieutcoluseng, you are correct, the text of the volumes are public domain. However, as near as I can tell the introduction to Volume 34, which was copied directly to Wikipedia, is not part of that text and therefore not under the same public release. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

RfA talk

Re:This edit, content was inappropriately removed just before the close and was being restored just as the RfA was being closed. It belongs in the RfA. Now you've removed it with another needless revert, without checking the history or facts, causing the page to be locked until May 9th. When the lock expires, please self-revert, and restore the content where it belongs. Thank you.- ^theWOLFchild 18:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Failed login attempt

There was a notification saying that my account had a failed login attempt. This is the first time I am experiencing such a thing. Should I be worried about? EROS ^message 06:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Heliosxeros: probably not, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please help- who tried to break into my account?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, just some idiot trying to "hack" everyone's account. If your password is strong, I wouldn't worry about it (this time). Primefac (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Moonlighting Film Production Services, Genevieve Hofmeyr (Film producer), Philip Key (Film producer)

Hello Primefac

Thank you for your advice. I have written in the AFC and visited the Teahouse. I hope that there is an experienced editor to help in accepting my draft articles mentioned in the subject line above. The film producers on which I've written the draft articles are Africa's leading film producers; their website reveals an extensive list of prominent productions that they've produced, including major Hollywood blockbusters like "Mad Max: Fury Road", "The Avengers: Age of Ultron", "Judge Dredd", and smaller films like "Blood Diamond", "Safehouse", "Ali", "Amelia", and TV series like "Homeland", "Black Sails", etc. Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Mockby 123 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

underage nudity

[1] Where was this discussed at exactly? Dream Focus 17:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I know that I had a discussion with someone, somewhere, about the suitability of this image being used. However, I for the life of me cannot find it, and for that I apologize.

It's important to remember that context is also important when considering the validity of a "nude image" of an individual (see I know it when I see it). The image at Sophia Loren is not just an image of Loren in the nude - it's a screenshot from a film and there is context. Similarly, we have File:Virgin Killer.jpg, which contains an entirely nude child, but is acceptable because the context is as a CD cover.

The image itself is on Commons, which means that you'd have to go there to get it deleted entirely (which is unlikely since it's Italian in origin), but it's used on three enwiki articles and you would need to start a discussion somewhere to remove it entirely from enwiki (though personally I think you've got a rather uphill battle on that one). Primefac (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox martial artist boxrec links seem broken

Hi on Template:Infobox martial artist the boxrec links seem broken and the template is protected so I can't edit it. It tries to link to http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id={{{boxrec}}}&cat=boxer which from the article pages then just goes to the main page of boxrec instead of the fighter profile. See at the bottom of info boxes "Boxing record from BoxRec" like on Kyotaro Fujimoto for example. Suitable working link structure for the template I guess would be http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/{{{boxrec}}}
ShadessKB (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@ShadessKB:  Fixed you can use an edit request to request an edit to a protected page Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)(talk page watcher)

(edit conflict) I'm going to guess this is a {{tps}} thing but {{uGalobtter}} just fixed it. But yes, a {{TPER}} is great for those sorts of things. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Khan long hin

Previously an AfC submission, I rejected it because it contains a list of it's "Process". However, a editor moved the submission from draft into mainspace. What could be done? EROS ^message 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's notable, not much to do other than clean it up. If it's not notable, take it to AFD. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mervat Abou Oaf

It looks as if you and I have accidentally been at cross-purposes. I think that the problem is that she re-creates the draft in user space and tags it for AFC, and I then move it to draft space and decline it. Please salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If they do it again, I'll just block for copyright violations. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

about a deleted article

Hi, I found this article was deleted, just wanna know the detail reason and how to rewrite a suitable version. Thanks.Cycregrncy (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Cycregrncy, the page was overly promotional, basically acting as advertising. Out of curiosity, how did you find the page? I'm always looking for information on how users navigate Wikipedia (I'm a stats buff) since it means we can continually make improvements for a better user experience. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, I remember I've found this article linked from other article before, then do some digging and found the delete log page, just wonder anything I can help to re-create this article. Cycregrncy (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for thee!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for catching the dubious claim on my Rank Organisation file. For you! In Memoriam A.H.H.I am good at fighting windmills.. 07:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for restoring Parchayee if possible

Hello. You deleted this page Parchayee few minutes ago and as far as reason is, the creater of this page i.e, User:KuchNaya is not blocked by any admin. Please recheck again and restore that. Thank You. That was a drama serial page currently being airing on Hum TV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.192 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for distrub you. You deleted this page Parchayee and as far as reason was, the creater of this page i.e, User:KuchNaya is not blocked by any admin. I also mention above this but i think you did'nt noticed. Sorry again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.192 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The "creator" of the page added almost no content, and the vast majority was added by the now-blocked socks. Additionally, while the user in question might not be technically related, their overlap with the other now-blocked users makes me think that if it's not sockpuppetry it's definitely meatpuppetry. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a deleted template

Hi, I found that this template was deleted. I wasn't able to find the archive of the talk / discussion about this decision. This section in your page records comments by "only" two users. Can you please direct me to the archive of the discussion? If there is none, can you please show the relevant policy or guideline which allows a page to be deleted based only on two votes? --Cabolitæ (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(talkpage stalker) click the link to the page and a link to the discussion comes up [2] Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Cabolite linked that discussion above, though their comment is a bit confusing. Closing it as delete with two !votes is fine at-least under WP:NOQUORUM Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)(talk page watcher)

Two votes is pretty common at WP:TfD Legacypac (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There were valid arguments made for deletion, and with no opposition deletion is generally the outcome of such requests even with low turnout. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, I don't find the arguments valid. I fail to understand what the argument is behind comparing a modern city (New York) with an old region that represented a cultural heritage and civilization. The two people who voted are likely to be unfamiliar with the Persian or Middle East history, and might be experts in other unrelated fields. Similar to other templates, this template intended to bring together all notable figures who originated from that region. It was meant to assist the readers to navigate. If you disagree with my observation, can you please tell me which of the guidelines the template violated?

How long was the page tagged for deletion? I assume the editors who are work on these topics did not see that the page was proposed for deletion.

It's been a while that I haven't been to wikipedia, and I'm behind many new developments here. So was it a soft deletion? Can I challenge the decision and request for the page to be restored? --Cabolitæ (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I (the creator of the template) wasn't notified when the page was tagged for deletion, which violates the guidelines. --Cabolitæ (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, notifying the creator is (at this time) not mandatory, so simply not being notified is insufficient reason to relist. The discussion was listed for 11 days before it was closed. However, in light of the large number of transclusions and the fact that I normally relist single-vote-discussions when that happens, I have relisted the discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Cabolitæ (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Weird, Popflock

I recently encountered this website which copies my wikipedia talkpage to date. Link: ( http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=User_talk:Ernestchuajiasheng ) EROS ^message 08:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of weird Wikipedia mirrors that for whatever reason feel it's perfectly normal and okay to just blanket copy our databases. Unfortunately because that site properly gives attribution, there's really nothing we can do about it. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Johnny Hon

Hi Primefac,

I saw that you've reverted "Johnny Hon" Page that I have been editing. Is there any chance that you can undelete it and let me reedit it if there's any inappropriate? I would also like to know the reason why you have reverted it as I have already insert references to support and it's not in promotional content anymore. I'm happy to make changes upon your request, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowiki1 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowiki1 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Gowiki1, the text you added was copied directly from Hon's biography, which is not acceptable. Everything must be written in your own words. To save a bit of time with the references, I have put them on the draft talk page for easy re-use. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

math error

Your bot produces math errors: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Schoof%27s_algorithm&diff=840520048&oldid=840162123 --Boehm (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't accounted for that, though I suspect the number of cases where that will happen is minimal. I also doubt the "correctness" of having <math> tags in a header anyway, but that's likely why the template was deprecated in the article space. I have no doubt there are instances the bot "fixed" but should not have actually been converted to true headers, but undoubtedly the Gnomes will take care of it. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't receive emails, can you summarize?

I don't use that email currently, can you summarize what your message about AFC was? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas, just wanted to check in with you on some AFC stuff, I've received inquiries regarding some of your recent draft acceptances; things like Naiboi (which was both copyvio and incredibly promotional), and drafts that are sourced almost entirely to wikis (or other non-RS). You're one of the "old guard" when it comes to AFC reviewing, so I was a bit surprised when I saw some of the pages you accepted. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. My overall response would be that due to the absolutely ghastly backlog, my quality rate is lower than it would be if we only had a few hundred backlog. I'm churning out a lot of these AFCs as quickly as I can, and since other AFCers have emphasized that we should not be holding back articles on format issues but rather focus on Notability/BLP/CV as triage, I'm sure I've had some slip through that should not.

I'll fully accept blame for any I've messed Notability on, since I'm generally pretty good about sussing RSs out, but if someone is pretty clever on making things look kosher, some slip through. So far as CV, and I realize this is a controversial opinion, I really don't think it's feasible (especially at this moment with the backlog) to run a CV check for each individual article. There appear to be at least some 'bots active on WP for CV issues, so unless something egregiously smells like a c/p of another source, I don't feel it's feasible to run full checks as an AFC reviewer. Automated CV checks are exactly the kind of precise and objective work 'bots are suited for.

So those are my general thoughts, but I'll turn up my pickiness re sourcing to lower my error rate on Notability issues. Thanks for the nudge. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Annette Lee

Dear Sir,

1. Greetings from Singapore
2. I would like to seek your supervision to work on a revision done by another user https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Annette_Lee&oldid=840499750
3. It had been deleted by another editor, but i would like to understand how i can improve on his work.
4. I would be so grateful if you can guide me to work on the revision
5. Thank you Iz55 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Content disputes should be dealt with on the talk page of the article in question. In general, though, I am always in favour of removing unsourced or irrelevant material from articles. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I have added the proposed content onto the talk page and added a requestedit. thanks so much! Iz55 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Since your guidance, I did not add new content to the article, but since then only made the punctuation/grammer/POV edits in line with the wikipedia guidelines. Thus, i wonder if my article has now addressed the maintenance tags issues. I have also added a discussion onto the talk page on notability. I wondered if you could take some time to see if it meets the guidelines now, or how i can improve. Thank you. P.S Chrissymad said they still do not meet guidelines, but she did not elaborate though i had asked a few times. I understand she must be busy but i will be so grateful if someone can guide me how i can improve. Thank you Iz55 (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I had gotten help from the teahouse already. thanks so much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iz55 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OTRS question

After a ticket has been satisfactorily handled - let's say for an image upload - and we receive the necessary release(s), and make note of it at the image page, shouldn't that ticket be closed? The reason I ask is because I'm seeing 45 pages of Open tickets/need to be answered when in Dashboard view, but after reviewing several in English, they've already been handled. Oh, and once a ticket has been closed, can we simply put the ticket # in search and find it again after it's closed? (Sorry for the newbie questions, but I just want to make sure I've got protocol down pat). ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If a ticket has been handled (let's say with the proper release) the customer should be notified with a boilerplate and/or custom response as appropriate. There's a ticket # search so if you know the number it will take you straight to the ticket (generic search is only "good" if you don't have the ticket # itself). Primefac (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and @Atsme: ask on OTRS-wiki next time. Public wikis aren’t really a great place to be discussing OTRS. —-AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries - there was no confidential information in my question - it was strictly maintenance/tech related. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Primefac. I would like to sincerely apologize for my idiotic actions on Carpentersville Middle School. I just needed to say that. Could you forgive me? EDG 543 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Aye, no harm no foul. We all start at the same place. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Kenny (entrepeneur) content and deletion

Hello Primefac,

I am new to Wikipedia. You flagged a 'copyright violation' on a biography i submitted for Irish entrepreneur, Paul Kenny. You mentioned it was taken from 'Naseba'; this content on his biography is all over the internet and his biography in many other event websites where he has spoken. The whole page seems that I wrote seems to have been deleted now. Can you please explain if I can get this page back? I am happy to delete what you don't want, it's just for sure there is no copyright infringement in anything I submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhessa (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

​Well, first off, simply because other sites might have stolen from Naseba doesn't mean that Wikipedia will do the same. Second, content on their website is © 2018 Naseba, which means we cannot use it on Wikipedia. Third, since the content was taken entirely from other sources, there is little point in me returning the text; you will be better off simply starting over and writing everything in your own words - the other option would be to convince Naseba to donate the text (see WP:DONATETEXT) for Wikipedia to use. Either way, I'm willing to list the references so you don't have to find/format them again.

Finally, if you work for Kenny you will need to disclose this fact on your userpage (see WP:PSCOI) if you wish to continue writing about him. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac,

As I wrote, I am completely new to Wikipedia and to be honest have struggled to navigate the site and understand the processes so thank you for being patient. I understand that Wikipedia does not use copyrighted information, and I was never suggesting that they should as Naseba's content is in other sites online, my point is that the content on Naseba is simply Paul Kenny's biography that is used everywhere, on AYM's website, on any event he takes part in. I do work with Paul Kenny and wrote his biography that is on the Naseba site and many others. I work with the company he is MD for, AYM and I arrange his participation in numerous events. I was not in any way trying to hide this, I simply wanted to get his biography on Wikipedia as his partner James Whelton is listed on Wikipedia and as he has won a number of prestigious awards and has many accomplishments we felt justified in submitting his biography on here. I will use the link you have shared to disclose I work for the same company as him. There was no untoward intention on my part for submitting this biography. Can you advise what the best course of action for me is now in getting this listed on Wikipedia? As I have written, the biography on Naseba is in my own words! I submitted this to Naseba when Paul spoke on their panel last year; it's just his standard biography we use for every event except what I wrote for Wikipedia was updated to include that most recent award 'Arabian Business Mentor of the Year' award and his work with the Global Student Entrepreneur awards. looking forward to hearing from you and thank you again for patience, as I am very new to writing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhessa (talk • contribs) 10:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, Looking forward to hearing back from you. Can let me know if you can share a response on this last post I sent you? Like you just replied to EDG 543, we all have to start at same place. I am trying to understand how to move forward? None of the content I submitted was copyrighted and I am happy to disclose I work for the same company as Paul Kenny. THank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhessa (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

​Because Naseba has copyrighted the content on their site, we simply cannot use that text verbatim on ours. There is no problem with you writing an article on Kenny (provided that he does indeed meet our inclusion criteria and you disclose your affiliation), but you'll have to do so from scratch. The other option would be to contact Naseba and have them release the text for use elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, if I ask Naseba to remove the biography on their site, will this be okay to then have the article I wrote approved for use on Wikipedia? To re-iterate I will follow the disclosure that I work for the same company as him and the inclusion thing you have mentioned again. If can let me know if I request they remove the biography that we wrote from their site, I'd really appreciate that. Looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhessa (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dubhessa. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Since the work has been previously published elsewhere, that means that the material is copyright and we can't use it here until such time as it's released under a compatible license. Removing the content from the source website doesn't change its copyright status! It enjoys permanent copyright protection as soon as it's published.

In order to protect the rights of copyright holders, we have in place what we call the OTRS ticket system, whereby copyright holders can provide proof via email that they are the copyright holder. In the email you would also specify which license you wish to use. There's a list of compatible licenses here and a sample permission email here and detailed instructions here. Sorry it's all so complicated but these are legal requirements that keep us in compliance with the policies of this website and copyright law. Regardless of the copyright issue, what we're looking for is multiple reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. The draft is unlikely to be accepted without that. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more information on that topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

HI Dubhessa (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)DiannaaDubhessa (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC) , thank you so much for your response and trying to help. I am not sure if you can see the original content I submitted, but it was biography I am actually the author of and the contents in the biography were verified by 8 links to media coverage in media websites including global media outlets like bloomberg <ref>https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=253039348&privcapId=138236698&previousCapId=138236698&previousTitle=Cobone.com%20FZ%20LLC%20Limited/ref>. As mentioned to Dubhessa (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)primefacDubhessa (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC) I work in the same company as Paul Kenny and I wrote the biography in question. The biography that I wrote is regularly submitted to any events he takes part in so the organisers can share with event-goers and stakeholders. Since this issue on getting his listing approved on Wikipedia came up, I contacted Naseba and they replied just today to confirm they have removed the page off their site: please check here <ref>https://www.naseba.com/thought-leaders/paul-kenny-aym-commerce//ref> I really don't know how to move forward as the content is a summary of the successes and achievements of Paul Kenny with many links to verifiable sources of media content. Please can you help?! Dubhessa (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)dubhessaDubhessa (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

To repeat my two main points: (1) You can't copy the prose, even if you wrote it, unless you follow the procedure at WP:Donating copyright materials. (2) Quotations or paraphrased content from the person's own website does not improve the chances of the draft being accepted, as it does nothing to establish notability, which is a very common reason for drafts being declined and articles being deleted. Please refer to Wikipedia:Your first article, which contains lots of advice on how to create articles for this encyclopedia. You might consider visiting the Teahouse. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Noor ul Ain

Would you mind undeleting Noor ul Ain (I have to use an external link otherwise it links to Noor-ul-Ain)? It was a really nice article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a one-sentence stub (also I don't see what the issue is with Noor ul Ain). Either way, I won't give a sock farm satisfaction of restoration, but if you're willing to accept responsibility for the page I can email you the contents. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could do that. It looks quite notable, and for me the creator does not really matter if the article is worthy of inclusion. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of draft

Hope you are feeling well, i am feeling very helpless and requesting please guide me. You deleted draft created by me namely, draft:Noor ul Ain which was earlier also created by me and you deleted on article space on 8 May 2018, after that today its also created by me. I've done one mistake of using same wordings but please forgive me. You deleted because that was earlier created by now block user on 19 February 2018. Will you restore that please. You can also check version of Noor ul Ain which was deleted on 19 february and it will look different because that was not created by me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.147 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I missed this post; apologies. It's being handled in a discussion further down the page. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Danny Lorraine

Hello Primefac, and thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Lorraine. I'd like to ask a favour - as closing admin, are you able to put protection on Danny Lorraine so that the IP editors can't undo the redirect again? It was the reason I opened the AfD in the first place. Thanks again, PKT(alk) 14:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page, and will take the appropriate actions if necessary. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the IP's made a nasty edit, so I gave it semi protection. It's too soon to consider a reversal of the AfD/creation of the article by pointiness.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd hardly call that a "nasty" edit, but it did lead to the uncovering of a sockfarm and some global blocks. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhh!!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

wow, this continues here. And a big sock farm block...yeah!!!! --Quek157 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And with closure, healing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

AFC Reviewer

Hi Primefac, could you please assign AFC reviewer rights to continue review AFC articles with AFC helper script access. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

​ I have not yet had an opportunity to review your request. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

2030 Commonwealth Games

Hi Primefac,

This is with regards to the 2030 Commonwealth Games. I am updating this page as and when I am finding details worth posting on this page. Request you to please remove the REDIRECT and the page available again.

Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Vikram maingi, please propose/discuss any changes to the page on its talk page - removing the redirect would go against the consensus to convert it into a redirect. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

deletion of /left/right

hi :) I was wondering how I can get this page back up as a normal article? I’ve updated the page to the proper criteria, but I can’t figure out how to publish the page. I attempted to do so myself by changing the link, and it ended up getting deleted. Is there a way to get this page back, and in a position to where it can be posted?

Sorry for the trouble & thank you for your time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAYLAVIE (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

ZAYLAVIE, I'd be willing to restore and place it back in the draft space, but as it was written it was not significantly improved over the deleted version and is currently not acceptable in the article space. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

that works for me! and well, I went ahead and made all the changes that have been requested by all post wiki moderators, what's left to do to make it live? Zay La Vie (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I've moved the page to Draft:/Left/Right. When you are ready, submit your draft for review by following the instructions in the grey box. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Aravind V

Need your advice on this... Most of the sources are in Malayam, but they might be reliable. Do we give benefit of the doubt in these cases? etothepi 👽 ^(u)•(t) 16:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Having a source in a foreign language is not an automatic fail, but neither is it an automatic pass. They're not terrible sources on the draft, but don't feel like you must review something; if you're not comfortable judging the reliability of foreign sources, just skip the draft (we have 200+ reviewers and a few Malayam speakers to boot). Primefac (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars Succession Box

Also, now that you penned me with notifications. Going back to creating all the boxes for the finalists on Dancing with the Stars. First place winners already have boxes for their success and it continues. However, what you did not notice was that only some runner ups and third place finishers had boxes. I said this several times these were all before my edits. If you would go back and check that was the case. Not even all the winners had boxes only some of them had them and some of them didn't. When I went back to edit I made sure that it was fair and evened things out. That not only some winners, runner ups and third placers got boxes but all finalists in the top 3 had boxes. Now the edits are staying the same I haven't reverted anything since that whole debacle and your last message on my talk page. I am considering taking your advice of making this into an article for discussion topic. I feel that we all need to debate this topic to come to a clear consensus. We all have different opinions and I feel that should be talked about. Your reason was clear and I felt as though mine was too.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrencies GS

Could you please clarify for me: When you logged "WP:ARBPIA-equivalent discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force" for cryptocurrencies, do you mean ordinary 1RR plus ARBPIA-equivalent DS, or do you mean to import the General 1RR restriction from ARBPIA, which also includes restrictions restoring reverted edits and some enforcement provisions? GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just ordinary 1RR. It's spelled out a bit more plainly on the case page but I'll see about rewording some of the other locations. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The conversation at my talkpage

Hi Primefac, notwitstanding what kind of allegations I am faced with, I hope that there are no hard feelings between us. The accusation is moderately high and I am hurt from it. However, continue that kind of conversation will only lead to nowhere. I had blanked (ironically) that as it is not productive and we don't want such arguments to reach the newer users who we are going to guide with. This just show bad on us, experienced users. I will separate the message from tone. The tone is harsh, message is still acceptable. I will accept it and will learn, hope to be cut a little more slack and with time I'll improve. Will use in depth summaries now. --Quek157 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I apologize if you read anything seriously negative in my tone, it's one of the downsides of text-based communication. My intention was to highlight what I thought was an oversight on your part, and never intended to come across as overly harsh. Thank you for listening. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know is it culture or whatsoever, in Singapore, outrageous in Singapore English means a lot, it is just too harsh, it is the term where we used to refer to something exceedingly grave, balant and is not usually used. As an experienced user from 2007, I know the impact of CSD. My first article was on People's Park Centre, which is clearly mid importance can see why there, I am slapped with an G11 within just 5 minutes of article creation just without sources. I had to contest the CSD and then bring the issue to the user talkpage. I personally experienced this and I am sure no one else needs to bear this. Also, it is our culture to make sure we defend ourselves, as our law minister (AG equivalent in US) put it "if there are any accusation, we need to clarify, make clear, we have to clear our name". This is our nation mantra and the reason I signed up for AFC as well as NPP is that this Singaporean side will be available to prevent balant rejections / G12. See how I declined a G12 on BCA Academy on my talkpage. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)\

Condense

(cur | prev) 19:42, 24 December 2007‎ Spike Wilbury (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,245 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (spacing) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 19:42, 24 December 2007‎ Spike Wilbury (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,246 bytes) (-25)‎ . . (a lot of shopping centres have pages - improve or take to WP:AFD) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:53, 24 December 2007‎ Quek157 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,271 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎Sources) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:52, 24 December 2007‎ Quek157 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,275 bytes) (+586)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 15:30, 24 December 2007‎ Quek157 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (689 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 15:25, 24 December 2007‎ Kannie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (678 bytes) (+15)‎ . . ({{db-spam}}) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:22, 24 December 2007‎ Quek157 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (663 bytes) (+663)‎ . . (Created page and hope that people could improve the page)

• This is what I am threatened in 2007 with a G11 (just 3 minutes) as well as an AFD after 4 hours --Quek157 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  That's unfortunate. I'm glad it didn't turn you off completely from the project. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

and hell it was my 40 plus edits into the project, and is no way near G11 status. Many of us left this project after so many nonsense AFD and CSD, the only users left now is really Mailer Diablo (the only sysop from then in SG which is active (or semi)). The most prolific content creators from our country, including @Huaiwei, Jacklee, and Sengkang: with numerous FA / GA under their belt is gone due to them cannot take how this project works against Singapore. So the line of Singapore wikipedians are really thin nowadays (and all the articles are beyond repair as all WP:RS are gone, and our SG wikipedia RS page still list 2003 sources as reliable). I usually join in the AFD discussions only after that. so IMO we are too lenient with AFC people already, many of them don't know when drafts aren't available, this is the treatment we got, and still want to go on and on to argue whether it is notable or not. --Quek157 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI, that page was RECREATED and GONE again "18:48, 23 May 2018 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Ocean Nuclear (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank)". For all the discussion is worth, this is just a waste of 30 edit, but good for edit countitis which neither we are. sigh --Quek157 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

and SALTed "18:48, 23 May 2018 RHaworth (talk | contribs) protected Draft:Ocean Nuclear [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated) (hist) (thank)" a completely wasted discussion IMO, about an G7 on such a page. I know you are quite tense with AFC right now, with legacypac issues, but chill can? --Quek157 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page National Animal Rights Day

Hello, you have just recently deleted the page I have created, for National Animal Rights Day, without any warning or sufficient reason. Could you please provide your reasoning here, and why you believe that such a page should not be on Wikipedia? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.1.117 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a notice placed here about the nomination for speedy deletion. The page was copied directly from another website, which is not allowed per our copyright rules. I have no opinions on whether we should have an article on the subject, but we absolutely cannot have text copied from other sources. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. It is quite hard to come up with a description of the subject that greatly differs from what is given on the subject's website, in their own concise words, but I'll give it a try later. Thanks! KSK (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi KSK, that's why we summarize from what reliable sources have to say on a topic. Waggie (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP

Hey, P. Was wondering if you could take a look at my request, since many other admins do not know my previous account and some told me to personally ask the ones who do. » Z0 | talk 08:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung:says no usually means no.Quek157 (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I almost commented on the PERM page, but if Kudpung says past accounts won't be taken into consideration for NPR purposes, then they won't be taken into consideration, and I respect his opinions in matters relating to NPR. You were granted the perm before, so there shouldn't be any issue once you've hit the minimum time requirements. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Very thin ice

You just crossed a line and attacked me without evidence. I'll step back from AfC because I am clearly not wanted there by you, but I suggest building a spreadsheet of my accepts/moves and putting it up as a usersubpage for us to review. If there is a genuine problem with my work I'm more than happy to adjust what I'm doing. If this was your mistake I expect you to own up to it. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Legacypac, Primefac did provide evidence. You may wish to re-read his post. Waggie (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is my move log Special:Log/Legacypac to make it easier Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how that's useful, but... thanks? Primefac (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note

"19:58, 22 May 2018 Primefac (talk | contribs) restored page Draft:Sungei Simpang Kiri (1 revision) (improper deletion)" this is not improper deletion, I admit I used the wrong venue, should be sandbox to mainspace. I am the sole author of the draft (and the article) and moved it to mainspace once it is ready, I should had used my own sandbox not draft space, sorry for the omission. If this is what you termed as "outrageous" (with hyperbole), I concur, I didn't see you actioned on it. If it is a sandbox, G7 should had applied. Will not do it anymore as I used the article wizard by mistake --Quek157 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Didn't see you were the original page creator, just that you had accepted it through AFC and then requested the redirect be deleted. If you really want it gone, that's fine, I'm willing to re-delete it. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

it's fine. nothing harming me anyway and I "earn" somewhat a redirect page. I did entire process in 30 mins to see exactly how hard is it for newcomers to do a page through the process. Quek157 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI: Philip Cross

Hi, I saw you closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Philip Cross which was then reverted by KalHolmann. I think you could let it run a day or two more please as the proposal was posted barely 24 hours ago and consensus is not that clear at all, especially that the discussion has to be read together with the preceding subsections. Many thanks, — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

​The proposal was posted on 20 May. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, please disregard, I got briefly confused as to which subsection you closed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I think I know which section you're talking about, and I did almost close that one before I saw the timestamps. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

REFUND a talk page

Hi Primefac. You recently restored the draft Draft:Inhumans (film) per my request at WP:REFUND, and I realized after the fact that the talk page (Draft talk:Inhumans (film)) also need to be restored from the delete. Hoping you would be able to still do that. Thanks in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of Draft

You apparently deleted a draft in my sandbox (User:Theologicae/sandbox) on 21 May, 2018. I would like to have this draft restored. However, in following the restoration protocol I am unable to find the required draft title (Eg. draft:title) in either the "red box" on the former sandbox page or on my talk page.

I spent several hours on this entry and would be disappointed to learn that it cannot be recovered. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theologicae (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done.​ Primefac (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Need your insight

Am I wrong here (I see your active :P ) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you think is "wrong" here - you gave a warning about external links but I don't see any being placed with their edits. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry [3] - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh... I think that's more appropriate in prose, with a better reference, than as an external link, but that's just my opinion. I also think at this point both of you should go to the talk page, since we're getting into 3RR territory all around. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm done with it, don't have the energy today. Thanx for your help, it is appreciated :) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

PrimeBOT job

Hey, Primefac. Got a job for PrimeBOT, think you could help me out? http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/ has been a massive resource for the Television WikiProject, but now that it's gone offline, this leaves a lot of dead links to the site, especially for supporting home media release dates. Could PrimeBOT automatically mark such usages as dead links and add the correct archive? Thanks! -- Alex^TW 09:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Cyberpower678 and the InternetArchiveBot might be better for this, but if not I can certainly do what I can. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You probably can submit a bot job here, though I'm only able to get three urls from url search and domain search doesn't work for me Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ive marked the domain as dead and started a bot job.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. -- Alex^TW 03:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi, if you have time can you revdel the revisions from this [4] to [5] as it can possible identify me. Thanks Quek157 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Um... Quek157, you made the edit and signed the post, so I'm not really sure what you're referencing, since all you did was change an extra sig into "4 ~". Primefac (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I basically want "I am XXX in XXX. --Quek157 (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)" this sentence to be revdel from the 3 revisions, i.e. revdel all the 3 revisions, cause this will identify me there. Thanks a lot --Quek157 (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, a) email me or Oversight directly, and b) remove the content yourself before requesting it so that it's more clear what needs suppression. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks and will do it in the future Quek157 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Page history moves

Thanks for your assistance with the Attribution problem in the botched move of Talk:Eighty Years' War (1566–1609). Putting in the split attribution is of course acceptable. I have the same problem with Twelve Years' Truce, though less egregious. But I have again put in the banner, to draw speedy attention. One wishes that people followed the rules for this kind of operation. It would save trouble.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added attribution. If you can find the diffs, you can add the {{split article}} or {{copied}} notice as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice

An appeal has been made at Arbitration Makeandtoss (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

JWB

Thanks for clarifying things a bit regarding the JWB situation. If it helps, all the edits I have done using JWB have been tagged with "(using Semi-automatic editing assistance tool.)"example diff. The AWB page is linked in the edit summary so xtools will correctly parse them as semi-automatic edits. All my other edits is me mind-numbingly doing it completely manually. JLJ001 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

AfC Draft

@Primefac: The draft article you deleted from AfC as copyright infringement on 21 May should not have been deleted because (1) the remote hpluspedia article is a mirror copied from the original Wikipedia article, which was published first, and (2) aside from being a mirror, the hpluspedia site is covered under a blanket CC:BY:4.0 license. This was stated in a disclaimer at the top of the draft's source code along with a direct link. No copyright violation occurred. I'd appreciate it if you could restore the article to its previous condition. Thank you Apricotnectar (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm honestly surprised that I missed the (rather glaring) attribution in the first edit. I've restored the page. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thank you. Could you restore the correct version of the Talk page as well? It contains a clear and comprehensive list of references that establish notability. Apricotnectar (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks again. Now that the article is restored, do I need to do anything to reactivate its status as awaiting review, or is the process automatic? Just want to be sure I'm not missing anything. Apricotnectar (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

​It looks like the draft is submitted and waiting review. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks! Is it acceptable to move the templates, Template:AFC_Submission, Template:AFC_Comment et al to the bottom of a draft space as it's being worked on and revised; does this present any trouble to the reviewer? Apricotnectar (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, the AFC templates should be at the top of the page so a reviewer can see what has been commented on and/or any previous declines that may have occurred. This is the way our review script has always worked, and so while it's not "officially" necessary to do so, the fact that we've been doing it this way since the beginning is reason enough to keep doing so (until consensus says otherwise). Primefac (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. And thank you for bringing the source code back into alignment with established conventions. Much appreciated! Apricotnectar (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

CSD

Hi, why did you delete that tv article when I rewrote it which was a major edit?, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic306, you'll have to be more specific. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, its Rasoi Ki Jung Mummyon Ke Sung about the cooking show if you check I rewrote the article based on the sources. Ive been accused of having a coi which is ridiculous as I copyedit a lot of articles on NPP. Can you please restore it or take it to AFD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to send you the text and you can take responsibility for recreating the page, but rephrasing one sentence isn't "substantial" in my book. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, it was a long sentence that comprised most of the article. Am going to take to deletion review for a decisive verdict on G5s. I wont contest anymore G5s untill the decision thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Atlantic306: there will be no decisive verdict on G5s ever. It is the most controversial CSD criteria, and admins have huge discretion as to what they can delete under it. For this reason, I’m of the belief that non-admins should never remove G5 tags and should always let an admin review. This was my position before RfA as well. Some admins count one edit, others are more liberal with what substantial means. If it’s worth anything, I would have deleted it too. You kept the same meaning and ideas. A DRV will likely end with no consensus at best. Primefac’s actions were well within the norm here, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, ill leave the deletion review and leave G5s alone, Ive seen some admins remove similar ones to the ones i did but others disagree so it would help if it was clarified but suppose that would need an rfc, so will just leave it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, as I said, if you think it's a topic worth having I'm happy to send you the content. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Date retention

WP:DATERET not your preferred format that you used when you rewrote the article wins. I'd be happy to discuss that on the article's talk page, but reverting the application of an accepted guideline is not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I was going with the based on strong national ties to the topic part of the first bullet point, since Boyle is Canadian and many of the sources are either Canadian or British, but sure, it's totally just "my preference". It's also not necessarily a hill I want to die on, seeing as how the "D" in BRD means "revert one more time just to force the other person to discuss." Primefac (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Both date formats have national ties. MDY is actually more common, but there is some use of DMY. DATETIES even clearly states "Articles related to Canada or Israel may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (See § Retaining existing format, below.)" Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose the consistency is the important part. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello Primefac,

You've just deleted a page that I submitted while I left a message that I own the material that was supposed to be a copyright violation. Can you please bring back the article as there isn't not any copyright violation issue.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartographies (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Cartographies, you do indeed own the material, and the website that it's on states that you have the copyright on the material, which means we cannot use it. Please see DONATETEXT for options on how to get around this issue. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

KSHMR

Could you provide a rationale for your closure of the RM at KSHMR? The editor whose username is Z0 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I know it's not a head count, but 5:2 (not including yourself as nominator) is pretty strong opposition. Additionally, there were multiple sources given that do indicate that the name is used without allcaps (which contradicts all three "support" statements). The arguments for not moving the page were stronger than the arguments for keeping, which is how a RM is supposed to work and thus I felt that was clear enough that I didn't need to elaborate on my close. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you consider relisting, since the oppose votes weren't based on policy and their comments were just their opinions? My argument is based on WP:TITLETM, which states a trademark spelling can be exempted from following standard English formatting if they're the most common in sources. KSHMR is demonstrably the most used in reliable and independent sources whereas Kshmr can be found in just a little. Besides, your recent intervention in the edit summary conversation could be seen as being involved. The editor whose username is Z0 19:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've put a lot effort into the discussion and the fairest thing you could have done was relist it so others could weigh in. The opposes were just one liners and weren't policy-based so I'm not sure why you felt they were stronger. The editor whose username is Z0 14:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A one-line argument can be just as persuasive as a paragraph. I know you put a lot of effort into this discussion, but so did a couple of other editors. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What can you say about them not being policy-based? The editor whose username is Z0 17:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that both you and SMcCandlish (who I'm pinging as a courtesy only because I'm mentioning them) used different sections of WP:AT to defend your points, and McCandlish supplemented that with additional MOS guidelines, there's nothing to say. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But the MoS is irrelevant in this case since it's not greater than the policy and it's not used for article titles. The editor whose username is Z0 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We're not in a hard-logic state where if we're utilizing a policy we absolutely cannot utilize a guideline. The policies help shape the guidelines and the guidelines help us to interpret the policies, the latter of which was used to make the case for keeping the page where it currently rests. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Started a move review. The editor whose username is Z0 18:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"the oppose votes weren't based on policy and their comments were just their opinions" is blatant misrepresentation and just plain ol' projection. The supporters of the "KSHMR" over-capitalization are simply sorely misunderstanding WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:GAMING. We do not, ever, pit one set of WP rules again the other in an attempt to WP:WIN, but always interpret them together in the sensible way that produces a compatible result, following their intended meaning, not lawyerish attempts to twist their wording. "I like this rule better because it's a policy, and that other one is just a guideline" is ass-backwards thinking at WP. It simply does not work that way. But the situation here is far worse. What happened was the "KSHMR" boosters saw one sense of the word "trademark" in WP:AT, referring to organizations and their products/services, and addressing one thing and one thing only: spelling (i.e., "do not respell it 'Kashmir' because you think that would be better English"). They wanted to apply some of the wording there over-broadly in two different ways: to individuals, and to all style matters of any kind, such as capitalization. But AT is not, never has been, and never will be a style policy. In another (MoS) page, they saw a completely different usage of the word "trademark", explicitly broadened to include individuals, yet specifically saying not to mimic capitalization gimmicks and other logo stylization. These rules are not in conflict in any way at all. So, they simultaneously tried to import the very different MoS definition and scope (with a reversed result) into the AT rule and declare the MoS rules invalid. This is just so logically fallacious it should be in a textbook as an example of reasoning failure. It's about the same as simultaneously arguing that a local ordinance should be ruthless enforced nationwide (but in perverted form), and arguing that the reason to do so is because it's an unconstitutional and invalid law.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you use search much?

If you use search for more than just navigating to articles by title, you might find WP:SearchSuite useful. It reformats search results, to display results as a list, it sorts, etc. And it is synergistic with the search parameters (intitle:, insource:, etc.). If you do try it, let me know if you find it useful.    — The Transhumanist   19:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I might give this a try. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)