Jump to content

User talk:Primefac/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sub judice

Hi Primefac! I saw your recent close of the sub judice template nomination—thanks for taking the initiative to contact WMF Legal. The fact that they've deliberately chosen not to weigh in is very much news to me. I don't think that's just a minor note, but something that has the potential to shape the debate, as a central argument for keeping is the legal one, and if the foundation doesn't feel a need to weigh in on the question, that might shift the discussion. I also question whether the normal no consensus -> keep model is the right path for this circumstance, since this template is giving guidance, and keeping it results in us providing guidance for which there is no consensus. I would like to at the very least have it noted in the template's documentation that there is no consensus regarding its use. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sdkb here; as I argued in the TfD, the template is inherently meant to scare editors off editing articles to include reliably sourced but negative information in articles by way of implied threat of legal action, which violates the spirit – if not also the letter – WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, and I saw no argument in the TfD that disabused me of that notion. Hell, one of the keep !voters even pointed out that two-thirds of the uses of the template were inappropriate. I'd like you to reconsider the no consensus → keep close, because while it is a marginal close, I don't think the close gives enough weight to these arguments. Sceptre (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll see about taking another look through the arguments. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Do not fix your mistakes with a revert/undo

I noticed you did fix the problem. But your edit appears as an revert. Stop making undos that are stealth fixes.

I'll restore the edit now. CapnZapp (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You really do like making more work for yourself and others, don't you. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Woosh. That's the point you just missed. Now - reserve undos only for actual reverts, and not constructive fixes. I know you know this, so I won't link to WP:UNDO. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @CapnZapp: Where does WP:UNDO prohibit modifying the revision that is being reverted to? --Blablubbs (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Fixing errors with an undo while preserving constructive edits is a perfectly acceptable method of editing. When I do it, I try to provide a good edit summary, like "rv vandalism while attempting to preserve subsequent constructive edits". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Since CapnZapp personally invited Blablubbs and Jonesey95 to a discussion on this matter, it seems appropriate to also invite Primefac: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reverting § Using undo for an edit that isn't a revert. Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to watch for a moment since the conversation is largely hypothetical (and the good Capn and I don't really get along). Should anyone feel the need to address the series of edits that led up to this I will not be opposed, though if it becomes necessary I will do so myself. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

PrimeBOT blanked a user talk page

With this edit, PrimeBOT blanked a user talk page with the edit summary of "Task 24: removal of a template following a TFD", rather than removing the 8-char templates it usually removes when doing this task. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for fixing the page in question. Primefac (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

REvDel

Hey Primefac! I noticed you deleted the revisions of a vandal on WP:AIV however you missed a few other edits by the same editor to other pages, and also a few edits by sinebot signing the user's comments that will also qualify under RD3. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup, just became aware of that. Will deal with it shortly. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with it! It's rather unfortunate that sinebot can't always tell the difference between vandalism and constructive edits that forgot a signature, although since it's a bot it doesn't really have any feelings. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
This is the closest barnstar I could find to reward you for dealing with revdels of vandals who just went too far. There might be one that is for this purpose however it's not included in the WikiLove script I use. Again, thanks for dealing with those vandals edits that qualify for rev deletion. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Works for me, thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Bug?

Is this expected? (I've no objection; actually, I prefer it. But if it's unintentional, then I thought you'd like to know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're not referring to the removal of {{Z33}}, as that's the designated task. Replacing · with · is something that AWB does automatically, so while it is not specifically part of the task, it falls under acceptable genfixes auto-generated by AWB. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for running genfixes while you're doing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft

Hi @Primefac:, Please delete this draft Draft:Roma Thapa as i accidentally created. Fade258 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, though for future reference {{db-g7}} works just as well. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Please tell me if I put any speedy deletion criteria in Article then it is called AFD am i right or wrong? Is CSD is only for Drafted article.? Fade258 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
AFD is "Articles for Deletion", "CSD" is "Criteria for Speedy Deletion". They are related but not at all similar, in that AFD is only for articles, and there are some CSD criteria that are only for articles, but there are also CSD criteria that can be used anywhere (or in other, specific, namespaces). Primefac (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac, Well, I am not able to tag Submitted drafted article which has been declined as a reason for No Context through Twinkle by clicking CSD option. Why I can't? Please tell me. Fade258 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Help with an Infobox

Hi @Primefac:, I was wondering if possible you could help in designing an a simple infobox, Template:Infobox TikTok personality I have tried to get it working but failed. All it needs to have is “image”, “Followers” and “Likes” and needs to work as a module in other infoboxes. Hope you can help, Thanks. TapticInfo (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So TapticInfo, are you thinking of a passthrough of parameters of {{Infobox person}} along the lines of {{Infobox police officer}} or something that would be embedded in a wider variety of host infoboxes? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
TapticInfo, have you tried copying {{Infobox YouTube personality}} and adapting it for use with TikTok-specific fields? It seems like that would be the easiest route. See also {{Infobox Twitch streamer}} and {{Infobox Instagram personality}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: @Sammi Brie: @Jonesey95:, Sure thanks, I tried to initially use the “Infobox YouTube Personality” but after adapting it, it gives the error ”Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox TikTok personality with unknown parameter "followers"” for all the fields, i.e. see Bella Poarch. If possible could you maybe help fix it. TapticInfo (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
That is because your Check for unknown parameters is empty - in other words, any parameter being used by the template will trip that notice. You need to either add values to the check, or remove the check entirely. Primefac (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Primeface: @Sammi Brie: @Jonesey95: Thanks for all the assistance. TapticInfo (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

Any chance that Primebot will be doing infobox genfixes again. Specifically restoring basic indentation and spacing? There are some editors out there who have somehow convinced themselves that stripping out spaces from the infobox is a good idea (ignoring the example of Template:Infobox film or the idea that any human might ever try read the wiki markup and improve the contents).

I see that Primebot has fixed this kind of thing before (as recently as 26 July 2021‎) and if I thought Primebot was going to fix it again in the near future it would be very reassuring and I wouldn't need to waste time trying to communicate with an editor who refuses to even discuss it (and who's edits are factually and content-wise fairly good, it's just his stubborn insistence on stripping spacing from the markup that's causing problems). Thanks. -- 109.77.209.225 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have infobox genfixes turned on whenever I am doing an infobox-related series of runs (e.g. #PrimeBOT_30_run_request above), but not all the time (e.g. right now when it's orphaning templates). This is because most of the fixes are cosmetic and so I only run them when there are substantive changes also needed (and only for infoboxes, to avoid conflating different tasks).
If there is an editor who is OWNing or otherwise trying to force a specific use case that appears to be out of sync with standard consensus, then if BRD fails, try DRV or potentially WP:ANI. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Knowing that Primebot will probably restore sane formatting in due course will probably be enough. Thanks. -- 109.79.73.154 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

About Wikipedia user account

Hi @Primefac:, Can I use same Wikipedia user account in both mobile and desktop computer by using same IP address ? Fade258 (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are connecting to the internet using wifi (and not your mobile data connection) then your desktop and mobile should share the same IP. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Can i do this on other desktop computer not my own desktop? Fade258 (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
IP addresses are linked to the internet connection, not to a device, so if you use multiple PCs or are in different locations on your mobile, your IP will change. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Accidentally, Those device which I am going to use my user account, where there is already a another user account on that case Can my user account will blocked or not as a Sock pupperty? (Note: I ask you this only for gathering some information). Fade258 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I get the feeling you are concerned that you will somehow automatically or immediately be "flagged" as a sockpuppet if you happen to use the same device or edit from the same IP as another user. There is no such system in place, so I would not worry about it. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, around few weeks ago I have been automatically blocked for one day. As some user had used my IP address where they have been blocked as a sockpuppet (@Damak15 to Yourwish09). So, I am worry about my user account. From your last message, I am safe to use my user account. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues. That was a LOT of feedback to read, digest and summarize. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Always happy to help! Primefac (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there

I believe you already have come across this (Concerning the editor Kaizenify). I’m not sure if it was you who granted them AFC pseudo rights, but all the same I find it imperative to let you know that they are making wrong and dubious accepts at AFC as detailed in that entry. If it isn’t you who granted him the afc pseudo rights then I’m sorry for presuming wrongly. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer has also queried them in the past. Thanks for your time Primefac I know you are easily one of the most hardworking functionaries here and dropping this here just adds to the arduous tasks you already carry out. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Just to check, is it a single problematic accept, or are there multiple? I skimmed their last half-dozen accepts (back to Draft:Ayodele Okundalaiye) and don't really see anything problematic. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh my! I honestly thought you didn’t reply this. You know I would have replied this in a nano second if I saw your response earlier. Okay so what did happen was they accepted a promotional non notable article at AFC as seen here & immediately did this where they affix both {{notability}} & {{unreliable sources}} to the article & that is a problematic accept if I have seen one, @Curb Safe Charmer was the first to nab this suspicious move, and correctly moved the article back to Draftspace as it was clearly an ADMASQ, they queried Kaizenify on why they accepted that & their excuse or rationale didn’t make much sense after which they deleted the convo. I Notice this much later and ask Kaizenify why he accepted an article & affix the aforementioned tags, like why are you accepting an article at AFC if you know the sources used are unreliable? Of course they made no response. If it was done to throw editors off his scent I don’t know. What’s interesting is I wasn’t even aware this had been discussed before by CSC who is quite meticulous, articulate and intelligent at his duties, I noticed this odd move to. So yes, that was a problematic accept. Celestina007 (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. One problematic accept, unless a huge problem, is not reason enough to pull access. That being said, if you notice a pattern and/or continued problems let me know. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Aye, you got it boss, I’m not calling for any perms to be revoked I just thought it wise to inform you. Once more sorry for the late reply mate I swear, as God is my witness I didn’t see your response before today. Celestina007 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
It's fine. As someone who finds excessive pings annoying, I tend to not leave them when I suspect that a user is watching the page or would otherwise be looking for a reply (such as leaving me a talk page note). Primefac (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

PrimeBot Task 24 on User talk:Choudhary Shrikant singh

Hi Primefac. Is this intended? [1] — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No, thanks. It's a bug in AWB that occasionally rears its head when the servers get backed up. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

My 1 day performance report

Sir thank you for issuing me the rights for AFC review for temporary period. If you have time, could you please look into my first day performance on AfC reviewing. In case of any negative thing you looked upon. Please tell me so that I can rectify it next time. In case of my term ends, can I be promoted to permanent active members taking into my contributions on AfC reviewing.

Thanking you,

Best Wishes,

Jyoti Roy (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I've seen this, just haven't had an opportunity to give a solid block of attention to this request. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at your first ten reviews. While I did not do a really-deep dive into checking the references, etc, I have a few thoughts.
  1. If you reject (not decline) a draft, you should provide at least some reason as to why it is not suitable.
  2. If you are declining a draft as not notable or insufficiently sourced, and there are a lot of sources, comment as to why you did not find the provided sources to be adequate. Examples would be Draft:Thomas Wikman or Draft:For Better or For Worse: The Complete Library.
  3. Do some cleanup if you can. For example, on Draft:Zouaq there are really only two sources, but in the references section it looks like 6 (which has led some users to say "but I have six references!"). If you take the few minutes required to name the references for reuse, it will save the submitter a ton of time, make it more readable, and show them how it's done.
Overall I don't see anything blatantly incorrect, but there are definitely a few things to work on in the future. The more you can assist on the front-end when you do a review, the less work and explanation has to be done later; in particular this goes for #2, as we get a ton of questions at the help desk and on IRC which could have saved everyone time if the reviewer had left more/better feedback. It also helps with #3, as new users often will not know all of the tips and tricks that we use to polish an article, so doing it ourselves saves them time and frustration. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

PrimeBOT 30 run request

Hi Primefac, we've removed |slogan= from five infoboxes with more than 30,000 combined transclusions: {{Infobox radio station}}, {{Infobox radio network}}, {{Infobox broadcasting network}}, {{Infobox television station}}, {{Infobox television channel}}. Can PrimeBOT be run across all five to remove uses of this parameter, including blank ones? The removal discussion is here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll put it on my list. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hold off on Infobox radio station, there are some editors with concerns about that. The others are ready though. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
You're clear to do Infobox radio station now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll get to is soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Adding a request to change |web= to |website= on Infobox television channel. This would avoid a clobber error, as noted at Template talk:Infobox television channel#web/website. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Seen and replied, not sure why I didn't see that conversation since I have it on my watchlist. Likely my old friend come back to hide it. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Closing the Deletion debate on NavBox US military utility vehicles has several issues

Dear Primefac,

I'm rather new to this, but I believe you closed the discussion on the proposed deletion of NavBox template US military utility vehicles on 16 October ?

Were you aware that the discussion on How to split the template is still ongoing ?

Does such a deletion proposal during the ongoing debate on replacing the navbox not run counter to WP:MULTI, i.e. starting the same discussion on multiple pages ? —
Is it really fair game to propose deletion of a thing, while consensus on proper replacement has not yet been reached ??

Furthermore: you stated: "Please make sure any extant uses that are not also covered by the split templates are replaced and not just orphaned."
But are you aware, that user Cavalryman's template {{Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles}} covers only 50 of the roughly 76 post‑1945 articles that were included in the now deleted navbox – orphaning some 26 of them, the way I understand it..?

And finally: I had higher hopes regarding the quality of the debate on deletion... I had expected it to respect WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and instead focus more on sound arguments, and reasonable application of logic... — Thus, much more than just: users x and y are in favor, and only user z is against ?

I'm unsure I should bring this to your attention in this way. If I'm erroneous, would you please be willing to point me to the proper procedure to find answers to these issues ?

Thank you in advance, and with respectful regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this but have been wrestling with plumbing all afternoon and have not had a chance to fully read or respond. Will do so hopefully tomorrow? (Also just a personal note to read through this note as well) Primefac (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I think some of your concerns have been dealt with by Explicit at their talk (in particular regarding the deletion itself). As far as the TFD goes: it is not unusual to have a deletion discussion at the same time that other matters are being dealt with; indeed, this is why the Holding Cell exists, in order to allow for those discussions to conclude before final action is taken. In this case, it looks like the deletion was a bit premature, but as you have seen it's easy enough to get it restored temporarily.
If I've missed anything or you'd like further information, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your reply and explanation sofar !
I am, however, taken aback, that it is "not unusual", to start a deletion discussion on something, while the very debate on how to best replace that same thing, is still ongoing elsewhere ? — Does that not really run counter to WP:MULTI, i.e. starting the same discussion on multiple pages ?
I do feel, that this has placed me, as the defender of the originally by Cavalryman proposed course of action, that we initially Agreed upon, namely to SPLIT the navbox to be deleted, into three time-periods (one pre-1945, and two post-1945), on which he then made a U-turn (?), put me under unfair pressure, as I was still trying to work through this with him, using sound arguments, and logical reasoning – debating this on the talk-page of the template to be split !? —
Prematurely nominating deletion forced me to fight a war on two fronts, in a manner of speaking ??
Best regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
So there are two discussions: the first, started before the TFD, was whether and how to split the template. The second is whether or not to keep the template. Historically, we've had all three types: split requests at TFD (i.e. with no prior discussion), deletion requests after a split has happened (basically just a procedural "we can delete this now eh?"), and concurrent discussions. I would say that it's rare but not unusual, especially if there are only two or three participants in the non-TFD venue (increasing the number of eyes will often increase the quality of the output).
As I said before, closing the TFD does not immediately put an end to the second discussion; if there is still splitting and other matters to be discussed, then they should be discussed. If more eyes are needed at said discussion, then a note at the Holding Cell, WP:3O, or WT:WPT asking for more input is perfectly reasonable. In other words, TFD gives an outcome but not a timeframe in which to do it. We don't (normally) stop a TFD simply because there is a related discussion ongoing (that being said, there certainly are procedural closes, but those are often due to extenuating circumstances). Primefac (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I had intended not to further bother you with this one, "best laid plans" ... With the exception of what is described here there are no articles in the body of navbox not covered by the new three, it was also transcluded on several other pages such as List of United States Army tactical truck models, not inappropriate but not necessary (and not insurmountable to rectify). No articles were WP:Orphaned by the template’s removal. This current line that I somehow made a U-turn on what was agreed is a red herring, another delaying tactic only adopted 10 days after the TfD discussion commenced, I have clearly stated I am very open to discuss a further split [2], and I remain happy to do so.
Also, thank you for clarifying TfD is the appropriate venue for template splitting discussions, I did look at WP:TfD which makes no mention of splitting, so instead I followed WP:PROSPLIT and made a note at the relevant WikiProject [3]. Anyway, my apologies for further wasting your time with this one. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC).
thank you for clarifying TfD is the appropriate venue for template splitting discussions - I did not say that, nor am I trying to imply it. As I said in this parallel discussion, TFD is really for use when there is little or no participation at the venue, or there is pushback - a year or so ago there were a dozen TFDs asking for splits where there was no opposition or prior discussion, and the end result is essentially a wasted week and time spent closing TFDs with no participants. If something can be done outwith TFD, it should be done. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Your expansion at Samworth Church Academy

You've expanded x2 an IP addition where there is no citation; likewise at his website - no mention where he was schooled. I'm minded to delete this entirely. Any objections?

His wikibio (Mark Henderson (lighting designer)) is almost entirely unreferenced, and similarly no mention of schooling. The Guardian has only "...in my home town in Nottinghamshire" and BBC Gloucestershire has "Born in Mansfield...". I usually do a bit of 'before'. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies - misclick

Leaky caldron (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, figured as much. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

100,000 edits

I have now made 100,000 edits, and I am wondering when I get the barnstar that says I that have achieved this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Barnstars are not given automatically (unlike the notifications for reaching certain milestones), so you will either need to wait for someone to notice and give it to you, or just put the barnstar/award on your uesrpage yourself. Primefac (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants

May i request to remove me in the list? I am busy in real life (new job) and shifted my focus in Path of Exile wiki so that i feel i am semi-retired in en-wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. You're welcome back any time. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

May I request a checkuser?

An editor was blocked on it.wiki a few months ago but remains active on en.wiki. Some IPs and a new account recently made duck-like edits to it.wiki and es.wiki. The new account also created an account on en.wiki.

More details can be found here:

May I request a checkuser? Thanks, mate! SimoneBilesStan (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that you're asking about it-Wiki, my advice would be to ask for help at it-Wiki. If the editors are also editing en-Wiki then you are welcome to file an SPI. Primefac (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

contribution history

Hi. How to select particular set of edits from contribution history? Like you have done here. I tried selecting using dates, but it is different than the links provided by you. —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 06:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

To arbitrarily look at an example from that page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/PrimeBOT&offset=20170211040000&limit=30, the |limit= sets the number of edits, the |offset= sets the timestamp of the newest diff (or earlier). If I wanted to pick the previous 25 diffs that I made yesterday, I would do https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Primefac&offset=20211017214400&limit=25 for a result of [4]. Note that the timestamp is YYYYMMDDhhmmss. Hope that helps. Primefac (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
You mean, we have create the URL manually? I thought it was just some filters. Yup, I understood, not much boring to perform. By the way, did you see my guestbook? —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 08:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If you are referring to posting a link to contributions that isn't just Special:Contributions/Primefac, then yes, it's a full URL that needs to be entered. The "search for contributions" (dropdown when you're looking at contribs) can get you close by specifying what dates to start and/or end at, which can then be further tweaked as necessary. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
So funny thing happened, usernamekiran, someone went and created {{Last N contributions}} which allows for easy linking to specific contributions. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
hehe
thanks for letting me know :) —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

remove

hi why remove my edit in gbif bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't sure at first why it was posted, but now that it's been re-added I see that it's related to previous posts. My apologies. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Another IndentBot trial

Hi sorry to bug you, could you check on IndentBot's BRFA? I'd like to run another trial. Winston (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Soon as I can, assuming someone doesn't get there first. Primefac (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping

Thanks for the ping. I did see that comment, but I have zero desire to interact with that particular editor, who, frankly, should have been banned a long time ago. It's impossible to have a proper debate with that group of editors (referred to in this comment I put on my userpage nearly ten years ago) – even the comment made there about East German elections template is disingenuous. Cheers, Number 57 09:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Recover draft article

Hi,

I've just request (and received it) permission to use the copyrighted material on the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_nanoFramework that you've deleted a few hours ago. Any chance that you can restore it so I don't have to spend (again) a couple of hours rewriting it?

Really appreciate that! Thanks, J.a.simoes (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Primefac,

I've asked (and received) permission to use the copyrighted text that was on the draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_nanoFramework that you've deleted a few hours ago. Any chance you can recover that and save me from spending (again) a few hours rewriting it?

Really appreciate it!

PS: this message could be repeated as I'm unsure if I really sent the first time

J.a.simoes (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It was actually Draft:.NET nanoFramework, but I did eventually find the permissions ticket and have restored the draft. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Resignation of reviewer at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Article for creation

Sir I want to resign from the reviewer of Wikiproject:Wikipedia Article for creation because I am busy currently in my educational works. Therefore it will be difficult for me to review the drafts all the time. I would request you to remove my name from the list. I will request again once my works are done for.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Jyoti Roy

-- Jyoti Roy (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Jyoti Roy (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!
Hello Primefac:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm Fairly Sure I contest the Scrappy Draft's Speedy Deletion, but again...

The deleted draft is a recovery from an earlier version of said page, which in turn, the page that you believed was copyrighted from, was actually the one who borrowed, to begin with. There is no infringement on my part. check the history of the actual page and compare, it's clear that I was the first. (though I have no problem with other sites using it! I just want to make sure that's absolutely clear) Thanks, and have a nice day. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a third look at the talk page, I believe I may have misread some of the comments regarding reverse copying. Page restored. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Why restore that? There's so little (if anything) that would ever be used on Wikipedia. We've had a lot of problems with that editor adding unsourced/excessive fiction story/cruft content. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not strictly a G12 deletion. I haven't looked too deeply into the content, but I can't just say "it's a useless draft so I'm not going to restore the page, even though it was deleted under an invalid CSD criteria". If there is another criteria under which it can be deleted, then by all means pursue that. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Module:Transclusion count/data/

Hello Primefac. Did you intend for the protection of the various subpages of Module:Transclusion count/data to expire after 48 hours? These seem like the kind of thing that should be permanently protected? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks. I had to back out of the first p-batch and when I went for round two I clearly missed changing the expiry date. Primefac (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Check the article

Hello, I have written an article about Reza Tajbakhsh in the draft. Can I create it myself because I have added resources to the article and Because the article is WP:GNG compliant. Also references full covered WP:NWSRC. And the article is ready to move to WP:Mainspace.--Modeling (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that the page was previously deleted, I think it would be best to have it reviewed at AFC, but I cannot force you to take that route. Primefac (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted template precision1

Hello, I am trying to use the coordinates templates on an external wiki which does not have Lua however I have come across an obstacle. The template Template:Precision1 has been deleted, but it is used by one of the coordinates templates. Would you be able to restore it briefly so I can copy it over to the wiki I'm working on, or email me with its contents? Sorry I know this is a weird request, but I can't figure out another way to get cordinates working. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry for the repeated messages. I think it may be working now, so I probably don't need this template. Thanks anyway NemesisAT (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
No worries, let me know if anything changes. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello I wanted to thank you about editing a page about my dad I have a project do about military personnel and I went on Wikipedia to get some answers. About my dad and there was a watch of messed up stuff and I saw that you edit things to make it better I just wanted to say thank you for editing it. It is Joseph T guastella. :p 2601:283:487E:1890:45A:BC4F:3498:3633 (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

AN closure

Just curious; what did I mess up? :-) WaltCip-(talk) 16:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I think I understand now - an intermediate edit between mine and Rick's got revdelled. Probably for good reason, I imagine. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, and with a SineBot edit in the middle it was easier to just roll everything back. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A bit of tips and advice when it comes to this

Hello Primefac, hope all is well with you. I've been taking a 3-year break from Wikipedia editing so I'm back after 3 years. I remember back in 2018 when you gave me tips and advice on how to bring a draft to have a better chance of being accepted. I remember having a chat with another Wikipedia admin on the Wikimedia Community Discord Server and they agreed with the idea that one particular section of an article I noticed should be cleaned up for violating WP:NOT and then one day later after cleaning up the section of the article some random new IP address leaves a message on my talk page out of the blue saying that cleaning up the article is unnecessary and irrelevant. Considering you have much more experience on Wikipedia than me and have probably dealt with something similar at some point.

Would it be a wise choice just to ignore what that IP address says because the IP address that sent me that message seems to have a very limited understanding of editing articles.

Just curious as well but are you also in the Wikimedia Community Discord Server. It's a nice place to chat just like IRC where people get live help and support. Anonymous1941 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC).

The decision whether to update, trim, improve, or gut an article is usually up to the choice of the editor. If you feel that an article should be improved, then by all means improve it! There is nothing wrong with the IP holding the opinion that the article is fine as-is; it only really becomes an issue if they start reverting your edits without good reason and/or without discussing them first. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
When I look back at my journey thus far, I can’t imagine myself making all the positive contributions to the collaborative project if you hadn’t take a chance on me. You may have forgotten but some years ago, i decided to request a perm, in order to serve the community better but all the gatekeepers who stalk perms gave a million reasons why I didn’t qualify but you nonetheless took a chance on me and look how well that turned out. Please keep being you no matter what. You are an exceptional human and a “father” figure to me. Thank you so much for taking a chance on me I’m eternally indebted to you. Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Aww, thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
💗💗💗. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Reporting Racial Incidents in Prior Lake High School

Hi,

I added this incident and cited my sources before it was removed. I understand the grey areas with referencing a news outlet no matter how reputable. This incident however has to be added to Prior Lake's profile as they have been in the news repeatedly for racial incidents. I could add original content without citing any source but if I do that, it invalidates the content and becomes my personal opinion. How do you suggest I add this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarrieG (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

MarrieG, the issue was not necessarily with the reference used, but the fact that you copied pretty much directly from it. Additionally, you should not be naming non-notable minors for privacy reasons. You are welcome to add the content to the page provided you write it in your own words and it is neutrally worded. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Primefac Sure! Will do. Thanks for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarrieG (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

1-54 Contemporary African Art Fair

Hi! Why was this histmerged? It was an undiscussed cut and paste move so it should have just been redirected or deleted. There was no useful content to histmerge and the result has thrown off the attribution history. czar 05:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1050354209 shows the nature of the copy/paste pagemove. There were changes made after the move, and while they were somewhat trivial it is also (somewhat) trivial to move the page at the new title back to the old title if the latter is more appropriate. There is no throwing off of the attribution history because no edits were removed. If the page should be at the original title I'm happy to move it back. Primefac (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
But it was a copy-paste move of identical content marked as G6, not for histmerge. I don't see how the article was improved by the latter. And a lesser point but this is an example of what I meant by it throwing off machine-readable attribution. czar 04:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hey, Primefac,

One of my routine activities is checking the broken redirects lists. Today, a couple of talk pages showed up as broken redirects (very typical) but when I looked at the template pages for the talk pages, they had speedy deletion tags and the last edits to the page were by you in September 2021 (see Template:Uw-vandal-rand1/sandbox and Template:Uw-vandal-rand1/testcases). So, have these pages been tagged for speedy deletion for over 2 months and not showing up in the CSD categories? Or did some system gremlin just tag them and the edit doesn't show up in the page history? I know that happens with maintenance categories past their due date, a speedy deletion tag appears without a bot actually adding it to the page in an edit. Curious, for non-tech minds like myself.

Oh, if you are are an admin talk page stalker, please don't delete these pages until Primefac can respond. That happens every time I report a problem at the Village Pump Tech board. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the tech answer, but the parent page of those two subpages was just deleted in the past 24 hours, if that helps explain anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That seems to be it. Both of the above subpages had templates on them ({{template sandbox notice}} and {{template test cases notice}}) that automatically create CSD notices when the template the subpages belong to is deleted or non-existent. clpo13(talk) 00:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Clpo13's spot-on, meaning that following the {{Uw-vandal-rand1}} deletion on 11 Nov, when the cache cleared the two listed subtemplates got G8'd by default. So a) my edits had nothing to do with this, and b) the templates were only tagged/listed for about 12 hours (funnily enough, if you had done nothing, Explicit would have deleted the talk page along with the subpages an hour later than you deleted just the talk page). Hope that helps! ​ Primefac (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
That does help. Thank you for the explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § page edit not accepted

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § page edit not accepted. Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Let me know if the banhammer needs dropping. Primefac (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Primefac. Just letting you know about this as a courtesy. Perhaps it would be wise to watch BigdogNova for a bit because they are likely 24.52.202.85 and may be back to try and add such content to Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild again. It also might be relevant to that the BigdogNova account was created back in November 2012, but appears to have been unused until now. That seems a bit odd and might indicate a possible sleeper sock or something. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Can do. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A second query

Hello, Primefac,

I'm coming to you because you and your talk page stalkers might know what to do about this one. MediaWiki talk:Apihelp-main-extended-description/sandbox and MediaWiki talk:Mobile-frontend-editor-disabled/sandbox popped up on an Orphaned talk subpage list. Originally, this was a list from 2020 of over 1000 pages that I worked on over summer 2021 and got down to a manageable size that updates weekly.

But I don't know anything about MediaWiki pages and whether or not these talk pages or their MediaWiki pages, serve any purpose or can be deleted. When I checked, no other pages link to them but, as I found out in a mistake with templates, just because no pages link to a page doesn't mean that it is doing nothing. I truly don't know where to go to ask as I couldn't even tag these MediaWiki pages for MFD discussion. Any ideas or suggestions? Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I moved them both to their "primary" talkpage (i.e. minus the /sandbox). Should fix the issue. Primefac (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

4BC

Hello, are you able to get the 4BC Wikipedia Page Logo updated, as I can't get through wiki commons.

RoakleyTheBirb (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RoakleyTheBirb, I'll be honest, I have zero idea what you're asking about. Which logo, for which page? Primefac (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) On October 8 4BC moved from 1116 khz to 882 and updated its logo accordingly. The current image is up for deletion at Commons so maybe uploading a fair use image here would be better?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Khattab Hussein

Sir a creator of this draft, is constantly submitting this article in different naming pattern of same person. It is rejected due to not notable. Please kindly deal with this person as he has disclosed me that he was paid for the article. He didn't maintain any COI format, and still sending this article. Please look into this situation.Jyoti Roy (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they've already been blocked. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Find sources protection

Hi Primefac! I noticed you recently lowered the protection of {{Find sources}} and related from TPE to EC. Given that it has more than 500,000 transclusions, I was rather surprised. Could you share the request you mentioned in the summary and expand on your reasoning for granting it? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Special:PermaLink/1055869020#User:Wikmoz. Didn't meet the requirements for TPE, so dropped protection since they regularly edit the module. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. It might be automatically re-protected, though, since my understanding is that after the recent Nazi flag incident, MusikBot automatically template protects pages with more than 5000 transclusions even if protection was previously lowered. Talk pages are less critical than article pages, but still, 500,000 is way above the normal high-risk template threshold. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

infobox country at games - Favour

Hi! Can you please add the Junior Pan American Games to this template? Thank you in advance. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really make any sense as there's only one edition and thus nothing to navigate between, but... sure? Primefac (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Module:Political party

Hi Primefac!

I was made aware of this project (which I quite like, incidentally) after I nominated Template:Samata Party/meta/color for deletion. I was informed by another editor that the template would soon become obsolete, and figured it was best to familiarise myself with this new system as I work mostly in politics-based areas. I noticed many parties don't yet have listed abbreviations despite many having abbreviations. I figured I could probably edit the dataset directly (at least, the subpages that aren't template-protected), but I wanted to ask in case you'd prefer I didn't.

Based on what I can tell, this would involve, say, replacing

["Zoram Nationalist Party"] = {abbrev = "", color = "#0000FF", shortname = "",},

with

["Zoram Nationalist Party"] = {abbrev = "ZNP", color = "#0000FF", shortname = "",},

I would like to help with this as I need something to do and this seems like the sort of thing that I'd like doing. I'd only add an abbreviation if there was one listed at the article or a /shortname or /abbreviation template. You are within your rights to decline this request.

YttriumShrew (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also update out-of-date colours per the meta/colour templates. YttriumShrew (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
YttriumShrew, if you have proposed updates to the module, feel free to post them at Module talk:Political party (assuming it requires discussion). Primefac (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made a couple of edits. [5][6] YttriumShrew (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(third) Query

Good day, Primefac,

I was just deleting some broken redirects and came upon one related to this TFD discussion which was closed and resulted in you deleting the templates involved earlier today. Following a trail, it led me to Category:Wikipedia title cleanup which is a category for pages tagged with those now deleted templates. Should it also be deleted? Or are there other existing templates that might use it? Right now, it just contains Template:Renamed. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 17:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that it contains a template that was not listed in the TFD, it should not be deleted outright (mainly because one could also read "Category:Wikipedia title cleanup" as meaning "templates used for title cleanup". That being said, I'm not particularly bothered if {{renamed}} is removed from that category and it gets nominated for C1 deletion. Primefac (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hex codes for the Charleston Dirty Birds

       

PennaRican (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

And... you're telling me this why? Primefac (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerns re recently added AfC reviewer

Hi Primefac. TTP1233 was re-added to the list of AfC reviewers 11 days ago. I came across one of their reviews and was concerned so had a look at a few more. I left them a note on their talk page but their reply didn't fill me with confidence. Some specific issues:

  • Not understanding minimum inline citation requirements
  • Rejecting drafts rather than declining
  • Rejecting a draft using the reason 'contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia' because the sources were not in English and didn't follow the manual of style
  • Declining this as a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements when it had 8 inline citations
  • Not being able to communicate in clear English
  • Leaving reviewer's comments that were unclear or not valid decline reasons e.g. 'No proper format of this draft', 'Subject is quite notable. But consist of lack of information. I might mark it green but due to lack of sources I can't recognize him yet', 'If this article could be expanded with history or more info of stuff and more references, I could accept this draft. Try finding more research if possible.'

Their review history is here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll dig into this as soon as I can. Do you think they can overcome their past mistakes, or do you feel this is a competence issue that will take more time to develop? Primefac (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
They are certainly keen. Some of these things could be coached. Being able to communicate clearly isn't something that can be fixed overnight. What worries me most, I think, is the lack of basic judgment, such as tagging Matrix-M with 'This article needs additional citations for verification' when every single statement was already sourced. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NS Dibyojyoti: the issues with this user go way beyond competence at AfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
And now indeffed as a sock. (This was the same fellow responsible for this incident, which I'm sure Primefac remembers.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I say this half-joking, but maybe a CU check should be part of the AFCP application process... Primefac (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches

Per you're posted outcome at TfD, and the fact it went into holding. I've changed the results back to how the WP:FOOTY project normally has them. Took a fair bit of work! You should be able to delete the template now. Regards. Govvy (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like someone got to it before me. Primefac (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Arb clarification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Renaming, Deadnaming, Blocks, UCoC & policy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Coat of arms

Hi! Please change the following line, because the officially used coat of arms has changed:

old:
| Nuremberg=Wappen von Nürnberg.svg

new:
| Nuremberg=DEU Nürnberg COA (klein).svg

Thank you, Doc Taxon (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor error with use of candidate3_party_unlinked=

A new error message has cropped up at {{Compact election box no change}} and a couple of other places. It appears to be tied to the use of |candidate3_party_unlinked=. The table row that holds this parameter ends up with its cell completely outside of the table, and the remaining cells are shifted to the left. Since you are doing the amazing work of migrating these templates, I figured I would drop a note here instead of trying to decipher all of the new code myself. Keep up the great work! – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That was dumb, mainly because the issue shouldn't actually be happening according to everything I know. In short, {{Compact election box no change}} calls {{Compact election box no change/candidate}}, passing along various parameters including |candidateX_party= and |candidateX_party_unlinked=. Now, they're all piped in the usual {{{candidate_party|}}} manner, meaning that nothing should be passed to the subtemplate, which means when the {{{candidate_party}}} is used, it should appear as such and not as an empty space. However, it was appearing as an empty space, and the module can't handle that. I don't know why this seems to be the only place this is manifesting, but... now you know. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I have found that in some (or maybe all) circumstances, testing for {{{candidate_party|}}} works differently if it is present but blank instead of not present at all, if that makes sense. To allow for "present but blank", you have to do {{#if:{{{candidate_party|}}}|{{{candidate_party}}}}} rather than just {{{candidate_party|}}} (in this case, {{#if:{{{candidate_party|}}}|{{{candidate_party}}}|white}} or something similar might be better). I wish it worked differently, and I especially wish that I could remember this tip every time I need it.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Countries at the Olympic Games

Hello! Can you check regarding countries at the Olympics?. India was named British India until 1936. Vietnam was named South Vietnam until 1972. Rhodesia was named Southern Rhodesia until 1964. Surinam was named Dutch Guyana until 1975. Egypt was named the United Arab Republic until 1968. It is important that the article names correspond correctly with the names at the time and not the name after that. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.14.227 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I am not going to get into fights over naming conventions of countries; article names are one of the most contentious things I've come across over the years. If you think a page or pages should be named differently, I would encourage you to start a move request and build a consensus. If the moves are enacted, I can deal with it on the template side of things so all of the links point to the correct places. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Template prefix

you should probably remove the template: prefix when changing these. 98.230.196.188 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I should, but after about fifty of them on previous pages and it being a testcase user subpage, I decided against it. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan at the Winter Olympics

Hi, for the infobox country at games template, Pakistan at the Winter Olympics shows 2006 as a year competed. They did not compete in 2006, and the article redirects to another article. Is there anyway we can remove the 2006 ? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC closures/unclosures

Howdy. You could strip your gears doing that ;) GoodDay (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No kidding. Primefac (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

I'm writing to you about this page after reading the option on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that lets editors skip the drama and contact a recently active administrator to help with a problem. This page has an ongoing edit war basically that's of a rather substantial nature. One editor is disputing that this person was ever a king and there's been a back and forth with him and another editor. However, this problem is not something that just manifested today. Someone from Bulgaria under the number 193.68.139.54 made a big edit of a similar nature on August 21 that has since been reverted. I suspect it's the same person but either way, this contention could go on indefinitely. I'm just watching on the sides so I'm wondering if some order could be imposed? I'm using this option because I figured it's the most appropriate one given the situation. --Killuminator (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

First thing to do is get a consensus about his monarchy - I don't actually see anything on the talk page indicating that "we all agree he used to be king" (or similar). If (and when) that is determined, it becomes much easier to enforce that status quo, either through WP:AN3 (if someone is edit warring) or WP:RFPP (for disruption by various non-autoconfirmed individuals). That is not to say that the article cannot be protected while the discussion is ongoing (I'll keep an eye on the page and potentially semi-protect if it keeps going) but a discussion is definitely the best first step. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you there, I don't mean to be a pain or put a burden on you but can you please have a word with Deancarmeli, I am honestly feel his action were wrong and I feel somewhat wiki-bullied by him. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Him and the blocking admin, you should never have gotten blocked over that. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

RfA proposals

Thanks for being willing to assess those. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

TfD question.

I often see you at TfD, when they say substitute, does that just mean transferring the information out of a template? I still feel confused by WP:SUBSTITUTE sometimes.

I also wondered what you make of this template; Template:2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Europe) – Qualifiers matches. I was under the impression that you should avoid storing certain amounts of information in a template that belongs in an article. I have no idea what to do here as Basketball isn't really my project, I follow the sport a little bit. But at the moment feel at a loss. I was under the impression this shouldn't be done and is wrong, regards. Govvy (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The short answer to your first question is "basically yes". Subst'ing just means replacing a template call with its content, for example going from {{Party color|Not-a-party}} → {{subst:party color|Not-a-party}} → #F8F9FA. Sometimes there is prep-work needed on the template-side of things, for example making a template substable, but the end result is almost always replacing a template call with the template's contents.
As for the basketball template, I couldn't rightly say. This template is used across almost 40 pages, which means that the information contained in it is standardised across those pages (you don't have the scores on Israel's page being different from the scores on Iceland's page, for example). Each individual call to {{basketballbox collapsible}} inside that template is almost 40 lines long, so if you look at somewhere like Israel men's national basketball team#2022 where there are 9 calls to this and a similar template, subst'ing that template would mean the addition of over 300 more lines of text. If anything, this is why the template space exists - to allow for the reuse of large chunks of not-really-text across multiple pages in order to save space and promote consistency. Now, recent precedent has shown that if you have a template like this that is either overly complicated or just used on a page or two, there's not a whole lot of harm in deleting it, but I can definitely see the argument in this particular case for keeping this template. Primefac (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that reply, I actually found that very helpful in understanding what is going on with the templates, although I understand the concept of saving data, I actually feel certain templates used in that way takes away the editing ability from a lot of basic editors. Cheers again. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"If you don't understand the module, don't edit it"

This and this are incredibly rude and uncalled for statements. The edit came as a result of the module being actually broken at the time and depicting the wrong colour in the wrong place, which prompted me to (at least attempt) fix it, so maybe it's not the best call to accuse others of "breaking" things and, instead, to be more comprehensive in the fact that many of us are being rushed to adapt into this new situation. Indeed, you did not fully revert my edit, so it was not that wrong so as to merit that kind of response, right?

If we were going to reduce this to a "don't edit it because you'll break it" issue (which is a premise that would go against WP guidelines, btw), then I could argue, on the basis of WP:BROKE, that the sudden change from party meta/color templates (that could be easily edited by anyone) to a module that only a cherry-picked few seem able to edit and that may contain multiple flaws (faulty depiction of colours at times, missing some parties, etc.) shouldn't have been done in the first place because "that's how things get broken". There are more polite and constructive ways to explain things, and maybe the way to go here would be to get other users to learn on the correct steps for editing the module (specially considering that this change affects thousands of currently existing articles and many others to come in the future) rather than to rudely prevent anyone without a full expertise on module-editing from intervening. But hey, it's your call if you wish to attend to hundreds, if not thousands, of editing petitions each month because some issue appeared, some new party has been created requiring a new colour or whatever.

Cheers. Impru20talk 11:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are right, and I apologise for my language. It was the third or fourth time I had to fix the same issue (and the second from you) in as many days; conflating that with the template editor request I was more annoyed than I should be about needing to fix things again. The proper course of action would have been to instruct rather than chastise, which is usually what I do and I am ashamed to say that it wasn't the first thing that popped into my head. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Now that you say it, I did not notice that you also made a change to my edit at Module:Political party/A, though it also was a partial one. I think I'm beginning to become more aware of how this works, since both of your edits centered on the same issue, which was that I added an additional row for the parties in the above section of the module (which now I see is seemingly only meant for situations where the party's name is not the same as the party's article link). Nonetheless, since this is a new situation, it's surely a trial-and-error for everyone involved, and I commend you for quickly acknowledging the fault in your proceedings (I can understand that stressing situations may lead to a lack of patience at times, nothing wrong with that). As said, I think the best course of action (which is something also being hinted in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor) would be to just make it clear what the best way for editing this module would be, so that the errors we find along the way are best dealt-with in the future. Cheers! Impru20talk 12:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll add some more information to the main module documentation, which I just realised is severely lacking. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the light curve on the PDS 70 article is useful

I am dissapointed that you removed the light curve that I placed on the PDS 70 article. PDS 70 is a T Tauri star, a type of variable star - that's what the first sentence in the article says. To me, the most natural thing to want to know about a variable star is how its brightness varies in time. That's why I put a light curve on it. I made the plot myself using data from the data server at the Barbara A. Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (https://mast.stsci.edu/portal/Mashup/Clients/Mast/Portal.html). So the image is my work, although the observations certainly are not. I'd be happy to move the image around on the page if you think it was placed in a way that harms the readability of the article. I'd be grateful to hear any suggewstion you might have about how the plot could be improoved. But I think your removal of the plot was unwarranted.PopePompus (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

My immediate thought upon seeing the image was "okay, this is neat", followed by the next thoughts of "what is this showing, why is it in the article, is there anything that supports this?" and similar thoughts.
I'm not opposed to the image, but there's just not enough in the article to support the image itself as you added it; I had zero idea of where you got the data, and there was nothing (other than that one mention in the lead) that would indicate why the image should be in the article. If anything, it might be better in the T Tauri star article, since it's a description of the variability of the light coming from that type of star; setting up an entire section on the fact that it's a T Tauri star purely to justify adding the image seems a bit excessive, since there isn't much to say that wouldn't already be covered there. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I am currently in the process of putting a custom-made light curve on every Wikipedia article about a variable star, except for the very few variables (Mira, Algol, etc) that already have light curves. I've made 358 so far, I think. I started with the novae, like DQ Herculis. In every case I made the plots myself, so I don't think there can be a copyright issue with them. I've looked through the professional literature for each star, and have tried to use the best data. Right now is a good time for such a project, because there are now several years worth of data from all-sky or nearly all-sky surveys at high cadence like ASAS, TESS, Hipparcos, etc. Would you be OK with allowing the light curve to remain on the page if I expanded the caption to explain it more fully? In the comment you made when you deleted the plot, you asked "When?" but the time period covered by the plot is clearly shown on the plot's x-axis; it covers part of April and May of 2019, which is when TESS happened to be looking at the star.PopePompus (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't like the curve being smooshed into the lead of PDS, and to be honest I think the DQ image clutters an already short article with way too many images. Again, I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't do this, but please give some consideration for where you're placing these things (and why). I think unless there's a section about PDS 70 being a T Tauri (or a discussion of its light curve, or why that's even relevant) there shouldn't be an image, but that's just because I feel images should be supplemental to the text. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I guess we have different feelings about what it is useful to put in an article. I agree with your removal of the Gallery image in the PDS 70 page. Left unattended, astronomy-related articles tend to fill up with "artist's conception" images from NASA press releases, and amateur photographs. But I'm surprised that you don't see the utility of a plot like the one I made for DQ Hercules. It shows that the fading from peak brightness was not even approximately monotonic. It's also interesting that the long decay after the dust dip is nearly linear, not an exponential decay. I'll try to add some text to the PDS 70, and repost the image. If you remove it again, I'll try to get a discussion going about the utility of such images on one of the main Wikipedia Astronomy discussion pages. If there is a consensus that articles about variable stars should not have plots showing how the star varies, I will with great sadness abandon my quest.PopePompus (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I Added the light curve to the article again, along with additional information about the star related to its identification as a T Tauri star and its variability.PopePompus (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't seen them, there are some comments below that might be of interest. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Seeing as the PDS 70 light curve doesn't have any error bars on the points, I'm assuming your other plots also don't? You shouldn't draw any conclusions from plots without uncertainties. Statements like "nearly linear, not an exponential decay" need actual quantitative analysis. Including plots without errors can potentially mislead more than improve. Also, you need to be more precise in your citations of where you got the data from: not "plotted from TESS satellite data", but "data downloaded from X archive on D date <reference to paper about that data>". - Parejkoj (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
That was kind of my point for the initial removal - there is zero way to actually check if the data is even remotely close, because we have no way of knowing where it came from. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I include error bars on my plots when that information is available and when the error bars would be large enough to be seen when the data points have a reasonable size for visibility. Note that the plots of variability on the articles for the well known stars Mira, Algol, Delta Cephei, Chi Cygni, Epsilon Aurigae etc., which I did not make, also have no error bars. If you're going to remove all the variability plots that have no error bars, you'll be removing a lot more than just mine.PopePompus (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I followed a request on WT:AST for additional opinions here. The light curve is useful and informative to readers, but it absolutely must be backed up by a reference to the data source. The caption says only 'from TESS' which is insufficient, and the image description page says just 'own work' which again isn't enough. There needs to be an explicit citation to the data source e.g. journal paper, dataset DOI, exact MAST query etc. You also shouldn't add your own interpretation or classification of the light curve, per WP:OR. Just state what reliable sources have already concluded from it, with reference(s). Modest Genius talk 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
When the light curve comes from data in a paper, I always cite the paper in the figure caption. Many of my figures are produced from data provided by a server, such as MAST (Barbara A. Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes). The data from the server may not have ever been plotted as a graph or listed in a table in any paper. Wikipedia editors have been doing that with the AAVSO data server for a long time; that's where the plot on the Mira article, and many others, come from. I'm not the only editor plotting data provided by a server. I would be happy to add a citation to the server in the figure caption if people think that is appropriate, but I'll note that others have not been doing that in the case of the AAVSO server. All of my light curve plots have said where the data came from, but I have not been citing the servers, just the observatory or spacecraft.PopePompus (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
There needs to be a full reference to the exact query on the MAST or AAVSO websites, if that's where the data came from. That applies to anyone uploading plots of light curves - feel free to point others to this discussion. Simply stating the observatory or spacecraft is insufficient per WP:CITEWEB. Modest Genius talk 19:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I will add citations to the data server web sites. Thanks!PopePompus (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The reference you've now added to the PDS 70 page is just a link to the MAST home page, not the TESS data on that particular star. You need the specific link to the search results e.g. [7] Modest Genius talk 12:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
On that I disagree, for two reasons. First, I fear that a link like the one you produced for PDS 70, which actually performs the database query, is apt to be more fragile than a link to the server's main web interface. If the MAST web server is modified a bit, so that the database query your link makes no longer works, then all the links will be broken. Of course the location of the MAST server itself could change, or the server could disappear entirely, which would break all the links I have made. But I think that possibility is less likely than a change to the server syntax. My second, much less important concern, is that a thousand character barely human readable link like the one you produced is apt to produce complaints from other editors. I was quite impressed when I saw what you had done with that link - I didn't even realize doing that was possible. But I'm not convinced it's a good idea.PopePompus (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_36&oldid=1062092040"