Jump to content

User talk:Primefac/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Recent disruption by Vulphere

Hello, I noticed that you are the one who have given this user AutoWikiBrowser rights. Their recent contributions show that they edited multiple articles (40 if I am not mistaken) in a very short time. All of the articles are within the scope of WikiProject Anime and Manga. They removed Romaji names from those article's infobox without giving edit summary. It took me minutes to clean up their mess. Also I just checked those edits on xtools and it turned out those were not automated edits. I had to issue warnings (including a level 4) to them. I think that their account has been compromised. My point is here that I don't feel comfortable that they have AWB rights. It may cause more disruption in future. Masum Reza📞 04:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100, the only edits I see by them using JWB (seen here if I'm not mistaken) are them adding kanji and romaji text to infoboxes and fixing minor grammar issues. I'm not sure why that warrants a level four warning for disruption. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. But seeing how they were making edits I thought it was some kind of automated program. I issued those warnings because they were rapidly removing valid information from articles without giving any kind of explanation. Masum Reza📞 12:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Unless there's a tag that says it's automated (see the edits I linked above) it's not automated, just "fast editing". Looking into their subsequent edits, they both added and removed the romaji and kanji. Maybe they decided (or realized) that they shouldn't have made those edits. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
But some of them weren't made by them. Also they should have left an edit summary. I see no reason to remove valid, verifiable, true information from article. When one edits Wikipedia, they release their contributions to this website via a CC 4.O license. They should not remove them without a good cause. Besides articles are not owned by editors. Masum Reza📞 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
That is utter nonsense. There are a hundred different reasons why someone would revert their edits, with or without an edit summary. If you don't see a reason to remove material that someone has added themselves, you're welcome to revert them, but to give a level-4 warning for someone undoing their own edits is unnecessary. Until they respond, consider the fact that they might have had a very good reason to do so. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, Vulphere, I'm a little concerned that you managed to get four warning notices on your talk page while actively editing without (at the very least) responding to them when you were finished. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I found it personally offensive

and I find this, your edit summary, equally so: "latest post isn't the greatest way to continue this thread". I would request you apologise for the inference that my repudiation of a stupid remark comparing events on WP to mourning was inappropriate. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, I closed the thread not because of your comment being inappropriate, but because I could very easily see it spiraling into an unnecessary debate ("no, but who are you to judge my feelings" etc etc) and we already have enough of those at the moment. I do apologize if you felt it was an attack against you; that was not my intention. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

Thank you for pulling the plug. I might have a use for rollback on occasion, so if you wouldn't mind adding it to my account, I'd appreciate it. Cheers —DoRD (talk)​ 12:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And while I'm thinking of it, I doubt that I'll need EFM in the near future. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

TfD open for 14+ days, vote 4:1

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Template:Infobox Palestine municipality - could you close it? It's the last Arab League member state that is not standardized. 78.54.44.99 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox country

Just a reminder in case you have forgotten; it's been about four months and the thread has been archived. Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 13#Parameters. I still can't get this category down to zero. Thanks. MB 04:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at this yesterday and got completely sidetracked by more pressing issues. It's on my to-do list and I'll try to get to it in the next couple of days. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I did make one mistake before, Ottoman Empire has 21 successors (not 20) if you want to make one more tweak there. This only affects one article, so alternatively I could just remove the 21st. MB 01:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Nah, it's fine. I've added a 21st. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

RL infobox

Sorry to bother you, but when you have a bit of time would you mind updating this template as discussed on the talk page? J Mo 101 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll put it on my to-do list. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Also made some performance improvements while I was at it. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Let this barnstar show that your mop is in good hands. Thank you for your contribution! —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Segal-Lazar speedy deletion

Hi - I resubmitted the copyright permission form and received the following message: An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read as ticket:2019062110000502 by users with an OTRS account. The email is in a queue awaiting processing.

However I do not understand why the rest of the page was deleted as I believe it conforms with standard wikipedia practices. Could you please be specific about any problems and I will try to correct them.

Thanks, Barry (BJLMtl) BJLMtl (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

BJLMtl, you sent in a permission request for the image that was nominated for deletion, which I believe is in the process of being dealt with. The article was deleted because it took content from other websites with little or no actual editing. Text copied from online sources, unless freely available for reproduction, is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Let me know if I can answer any further questions. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

re-edting of Sarah Segal-Lazar page

Hi - thanks for your explanation. Can I have access to the page so that I can see what has been copied and where it came from. I would like the opportunity to re-edit so that it meets Wikipedia requirements. 

- Barry

BJLMtl (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

BJLMtl, I have emailed you.
The easiest thing to know about copyright is that if you write everything yourself, and don't copy from other sources, there should be no issues. Please note also that promotionalism is also frowned upon - to quote one of my fellow admins "if someone who *hated* Segal-Lazar read the page, would they think it's promoting her?" If the answer is "no" then you've written neutrally. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac - I see that the page has been moved to pastebin; (why can't it be moved to the sandbox?) I would not appreciate having it expire in a week as per your note. I am in transit and will not be able to work on it seriously for several days. I did not write the original text and will need time to bring to verify where the copy came from and bring it up to wikipedia standards. BJLMtl (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC) BJLMtl (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

In short, because I'm not going to post copyrighted material on Wikipedia. It was copied from her website. I set it to expire in a week because I didn't want it floating about the internet. ​ Primefac (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting that page. I couldn't do it, have no idea why, but the page option at the top didn't show up. I kept refreshing over and over again. I even logged out and logged back in. There's a way to delete a page without the usual buttons, but I forget how it's done. We are a slave to the interface.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You can add &action=delete to the URL to get to the delete page. I just used Twinkle, seemed to work okay. No idea why it didn't work for you! Primefac (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The thing you can add to the URL is what I forgot, and I have little doubt I'll forget again as this problem rarely occurs. As for Twinkle, I've never used it for deleting pages, but I'll start doing so just to retain it in my habit-driven brain. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Not harassment, hostility

I am not being harassed, I just got TIRED, very TIRED of hostility on Wikipedia regarding my English language. From appalling to seriously?, etc. I just needed to take it out or explode. Thank you very much. --LLcentury (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you get tired of being tired, let me know, and I'll make it my business. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You can pretty much see the irony at ITN/C --LLcentury (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to add that I retire from Wikipedia. I thank the many good faith people whom I met, but enough is enough. Thanks Primefac. --LLcentury (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I wish you well in your future endeavours. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Vgy

I think this closure was unfortunate. I have no problem with the outcome in theory; obviously I !voted slightly differently, but I understand the rationale, and my primary argument in the discussion can easily be swept away by the bot flag (though I still see no problem with using this article outside of articles, but I feel like I didn't put enough emphasis on that or get opinions from people who previously expressed their opinion). The unfortunate part is that most of the delete !votes were really voting for removal of excessive year links, while the outcome chosen in this case actually helped perpetuate such links; by automating cleanup, the links are now embedded in a way that is more difficult to track down and evaluate.

But on the other hand, I would be interested to know how productive you viewed my participation in that discussion. It is true that I didn't express the above point during the discussion, so I can see how it all becomes ineffectual on the rest of its face. And perhaps I undermined myself entirely by noting the problem with revision-based worries while not being cohesive in how my deprecate argument fit into my seemingly contrary point. Retro (talk | contribs) 10:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that there was (intentionally or not) a somewhat "secondary agenda" of getting these links removed. From my interpretation of the discussion it sounds like there is a bot that removes these sorts of wikilinks, which is why I was not as concerned as some others might have been. I also have noticed (over many years of closing discussions) that a lot of the time people will !vote either without reading through the rest of the discussion or without ever coming back to their original !vote to potentially change their mind if someone comments on it or there are new arguments being made. For what it's worth I thought your participation was good; you weren't trying to beat anyone over the head with your opinion but had reasonable counter-arguments. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Next step

Hello P. I hope you are well. The {{Vgy}} has been orphaned but, as it is fully protected, I can't add a speedy delete tag to it. When you have a moment would you please take care of that - or even delete it if possible. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing discussion

I think I made a mistake by closing this discussion early. Relisting would be better option. Please see the discussion. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, my page mover permission expired. Please grant it permanently to my account. This permission is very much useful for me. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
SS49, that looks like a good close - nearly unanimous opposition to a proposal seems like a pretty good reason to close as "not moved". As for the PERM, feel free to request indef granting at the usual place. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thsnks so much Primefac. I have requested for PERM. Please grant it indefinitely. Thanks. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
If I get a chance I will do so. For the record I asked you to post at PERM because I'm a little busy this weekend where other admins might be able to view the request a little faster. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
OK thank you ~SS49~ {talk} 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Multiple image

Hi Primefac. I'm wondering why |background color= in this template is the only multi-word parameter which doesn't use an underscore. Is there a particular reason why? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't say, looks like everything goes off the module, which for whatever reason does not use a space. Might be worth getting that changed. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Deprecation bot

Hey Primefac, could your bot that removes deprecated parameters from infoboxes help me out in clearing Category:Pages using infobox television season with unknown parameters? A group has been recently deprecated which is why it resulted in a big list. The parameters to be removed are: dvd_release_date, dvd_format, fgcolour, pre_season_qualifier, rating, region_A, region_B, region_C, region_1, region_2, region_3, region_4, region_5, region_free, season_name, season_qualifier, season_type, show_name. Apprecaite if you could help me. Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I can run it this weekend. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cricket Team

Hi Primefac, hopefully you can help with this. I've been trying to experiment on the Template:Infobox Cricket Team in the sandbox but none of my changes show up even though they are present in the markup and visible as edits in the history. I've been a WP for 10 years with hundreds of edits so it can't be the semi-protected status preventing me? Any changes (even single character ones to labels) don't show up. Do you know what is going on, or what I am doing wrong? The change I am experimenting with is an alternate way of showing the uniforms via an image instead of the crude stick-man drawings they are at the moment. Thanks XrysD TALK 11:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

XrysD, this is the only edit I can find from you on the sandbox. If you're trying to save and nothing's coming through, chances are that it's an issue on your end and the page isn't saving properly. Maybe try a different browser? Primefac (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The only way I could get it to show was to edit the actual template - which you just reverted. This is the reason for the change: - File:VictoriaCAKit.svg is the file I want to add to the infobox for Victoria cricket team. Previously I have just added the image directly (see Notts CC) but because of the formatting it doesn't span the whole box. Hopefully now it's a bit clearer what I'm trying to do! If you are opposed to this I'd like to know why as the kit image is clearly an improvement in accuracy over the existing graphics. XrysD TALK 17:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
We already have Template:Football kit and related templates such as Template:Cricket uniform to do this; the instructions on the latter page describe how to add a new variation to the image list, though in the case of Victoria cricket team it look like the standard models are pretty good representations of the actual kit. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to offer a more accurate alternative to the existing uniform template which is simplistic in the extreme. That doesn't offer much beyond "White Shirt/White Trousers" which applies to multiple teams. Please explain to me why you are opposed to this more accurate representation. XrysD TALK 18:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not necessarily opposed to your changes, but things are done for a reason on Wikipedia; there are at least a dozen templates that use some variation of the "Football kit" syntax, which itself has been in use for well longer than I've been editing. Some of the "reasons we do things" a certain way are the vague hand-wavey "we've always done them that way" reasons, but others are due to legal issues or were the result of a consensus-building discussion such as an RFC. I genuinely don't know the specifics behind why we use these low-res "generic" images for kit sources, so in deference to that I'm going to err on the side of reverting changes like yours until a new consensus can develop.
The thing to do now if you really want to change this is to start a discussion. If you want to only change the cricket infobox, then start on that template's talk page or at WT:CRICKET. If you think this change would be good for cricket, football, and any other sports that use the "football kit"-style templates, then a centralized location such as WT:SPORTS or WP:VPR would be a good idea. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Primefac, that makes perfect sense now. I appreciate your not cutting a swath through what remains of what I've done so far, but to try and do it properly I think for the moment I'll move all the kit images out of the infoboxes into the article bodies and see how that goes down for a while. It may be that they belong there anyway. Thanks for your help :) XrysD TALK 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby biography

Hi there, after a recent change you made to Template:Infobox rugby biography, the current club is now appearing twice; once as "Current team" right under the "Rugby union career" section and then once again as "Current local club". Any chance this could be reverted? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was under the mistaken impression that the current club would only show up if the Super 14 params were used. I've changed its behaviour. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Page protection Skanderbeg

Hi. Skanderbeg is continuously disrupted by IPs. Since every time a semi-protection expires the disruption resumes, can you have a look at the issue and place a new semi-protection, preferably one longer than a month? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I made a request somewhere else and the article is now protected for 6 months. Thank you for your quick response. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, I meant to look into this but it got buried by other things. Glad it got sorted out. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail RfC

There's a dispute in a WP:RSN thread re the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC, closed by you and Yunshui, Tazerdadog, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Sunrise.

I pointed to the NPOVN archive of a May 2017 discussion, the part of the conversation that included closers' remarks was ...

Speaking as a closer of the RFC, we could not anticipate every possible use of the DM as a source in our close, which is why we tried to carve out some wriggle room for legitimate uses. This appears to be a legitimate use of the DM, because it is likely to be reliable in this specific case. It is still preferable to use a non-DM source if/when they become available. However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close. If I seem to be misunderstanding something, please ping me Tazerdadog (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, It is not a matter of "anticipate every possible use of the DM", this is a situation that was explicitly and clearly brought up in the RfC discussion: "This is relevant because the proposal would ban even attributed opinions, though of course there's some muddle about that too." Can you answer: yes attributed opinions are included in the ban, or no attributed opinions are not included in the ban? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I take it that is also the judgment of the other four closers (Yunshui, Primefac, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Sunrise) so attributed opinions by Daily Mail writers are not included in the ban, provided they aren't quotes of somebody else. Sorry about being wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It happens. Better to ask for clarification than never know. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC
Looks like I'm late to the party, so nothing much to add here except that yes, I endorse Tazerdadog's explanation above. Yunshui 雲水 07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

However, Newslinger says I understood wrong. Quoting one Newslinger remark from a long back-and-forth: "Claiming that ""the closers said attributed opinions are okay"" is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources)." here.

Is one of us right?

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's going to take me a minute to read through all that. Skimming through it sounds like you're arguing the same thing, but again I'll need to sit down for a while and actually parse things out. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, I've read through this discussion a couple of times now, and as near as I can tell you're arguing about the same thing but also agreeing; both of you are claiming that opinions are acceptable. At least, that's how I'm reading it. You're mostly just arguing over the semantics of what it's called when you use an opinion piece. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: No we are not both agreeing that opinions are acceptable. As Newslinger put it, "Even deprecated sources qualify for the WP:ABOUTSELF exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are WP:DUE and covered by reliable sources." I am saying opinions are acceptable not only for uncontroversial self-descriptions but for controversial descriptions about others, and violating all the WP:ABOUTSELF restrictions (self-serving exceptional claim etc.) -- the only special restrictions being as Tazerdadog stated. Unless the closers e.g. you were agreeing that opinions are acceptable "because WP:ABOUTSELF"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Tazer said basically that staff opinions, as written in their own articles, are their own opinions and not edited by DM as some other quotes are, and thus would not be subject to the restriction on the DM usage. Now, the exact location of that reference is up for debate, but that is not (and should not) be conflated with the DM issue itself; the opinions of an author as it pertains to a subject should be listed as such - opinions. If it's being used in an ABOUTSELF perspective then there is no issue, but if being listed as fact in another article there are issues. Of course, if it's being listed as an opinion in another article, then it would still be acceptable (though one might question why we need the opinion of Person X from the Daily Mail. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I will point to that answer. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons?...

Primefac, based on the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons result, what happens now? (I've never really witnessed as TfD result like this before!) For example, who is to carry out the split? And what are likely to be the names of the new templates?... FTR, User:Amaury/sandbox/Template:Nickelodeon original series exists, and could easily serve as the basis of the split-out "Current and upcoming programming" template – just so you know! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in the outcome is welcome to create, edit, or otherwise discuss the split. It's been listed at the TFD Holding Cell as well so that other template-savvy editors can take a crack at it if they so choose. In splits like these the name is generally decided by those involved in the creation of the new template(s). If I were to do the split, I'd move the entirety of the "former" subbox into its own template, probably called {{former Nickelodeon original series}}, with maybe some redirects such as {{former Nicktoons}}, and keep the existing content where it is (since at its current location it still accurately describes what's in the template).
After splitting, the only thing left would be to go and switch the relevant "current toons" template to "former toons" where appropriate. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to update – there is now a new "split" (part) of the template at Template:Nickelodeon original series for the "current" and "upcoming" (live-action) portion of the original. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

recreating page for Sarah Segal-Lazar

Hi Primefac - I would like to recreate the page for Sarah Segal-Lazar and not contravene criteria G11 and G12. Can I start this in Article wizard? BJLMtl (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

New markup for the Miscanthus-page

If you have the time, can you look at my suggestion for new markup for the Miscanthus page?

I have a couple of problems:

1.) If I delete the last line in the Notes section, the links stop working. (That last line has no function, but have to be there for the links to work.)

2.) I can't get the reflist to see the cite journal citatation, it only sees the book citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Perennial_Hugger/sandbox

The Perennial Hugger (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


It has dawned on me that others can't see my sandbox, so I have moved the proposal to the Miscanthus talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Perennial Hugger (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on Template:Rail-interchange

Hi! You seem to be doing a lot of the work updating this template. Would you mind taking a look at my edit request from July 19? Valentinian T / C 10:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Valentinian T / C 17:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

AfC

Hi. Now that with all the help from the WMF an AfC feed exists at Special:NewPagesFeed, I believe AfC reviewers should now be encouraged to work from that list. I have been checking through that backlog and I found that the vast majority of drafts are not really difficult to review. It's my guess therefore that AfC suffers from the same syndrome as NPP: too many hardly active reviewers and only a few doing the bulk of the work. You have the advantage at AfC that you can relegate the inactive ones to 'inactive' after 6 months, a feature that I forgot, to my dismay, to incorporate into NPR when I created the user right, but without a huge RfC it would not be easy to do that retroactively. That said, now that AfC has gained recognition by the WMF as an essential process, it's probably time to get a proper user right established for it that can be processed at PERM. What do you think? I would be happy to draft the RfC and create the system if there is a consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of drafts are very easy to review, and I definitely agree that it's because of the typical 10/90% people/work split that typically happens. For a small "silver lining" most of our single-day categories are at what I would call "normal" levels (<50 drafts per day) and it's just that huge 2 month category that's killing us.
I honestly don't know if making it an official PERM will fix the activity problem, though I do suppose it will make review of problematic reviewers a little easier (does NPP ever remove folk for poor performance?). Another option would be to make it into a semi-perm like AWB access... definitely possible either way though. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said, to my regret when I created NPR, I didn't think to include a clause making it easy for us to remove the right - either due to inactivity or poor performance. However, since the recent introduction of time limited Perms, we are now often according NPR on a probationary period of, say, 3 or 6 months. This avoids hat collecting, and enables a review of their work when they apply for their right to be made permanent.
AWB is a 3rd party app, like Huggle etc., and therefore not an 'official' app. That's why it's handled a special way. However, I think here is now a strong chance of getting AfC promoted to an official function. Several editors like me and DGG have advocated for AfC to be scrapped and its process entirely merged to NPP, however, AfC and NPP are as different as they are similar. Now that there is a feed for Drafts in Special:NewPagesFeed, I think a user right for AfC would encourage more quality of reviewing. See this just as one example of what goes wrong at AfC. RfCs of mine are carefully crafted and usually get consensus. I could clone and modify all the work I did to get NPR agreed and make all the pages to set up the right and now that I have a bit more time and better health, I would be happy to so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Good point regarding AWB. The more I think about it, the more I think that you're right in that we really need to have AFCH access as a PERM; a perfect example is the probationary period. In the existing structure at AFC I've been setting folks up as probationary and then no one but myself bothers to even look at their edits when they've reached the review period, whereas having it be automatic would at least force someone to say something.
I think as long as we can steer the conversation away from "just merge NPP and AFC" and/or complaints about whether we even need AFC (i.e. rehashing ACPERM) I suspect it will pass. Happy to help craft if necessary.
I know it's still a fair while away, but as a thought for implementing (if it goes through) have everyone that has done a review in the last 30 days get put on indef granting, and everyone else on a 2-month temp basis. That way if they don't want to use it any more it'll just go away. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Just merge NPP and AfC. The same knowledge and ability is needed for both. Stop keeping AfC entrapped newcomers in the dark about their immediate ability to edit mainspace. WP:DUD. Except for COI editors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
ACPERM is a thing, stop trying to make it be otherwise. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, Primefac, I just used too few words, I mean merge the review requirements and privileges of NPReviewers and AfC reviewers. I didn't think anything bigger was on the cards, or even possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I can’t work out why you write that to me. Why should AfC reviewers be different to NPP reviewers? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Though the two processes are similar, nowadays it takes less skill and experience to do NPP. NPP never actually does any definitive action: it just marks pages for possible future action, so there's less of feeling of responsibility. It's basically a sorting and tagging operation: first, sorting between the 3 x=possibilities  : Mainspace, draftify, AfD, Prod, Speedy. For Afd/prod/speedy, the final responsibility is on the eventual deleting admin. Then comes tagging: few articles do not need some tags for improvement, and it takes judgement which to use without overwhelming the contributor, but even those who do cursory tagging do at least the basic ones for unreliable /insufficient sources and promotionalism/coi. Those are pretty easy to tell, and they're just requests for improvement.
In contrast, AFC reviewing takes action--it either passes the article into mainspace, or not. it involves judging whether the article will pass AfD, and thus require a knowledge of not just written guidelines but actual practices, it now further involves judging whether there is a realistic prospect that the article will ever pass afd, because if not, it should be rejected, not merely declined. but it also involves sometimes extensive focused help for the contributor. NPP patrollers by and don't do it--their need is rather to get everything at least sorted. (some of us do it when we can, of course, but most of the time we just use the notices). The dialog between u and the successive AFC reviewwers hass become a very valuable way of seeing the different approaches, and tends to coordinate what we do towards a common standard. Most of us take this need to give advice quite seriously--I have noticed an increasing frequence of reviews just making comments, urging improvement before the actual review--and this is a very helpful way to do things. I've learned from them, and started doing it also.
And there's something really critical: nowadays most spam come at AFC, not NPP. 10 Years ago, NPP had to do everything--remove abusive junk, remove advertising,--and sort articles. Currently, the edit filters get rid of most of the really abusive material, and most of the advertising goes to AFC. So in general, I think people should start at NPP, and once they have some experience, go on to AFC. . DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Well that certainly puts a different slant on things, DGG, but it does prove that Wikipedia is organic and that things can change since you and I have been discussing AfC/NPP for the last 6 years! I think ACPERM has changed things a lot in the way we now control new content and you're probably right about the shift in tasks - with one reservation: NPPers still need to be trusted with the responsibility of correctly tagging articles for deletion. There's nothing worse than wrongly applying a PROD, AFC, or CSD because a) it can be very discouraging for genuinely motivated new users, and b) - sorry to say - but some admins do not check enough if the deletion tag was justified before pressing the delete button, or they are simply out of touch with new criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed about the effect of the deletions, but that situation has improved a little also. I 'd guess there are only 2 or 3 admins who still mechanically delete speedies. Some of the worst have left, or lost interest--and some have even learned; I still hope to convince the others. Prod is less of a danger, because there are also a few of us who check Prod to remove articles that don't belong there. The sheer erraticness of AfD is the main problem, and that will only be solved when we get a larger number and a broader range of editors regularly commenting there. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
DGG AfD is another (and big) problem. One that sooner or later needs to be vastly reworked or even changed for something else. But It would of course probably take 5 years to do at the speed with we we are able to get reforms through. - even if one were to start now . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need reforms, as much as we need more participants. It works best if some people participate who are not particularly involved in the subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Random but great to see you happy! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard: Nice to see you again. Masum Reza📞 12:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

TfD Brazil

Could you close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#Template:Infobox Municipality BR, detailed analysis, 2x replace and delete, 1x keep. 89.14.76.178 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

When and if possible, sure. Primefac (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Mangled CFB schedules

I just found several of this type of edit where the bot effectively removed the schedule from the page. this is probably because the conversion module was being run without human oversight (something that I never intended when I coded it). is there a way to get a list of all the pages where this was done so they can be fixed by hand? Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There was a group of us that found the same thing when the substitution was finished, and I thought we had found them all. Contribs start here. I suppose we could set up a tracking category based on your example above to track when the template is missing a parameter that would otherwise be converted. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The conversions went awry when there we unexpected characters—generally used to create inappropriate subheadings inside the tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Jweiss11, yes, I know, which is why I never intended for a bot to use that conversion module. I have added Category:Pages using CFB schedule with no content which will take some time to fill up but already has some useful results. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I've copied the old /doc directions, just for those interested in fixing the issue that don't remember:
  1. Add {{subst:#invoke:CFB schedule/convert|subst| at the top of the table, on a line before {{CFB Schedule Start}}
  2. Add}} to a new line after the {{CFB Schedule End}}
  3. Make sure the only items between these two lines are the {{CFB Schedule Start}}, {{CFB Schedule Entry}}, and {{CFB Schedule End}} templates. Extra lines, |-, etc should either be removed or converted/added to the "Entry" templates.
I'll see about fixing those already in the cat. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Frietjes, not sure why but 2017 UTSA Roadrunners football team is still in the category despite me fixing the transclusion. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
fixed, you had left a {{CFB Schedule Start}} behind (probably not inside the module invoke when you converted it). Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if you might be able to assess the consensus and close this discussion. This TfD was opened June 9, relisted on July 5, and is now the oldest unclosed discussion. There was some discussion on the proposal today, but it seems unlikely to affect the outcome.

(you may recall some discussions about the TfD notices: 1, 2) Retro (talk | contribs) 18:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's actually the only unclosed discussion. I'll get to it when I get to it, if someone else doesn't get to it first. But yes, I'll be taking a look soonish. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, that too, for now... I guess "oldest" isn't technically grammatical when there's nothing else to compare to at present time. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, it is the oldest, but it's also the only (you can have both at the same time). I've read through it completely, I'll mull it over, and probably close in the next day or three. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess that's true, hence the joke where one identifies something in one-item collection as both the best and the worst of the collection; it's really two item comparisons where the comparative is preferred over the superlative by some grammarians. But would not it have then been more accurate to say more precisely, rather than actually? Retro (talk | contribs) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder: it's been a bit over a week, and this is still not closed. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A little annoying how life keeps getting in the way. I'm moving this week, so last week when not working I was largely move-prepping. I am trying to get to it. Primefac (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User Kairipines user page

Hi Primefac and I'll also ping @Drmies: (as they were recently also involved there).

Kairipines has apparently again added details of other people (apparently also minors) to his user page. He has done this using another account with one of the edit summaries beginning I'm Kairipines but with other account ...

And apparently you already fixed it :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Upsides of having the page on my watchlist ;-) Based on their post at Sergecross73's talk page I suspect either an OS, CIR, or NOTHERE block will shortly be in order. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
They're certainly persistent. Now I know you're watching, I'll back away slowly and wish you all the best. Cheers Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2

Hi Primefac, feel free to edit through protection on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2 for any 'crat related activity. — xaosflux Talk 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

RfA Jonuniq

Sorry, I absolutely did not see that it has been closed, or I wouldn't have bothered. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, it's a reasonable edit to be making. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A user known as Shady59 is vandalizing the page with wrong info

A user known as Shady59 is vandalizing two pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_International_Shopping_Mall and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_International_Shopping_Mall The problem is that the user shows exaggerated figures for a shopping mall in his city. The shopping mall is known as Lulu mall kochi. In the website of the mall its shown that lulu mall has got only 0.62 million sq feet or 6.2 lakh sq feet of total retail space (https://www.lulumall.in/kochi/about-mall/). Then the construction company that constructed the lulu mall is shapoorji pallonji. In their official document, its shown that the mall has total area of 1.5 million sq feet which is signed by lulu group (https://shapoorji.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/pdf/Lulu%20International%20Shopping%20Mall.pdf). Both are very authentic documents from the malls website and from the construction company. Both these documents shows that the mall has total retail area or GLA of 0.62 million sq ft and total build up area of 1.5 million sq ft. The user Shady59 exaggerates it to 2.5 million sq feet and publishes it as Indias biggest mall. This is totally wrong and is against wiki rules. Please interfere in this matter and put a ban on that user. There kind of people are he reason why wiki is losing its trust. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amec116 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Amec116, they have a reference which gives credence to the 2.5 number. I think you should discuss this with the other editor on the article's talk page; I wouldn't consider this to be outright vandalism. Please keep in mind WP:3RR and do not get into an edit war with them. There are multiple ways to resolve a dispute, even if the "wrong" version of a page is there for a while. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No the webiste itslef says 0.62 million sq ft and no reference says 2.5 million sq ft. Please check those references, all of the are old and from untrustable websites and dont says 2.5. Please check the official document from the construction company itself and from the malls website itself. Thats much better than any other third party reference. https://shapoorji.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/pdf/Lulu%20International%20Shopping%20Mall.pdf and https://www.lulumall.in/kochi/about-mall/ Please check this documents, these are much better than any third party reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amec116 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless something has changed I was under the impression The India Times was considered reliable. This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately news papers in India are not that much reliable. It can only be taken if no other sources are available. I am so sure about this because news papers are just third party reports. The links that prove my point directly comes from the shopping malls and the construction companies websites itself. That thing is much more trustable. Also all of these media reports are old, they were written when the project report was not even submitted.

Fair enough. As I said before, though, this is not "vandalism" and unless there is active edit warring going on I'm not going to take any administrative action. Discuss the issue with the user on the talk page, get other opinions via WP:DRN or WP:3O, and if the sources themselves are in question bring up the issue at WP:RSN. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amec116 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Whitgift School

For schools, the word alumni is indeed typical in the US, but it is not commonly used by secondary schools in England, and so far as I know it is not used at all at Whitgift. Moonraker (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Just because a term isn't used in a place doesn't meant it shouldn't be used; some terminology can be considered universal. WP:WPSCH/AG would seem to indicate that "alumni" is used, as they never mention any exceptions to the header title. If you start a discussion on the talk page a consensus can likely be reached after soliciting opinions from other editors. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Moonraker, whether or not the word alumni is used at Whitgift is not really the issue here. The overriding factor is Wikipedia's goal to achieve consistency through the different genres of articles. Here at Wikipedia we use alumni in school articles. Interestingly, the word is actually quite common in the UK and not even a modern usage. It was around in the 50s and 60s when I went to school and university and throughout my long career linguist and teacher.
That said, there are tens of thousands of school articles in Wikipedfia and it would be an impossible task for John from Idegon (US), ClemRutter (UK), and me (kinda international) to check them all. Many use terms such as 'Former pupils' etc., and we don't generally bother to change them when we see them. Apart from the desired consistency, there is no actual hard and fast rule. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hm, I think consistency is more important within an article than across articles. Infoboxes present an issue with that, of course: some biographical ones have the "alma mater" field, which is pretty much never used in the UK in my experience but kind of forces terminology on any article that does include the box itself. If an institution has an organisation called "Old Schoolians" or whatever then I see nothing wrong with, for example, describing it as an association of former pupils rather than an alumni association, which seems to be Kudpung's position also. That said, I know nothing of Whitgift and I'm not sure that having a lot of back and forth about a section heading is going to achieve anything. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
You are right, there is absolutely no consistency. Whitgift School is a Headmasters conference school, and former direct grant grammar, and I would look for consistency across those sectors first- and there is none there. I default to Notable former pupils unless there is a strong local reason/tradition for doing otherwise, and in cases of dispute I would look for WP:RS to back it up. Why? In British English, schools are attended by pupils- colleges with a 16+ lower age limit are attended by students. You may refer to post 16 pupils in a school as students but they remain pupils- and when they leave they are former pupils. In British English 'alumna, alumnus and the plurals alumnae and alumni' are affectations- of which WP:MOS seeks to avoid. Call it marketing-speak if you like. Looking at the articles, there is a slight trend showing that the most prestigious schools use the heading Notable former pupils and the lesser use marketing speak. The use of old boys implies ownership, and that the influence of the school is causal on former pupils later achievements which would require a reference. Change without consistency would not be a good idea.
WP:WPSCH/AG#Alumni does overstate alumni- and I suggest that it should not be taken to literally. It served the function of describing the inclusion requirements, which was the problem at the time it was written, and did not address English Language variations.
If you wish to start a debate on improvements WP:WPSCH/AG- you can cross post this there. ClemRutter (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Even the word "schools" has a different meaning in the US. I do believe articles on British primary and secondary schools should not be forced into any form of "consistency" with an American usage which means using words that are alien to them. Actually, that is not consistency, it is more a kind of imperialism. As it happens, this school calls its old pupils "Old Whitgiftians", does anyone object to that? Moonraker (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, that a lot of the content I've added is relevant, why do other private english school's wikipedia articles contain such information, yet this one does not? Eton, Harrow, Tonbridge and Charterhousefor example, these pages mention uniforms, punishments and other details, if these pages are allowed it, then why isnt Whitgift? Or should I remove these sections from these pages too?. Stowe school still has their notable alumni on their same page, unlike Whitgift which had it removed... Should I add sections on Whitgift about victoria cross holders like Charterhouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treefrog23 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Likely because no one has removed it. Things like the uniform or punishment are not particularly pertinent (and I would guess that they are either unsourced or sourced to the school itself). Whitgift has a separate page for former attendees because it's a bloody big page, and there's no reason to have that much content on the main article. Stowe's list (which for the record uses "alumni") could probably end up on its own page, but it's only about a quarter the length of Whitgift's. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Rail-interchange/testcases ‎

Hi Primefac. Do you know of a way to stop non-free files from being transcluded onto this page. I just hid a bunch of stuff because it was transcluding non-free files used in relevant articles onto the page and using them a "icons" to link back to the articles. I thought adding <noinclude> to file syntax in the articles themselves might stop this from happening and tried it with one, but it didn't seem to work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Other than using <noinclude> to stop transclusions of images into articles, there's not really a way to stop someone from putting an improper image into a template that's in use other places. If the only place is the testcases page I suppose that's the best location, since it's not actually being transcluded anywhere (or sure as hell shouldn't be). Primefac (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Won't work

[1] No, that won't work, because Bishzilla inexplicably is not admin! Could not superclerk! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 16:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC).

Maybe we'll just have to IAR 'crat you for clerking purposes. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please ping response So... if I created a batch of unused icon templates, where do I go to get them deleted? That's another TFD? Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, WP:G7

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move.) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

— Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
--Trialpears (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Trialpears: trout Self-trout Oh dear.. that was poor wording on my part. I should have said "made a list of unused icon templates" rather than what I said. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
MJL, Well that's great! Then I don't have to do it! TfD would be the venue for that. Hopefully this one is quicker. --Trialpears (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Greetings!

Here is the 7th issue of the Bots Newsletter, a lot happened since last year's newsletter! You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM
  • Nothing of note happened. Just like we like it.
BAG

BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any bot-related activity (such as posting on bot-related pages, posting on a bot's talk page, or operating a bot), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG.

We thank former members for their service and wish Madman a happy retirement. We note that Madman and BU Rob13 were not inactive and could resume their BAG positions if they so wished, should their retirements happens to be temporary.

BOTDICT

Two new entries feature in the bots dictionary

BOTPOL
  • Activity requirements: BAG members now have an activity requirement. The requirements are very light, one only needs to be involved in a bot-related area at some point within the last two years. For purpose of meeting these requirements, discussing a bot-related matter anywhere on Wikipedia counts, as does operating a bot (RFC).
  • Copyvio flag: Bot accounts may be additionally marked by a bureaucrat upon BAG request as being in the "copyviobot" user group on Wikipedia. This flag allows using the API to add metadata to edits for use in the New pages feed (discussion). There is currently 1 bot using this functionality.
  • Mass creation: The restriction on mass-creation (semi-automated or automated) was extended from articles, to all content-pages. There are subtleties, but content here broadly means whatever a reader could land on when browsing the mainspace in normal circumstances (e.g. Mainspace, Books, most Categories, Portals, ...). There is also a warning that WP:MEATBOT still applies in other areas (e.g. Redirects, Wikipedia namespace, Help, maintenance categories, ...) not explicitely covered by WP:MASSCREATION.
BOTREQs and BRFAs

As of writing, we have...

  • 20 active BOTREQs, please help if you can!
  • 14 open BRFAs and 1 BRFA in need of BAG attention (see live status).
  • In 2018, 96 bot task were approved. An AWB search shows approximately 29 were withdrawn/expired, and 6 were denied.
  • Since the start of 2019, 97 bot task were approved. Logs show 15 were withdrawn/expired, and 15 were denied.
  • 10 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). 5 other bots have been deflagged per operator requests or similar (see discussion).
New things
Other discussions

These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active.

See also the latest discussions at the bot noticeboard.

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Daniel J. Zwerdling

The information I found represents the same person the bio represents. Why are deleting my work? - User:SpaceMan3091niner

SpaceMan3091niner, familysearch.org is not a reliable source, and if I recall is one of those "remove on sight" sorts of links. Please stop adding it to articles. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My close on Sun Records (other companies)

Greetings Primefac,

Thank you for taking action at WP:PERM. I am not writing to question your decision there, but I did want to explain my close. I fully agree that Sun Records (other companies) is not a DAB at this time, but the proposer of the move Metropolitan90 intended to turn it into a DAB; they made the same proposal at the WP:Articles for deletion/Sun Records (other_companies) and was unopposed at both venues. 78.26 thanked me for pinging him as part of the close, as he had indicated at AFD that once the article was moved to a DAB he had enough information to create a number of articles for entries on that list. What would the proper procedure be in this case? Does the page need to be turned into a DAB first and then moved? I assumed that the move needed to happen first, as my thought process was that the approved move would be the trigger to then create the DAB (and conversely, if the DAB was created first and then the move not approved, the DAB would have to be reverted). Thank you for any advice you can give me. CThomas3 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Page mover right for me

I had requested for page mover rights, but I couldn't get through at that time, do you think in total is enough now? or I need to gather more experience in moving pages? As I feel bad by Leaving cross-namespace redirects and putting extra burden on admins. with that right I would be in better position to cover my tracks. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 16:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

QueerEcofeminist, you appear to meet the minimum edit requirement (which was why your request was declined last time) so you're welcome to re-apply at WP:PERM/PM. A quick look at your move logs seems to indicate a positive result, but I just quickly glanced at them. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Free and open-source software/sandbox

Greetings! Can you please take a look at your recent edits to Template:WikiProject Free and open-source software/sandbox - your changes have caused it to appear in Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Weird, not sure what happened there. I've redirected to the main sandbox. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Protection level for Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality

Could you lower the protection of {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} to that of {{Infobox Russian district}}? Several edit requests related to Infobox settlement and related wrappers are pending for some time and a dozen more to be expected for Infobox settlement due to merging of other place-related infoboxes. Template editor resources could be better used if this Russian template gets slightly lower protection. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I see all of 3 TPERs in the last three years, which indicates that a) the template is not heavily edited, and b) it's likely not watched by very many people. With more than 3k transclusions I am extremely reluctant to reduce the protection on the page. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I have provided some diffs. I shouldn't have let my frustration with Wikipedia show through as it did. Posting in anger at 2 in the morning definitely does not work for me. I need to go back to the good old days when I used to use my tools for vandalism reversion. Bobo. 08:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, ​ thanks for posting those. I asked because I saw your comment and skimmed through his diffs at RFA and didn't find anything significant or substantial. I think the discussion has started going in the right direction. Happy vandal fighting! Primefac (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please know that I have true respect for you as a user, mop-carrier, and general messer-upper-fixer-person. Other events elsewhere on Wikipedia and in real life are taking their toll on me so my mind is not entirely focused on the job. Like I say, it was 2am - maybe I need more sleep! ;) Bobo. 12:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Svu season 3 Episode Tangled

Cops matched (Vincent’s hair) with (Rapist’s DNA) in End of Episode, but Vincent’s an Ex-Convict, so I thought (Dumb Cops compared Dam Rapist’s DNA against Criminal Records In Begining)?(103.232.128.12 (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)).

ooookay, and? Primefac (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I Believ that Dumb Cops did Not Even compare Dam Rapist’s DNA against Criminal Records In this Dam Episode.
Im sure that Technology is Fast In 2001.
Your name was in Revision History of SVU season 3.
1. You saw Tangled on TV?
2. Why didn’t Dumb Cops compare (Dam Rapist’s DNA against Criminal Records)?(183.82.125.104 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)).
I'm not really into SVU, if I edited the page I suspect it was to improve the article in some way. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
If You canot Answer my Questions with Guarante Answers, then Wat Websites people can Answer my Questions?(183.82.125.104 (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)).
I would check Google for SVU-themed chat boards. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Normani list of awards

Hey! I was just curious to know why her page in that particular has so many rules and differences from other award pages I’ve seen. Because if these changes are being made to her page other pages should be changed by me or other editors, right? Kanyfug (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about standardizing the display of the awards templates, because the wording of the template is not being followed and if that's the consensus then the template needs to be changed. I don't watch other pages so I'm not overly surprised that they're different, but that's why I started the discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Page mover review

Would you review some of my recent page moves since you have granted me the page mover right? I would appreciate any comments, suggestions and criticism. I particularly want to ensure I moved Bob Hearts Abishola correctly. Thanks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

AFCP Request Follow-up

Hello Primefac, I have not received any comment on my request to participate in AfC as reviewer. I am not sure whether its pending or forgotten. I understand you must be busy so I only wanted to confirm. Thank you. AvalerionV 09:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Just busy. Responded there. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

AWB permisisons

Hello Primefac. Thank you for approving my AWB permissions. However, after trying it out in the Javascript browser version, it's not a tool I'm going to use. It moves way too fast for this old man. So if you can remove the permission it is fine by me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Soviet Union divisions before 1945

Hello, Primefac. Re: this template, you could remove the 401st Rifle and 403rd Rifle Divisions. According to Commanders of Corps and Divisions, List (Perechen) No. 5, and Charles C. Sharp the 401st was never assigned, and the 403rd existed only briefly before being redesignated as the 2nd formation of the 78th Rifle Division. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, ish. I turned 401 into text with a footnote, and I created a redirect for the 403rd to the 78th. Primefac (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. I notice that the template now defaults to "show" instead of "hide". I'm OK either way, but I was wondering if this was deliberate or accidental. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I set the "collapse" state to "autocollapse", which means that it will collapse if there are other navboxes, but expand if it's the only one at the bottom of the page. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks

I appreciate your guidance, ill try again as soon as I find out how my user page can get reinstated. SPMCC88 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

SPMCC88, just as a note, your user page is not the place for articles; a user page is a place to talk (in general) about yourself as an editor. I took a look at the content that was deleted, and it was rather promotional; Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. When you go about creating your draft, try to keep it to "just the facts". Primefac (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for wading through all of that

I am so grateful for administrators who take the time to read and think. Thanks for the infinitely reasonable closure of this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

+1, thanks Primefac. – Levivich 22:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Always happy to help where I can. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Globalize subpages deletion

Thanks for deleting the globalize subpages! I just have some questions about whether merged template are speedily deletable. I've seen some discussions where people advocate for keeping merged templates as redirects even after breaking changes with a RfD discussion being suggested for deletion of the redirects citing WP:MERGE. It is however unclear to me whether the redirect rule should apply to template mergers as most mergers don't actually involve copy paste and don't create any copyright issues. This is the same logic for why I use {{R with history}} instead of {{R from merge}} for most template mergers, but that is another discussion. What is the consensus on this issue? Is there some general rule or is it mostly context dependant? --Trialpears (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

PS you forgot Template:Globalize/England and Template:Globalize/Singapore --Trialpears (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. They weren't listed at WP:TFD/H so Twinkle missed 'em. Deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
On the whole, the short answer is that it's context-dependent. When {{infobox former country}} was merged into {{infobox country}}, it made more sense to keep the former as a redirect as a pretty valid alternative name (plus it avoided the necessity of having to edit thousands of pages just to update the template name). On the other hand, the "Olympics" templates (nominated here) were just wrappers for {{infobox country at games}} and there was little point in keeping them as redirects (or at all). In the {{Globalize}} case, they were "merged" into the main template but what remained didn't really make sense as a redirect - if anything it would just confuse people thinking they're still using a wrapper or that it will somehow auto-fill the correct information.
In general, I'd say that you're correct that "merging templates" will usually produce a reasonable redirect, but I would argue this particular case isn't actually a merge so much as a functionality incorporation/modification. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NCAA team season

Primefac, thanks again for your help earlier this year running the bot sweep to clean up the college football schedule templates. Would you have able to help with a similar project for Template:Infobox NCAA team season? The template is supporting two sets of field naming schemes, an old set with camel case (e.g. HeadCoach) and newer set without (e.g. head_coach). It would be great to clean everything up and convert all transclusions to the newer field names without camel case. Additionally, there are a few fields that are still using camel case in all instances, e.g. "BCSRank", which ought to be converted to "BCS_rank". Let me know if you can tackle this. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If it's a straight-forward run, it would fall under Task 30. Just need a link to the discussion, and the specific edits that need making. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal

hi Primefac (talk) you gave reason to revert as whitewash, but i have not touched any updates by others, i have also updated lot of info on this page previously o just trying to add more info that was found. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Pasi (caste) __ India

On what basis you have declared the Pasi (cast) people as Untouchable ?

Please show me the authentic proof.

Do you know that no one can use word "Untouchable/Dalit" Against any human or cast in India. Rrshesh (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

For clarification, I have not declared anything. Wikipedia reports what is in reliable, third-party sources; in this case, those sources say that the Pasi were an untouchable community before India decided to pretend like half their history never happened. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


Dear sir,

Let me know the sources from where you got the information that Pasi(cast) people are untouchable. Rrshesh (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources are given in the article. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it....

Thank you for modifying the recent RfX template and for fixing the time error, but I don't understand exactly what you did to fix it. Take a look at the diff; your revision resolved the issue, my revision results in the error... but the diff just shows that you replaced "2019" with "2019"... I'm confused. What exactly did you modify? lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Unicode space after the 2019; I've got syntax highlighting turned on and it showed up as a bullet (though the edit-conflict notice showed the same thing you did - replacing "2019‎" with "2019"). Primefac (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, interesting! I have syntax highlighter enabled as well; I guess I just didn't notice the unicode space. Weird... I copied that template straight off the example on the same page. I might have to go take a look at it, and (if the space is present) fix it. ;-) Thanks for the response! Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

shortening signature

Hi.
Long time no see. I hope you are doing well.
I was wondering, is there any way to shorten the code of my signature, without changing the output? No ping required now —usernamekiran(talk) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

—<span style="font-size: 93%; letter-spacing:1.2pt; font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran[[User talk:Usernamekiran|<b style="letter-spacing:1pt;">(talk)</b>]]</span> to produce
—usernamekiran(talk)
--Izno (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Izno. It is now 52 bytes shorter. I am thinking about making it even shorter, maybe i will change the style altogether. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Can I suggest [[User:Usernamekiran|]][[User talk:Usernamekiran|(talk)]]? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
If you were only looking to shorten by about 20 characters, you could remove either the font-size or the letter-spacing. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Challenging ANI close". Thank you. — Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Guy's being hasty, given that it's only been an hour and a half, and so I have closed the AN section he opened. Now please prove me correct and actually post a closing statement, if you would...after taking the necessary time, of course. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Vanamonde93, you are correct; it was actually real life that stepped in (with the edit window still open!) and pulled me away for a bit. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
(I was watching) no problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Indianapolis Colts Draft template list

FYI, Template:Indianapolis Colts Draft template list was recreated along with Template:Colts2015DraftPicks, Template:Colts2016DraftPicks, Template:Colts2017DraftPicks, Template:Colts2018DraftPicks, and Template:Colts2019DraftPicks. Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, they've been re-deleted. I did not delete Template:Colts2019DraftPicks because it was not included in the original nomination (even if it is basically the same template). Primefac (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

2012 Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders football team schedule

Just a heads up, your bot removed the entire schedule at 2012 Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders football team instead of fixing it. Can you look at it? diff Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there was an issue with many of the schedules for Middle Tennessee State before 2012 as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I got all of the problematic pages. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nine years of editing

Hey, Primefac. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First edit day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, PATH SLOPU 10:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_24&oldid=1143239957"