Jump to content

User talk:Primefac/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

AfC

Hello. Having spent the last month keeping somewhat of a low profile (except for having to deal with a troublesome IP), I am keen to discuss the possibility of having another go at AfC. Obviously, given previous troubles, I am not asking to jump straight back in and devote all of my time to it. That said, I did enjoy the more positive aspects before, and would like to work my way back into it. Hopefully there will not be any similar problems to last time—I do understand the various objections, and am confident that I know how to avoid falling into the same sorts of situations. I am not going to take offence if you tell me to go away, but thought that it may be worth raising this, as you suggested a conversation about it some time around the end of September. I have only made c 200 edits since the start of September, many of those using Huggle. I do not know whether this may affect my chances of being accepted. Thanks, –Sb2001 talk page 23:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sb2001, I'll add you to the list, but I'd like you to ping me when you've done twenty or so reviews so I can look them over. I'm not particularly concerned that you'll do a bad job, but given the issues from the last go-round I just want to make sure I can support your addition should someone question it. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting me. Yes—I shall leave you a message upon making 20 reviews. –Sb2001 talk page 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sort of mentioned you on ANI

Hi, Primefac. I should maybe mention that I sort of referred indirectly to you, and to There'sNoTime and Tazerdadog, on ANI just now, when I talked about 'ending by appointing a fucking panel of editors to close the Hidden Tempo discussion'. I hope it doesn't look like my imprecation was intended to apply to you guys personally, on the contrary, I think you did a sterling job with that close, once things had gone so far that a panel was needed. Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, I figured the emphasis was on the fact that we were needed, not us specifically. Thanks for the note, though! Primefac (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding WP Request for permission (not mine)

Hi there, sorry for bugging you but I'm not sure, am I allowed to say "not done" to this request? I said "not done" to the one below it as the latter account has been indef blocked, however, this account (former) has not been. Regardless, thought I better bring it up and checking before proceeding with anything. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, but only because {{subst:RFPC|ad}} exists, which gives an "Already done" note. Declining a blocked user is perfectly acceptable. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing a template discussion

Hi. I saw you are closing template discussions. Would you be willing to close the following discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Middle East conflicts detailed map which dates back to Oct 1? It is a little big and seems complicated so it seems like no one wants to touch it. I have reached out to arbitrator Drmies so he would close it. He said ”That discussion is obviously leading to "delete", however, he also said he felt his knowledge of templates was limited so he prefers that someone else does it. I didn’t want to be too pushy, but it’s not as complicated as it seems at first. The only complication is that someone voted initially “conditional keep” because he had a concern we would lose data if we deleted the template. However, after the discussion, he had no more concerns, so the “conditional keep” should really be read as a “delete” (more details in template discussion). There are only 2 votes, however, they are by very experienced editors (Doug Weller an arbitrator and Xaosflux a bureaucrat). Thank you for your time. Tradediatalk 10:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Tradedia, I don't think anyone "doesn't want to touch it" - the discussion has only been eligible for closure for about 36 hours and there are about 100 discussions to close. Someone (most likely me) will get to it in due time. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thanks for giving me an admin’s perspective. 100 discussions are a lot. Thank you for your hard work. Tradediatalk 22:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting

Good day Primefac, why was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting closed as delete? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Because the weight and number of arguments for deletion outweighed the weight and arguments of keep, merge, or redirect arguments. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I'm sorry.That's the reason you deleted this article? This incident is a very important thing in American history.If this article deleted, should reactions about other (terrorist) incident such as Reactions to the 2017 Tehran attacks,Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting deleted?--Pekojima (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Pekojima, please see the deletion discussion linked above in the first comment. I have not looked into the other articles you've mentioned, but if they're very similar to the deleted article, then yes, they probably should be deleted (or at the very least nominated for deletion). Primefac (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I did not vote in the RFA but I watched it closely and added comments but made it clear I was not casting a vote. What weight for deletion did you consider? Thank you.Vanguard10 (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Do you have time to answer, Primefac? Thank you! Vanguard10 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I closed the AFD as delete because the deletion rationale focused largely on the WP:NOT policy (INDISCRIMINATE, CRYSTAL, NOTNEWS, etc), while the keep camp focused mainly on WP:ATA talking points such as OTHERSTUFF and ITSIMPORTANT (one person even said "these need to go somewhere"). That, combined with a nearly 2:1 ratio in favour of deletion, made the decision fairly straightforward. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

.

OK, you can delete them.

Sorry about all this. Turns out I'm a rubbish editor anyway. Can we delete the conversation? I am finding it depressing. I've had a tough time already as it is. TomBarker23 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC) TomBarker23 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

TomBarker23, I've deleted the page. Whether you stay or go is up to you, but personally I wouldn't let a good faith (but slightly misguided) attempt at improving Wikipedia get you down. If you do leave, I wish you well. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What happened?

I just found out Rob got the CU flag, and Oshwah got nothing. It was not unexpected after the discussions about Oshwah. But you didnt get the OS flag, which was extremely surprising for me. There were literally no !votes at your request. Maybe the small number of +votes was the issue. Is there someplace where normal editors can see what happened after the community voting process was over? —usernamekiran(talk) 06:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Um... I do have OS. Primefac (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe my mobile was drunk? (I dont drink)
Anyways. Congrats for getting the OS. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 02:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Million Mask March

Hi. I've had a look into this, and I can't be certain but it looks to me like the original http://www.millionmaskmarch.com/ site was hijacked by a nutter at some stage (perhaps the original owners let it slip, or something), who also runs https://www.facebook.com/millionmaskmarch/. Both are full of nasty BLP poison and conspiracy theory crackpottery - it's just one unhinged person running those pages, not an organization of any sort, and I think those links need to be removed and rev-deleted.

It looks like the real organization has had to set up http://Facebook.com/MillionMaskMarchofficial and http://MillionMaskMovement.com, and if you examine those you'll see they look like a proper organization. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Aye, I figured it out about the same time you undid my edit. Long story short I got my edits switched around and for some reason thought that the "March" was the original URL. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, cool. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and it seems that I'm a CIA agent now (see "CIA’s Professional MMM Sweepers on WikiPedia") ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Boing! said Zebedee: Well as that's the case, President Trump is doing a hid wonderful job.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This user is a secret CIA agent editing WikiPedia [sic] for nefarious purposes only. (verify)
Huh. So much for OTRS being confidential... Primefac (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
...I'm pretty sure if I got an OTRS email from an @cia.gov address, I would just close my browser and go for a smoke. GMGtalk 17:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Damn, I need to be more active on OTRS. Alex ShihTalk 17:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I think MS is Zebedee's handler. @Lex: I heard, most of the times emails from CIA are so boring and monotonous/mechanical that one cant be sure if it was auotomated reply/replied by bot or if they have templates. Not at all cool/exciting. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Matt Carriker

Hope you're well Primefac. Could you just look at this at and tell us the original creator? Cheers! — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving pings, sorry) 13:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was BernardSandoval. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Premature close

Hi. May I ask that this close be undone as premature? There hasn't actually been a resolution to the issue raised. (Please see: The resolution I seek? (1) For Swarm to respond to my request regarding his Admin action, and also his "POV-pushing" remark. And (2), for clarification regarding whether I've interpreted the above policies correctly (both wording and "spirit") or misinterpreted them. As for your "drop the stick" comment, I suggest you either offer productive commentary that helps to resolve issues keep your unhelpful comments to yourself. Of course the side issue about whether admins should or shouldn't respond to queries is resolved, but settling that wasn't the reason for the WP:AN report. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. If you want to talk to Swarm further, you're welcome to do it on their talk page. However, I suggest you do drop the stick, since this event is apparently a one-off incident; continuing to pester people about it will just turn people off. Right or wrong, it's over and done with, and unless this becomes a recurring or habitual occurrence, there's nothing more to do. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I see. Unfortunately, the response has to come from the broader Admin community, not Swarm, since it is a policy interpretation issue. Can you tell me what the resolution was as to whether or not I interpreted WP:WIAPA correctly, in general and in this specific situation? Or better still, post that resolution as part of your close message? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I have no idea which "NPA" you're referring to, because I'm not finding anything that looks like it. If you're referring to the fact that Swarm didn't post diffs when they blocked, I would hazard a guess to say that they were basing their statements off of the diffs already posted by bd4214. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am indeed referring to Swarm not providing diffs supporting the 4 behavior accusations he made accompanying his block (which the diffs posted by BD2412 didn't support), but also in general - you'll see in the unclosed, but related, report just before the part you closed, I am being accused of misinterpreting or misunderstanding (bullet-point #5). The report you closed, and the report just before it are linked, if you weren't aware. The part you closed was actually opened because of the report immediately preceding it, so I figured both would be resolved at the same time. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If the two reports were directly related the second would be a subsection of the first. The first topic is about the interaction between you and GoldenRing, the second about the interaction between you and Swarm. I don't think you're necessarily misinterpreting WIAPA, but I do think you're taking the implementation too far by requiring that every statement made by editor A against editor B be backed up by diffs. You really need to drop the wikilawyering thing, maybe take a day or two away from Wikipedia, and carry on your business. People who ask for a bullet point of "things that need to be demonstrated" when it comes to the actions of other editors are rarely happy at the results. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I think if I hear either "drop the stick" or "take a short break" one more time, I might scream. I *am* taking a break (note that I haven't touched an article since these AN reports were posted), and the only "stick" I have is my unanswered question. I get no enjoyment being run through this ringer every time a too-busy or careless Admin makes poor decisions or mistakes. And of course I don't require diffs for every statement made. To the contrary, I've grown a really thick skin when it comes to all the BS that gets slung around here, and I only demand diffs when there is a specific serious accusation about my behavior that I know to be grossly inaccurate or mistaken. Asking for diffs of what prompted the accusation is the first step (and most necessary step) in getting to the bottom of why the accuser and accused have such divergent positions on a matter, and should eventually result in either me changing that behavior if evidence shows it exists, or the accuser acknowledging a mis-read, and both then carry on about their business.
As for the "wikilawyering" thing (another chilling, over-used catch-phrase that is employed to avoid acknowledging policy when it becomes inconvenient), I haven't gone there yet, as I'm still trying to figure out why the wording of our policy says one thing while several editors presently (in both discussions now) say the opposite. Maybe they, too, were assuming, as you have just done, that the evidence behind Swarm's several accusations was in BD2412's original post, and therefore didn't need to be explicitly provided. It is my position that evidence was lacking (glaringly absent, in fact, for the majority of the behavior allegations) from BD2412's post, and I think it is unfair to characterize as "wikilawyering" my only available recourse (appealing to our policy) to resolving that dispute. Anyway, I see you are firm in your decline to hold off on closing that discussion, so I will stop pestering you here and take onboard your advice to discuss the matter further with Swarm at his Talk page. Thank you for hearing me out and responding. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Recovering deleted material

Hi Primefac, I am not sure if this is how to contact you. I have had a discussion with TonyBallioni on my Talk page; I wonder if there is some way I can recover what you have deleted so that I can rework and cite it properly? I had a whole section on John Macleod's Early life, Academic career corresponding to the current Ministerial career, and references to his time Inverness, but it has been removed wholesale. Thanks, Ergateesuk (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: I've also explained that we don't typically restore copyright violations and that I am pretty confident from memory that everything we removed was copyrighted material. I told Ergateesuk that he would have to contact you to review the material again if he wanted someone to verify that it was copied from the source text. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Ergateesuk, I have just double-checked the material that I removed from John Macleod (theologian), and it was indeed copied almost directly (with some minor rewording) from this source. That being said, I will not be restoring the content. You are welcome to re-add it, of course, provided you write it in your own words. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, I am pleased that you are still able to view it. I did not ask you to restore it but to let me see what has been removed so that I can rework it. There was material about Inverness, which was one of the main reasons for beginning the article after a recent BookFest in Inverness omitted both the author and the book, and this does not appear on that site. I referenced that source, which I thought was enough acknowledgment, but it seems that is not so, and I accept that. I spent a lot of time checking out that source and correcting it so I am annoyed that I cannot even see what I did. Is there some way that I can see what I did and then rework it, such as your putting it into my Sandbox and I can remove it from there for reworking. Thanks. Ergateesuk (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Ergateesu: Perhaps it is best that you not see it, as it was still close enough to the original to violate copyright. Come to it fresh. Sleep on it. Let your words be original and not a mere copying of the works of others.21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ergateesuk, I just checked the content again - the three paragraphs following In 1913 he accepted... were copied almost directly into the article, and that is the sum total of content pertaining to Inverness. To reiterate, everything I removed came from that source, nearly word-for-word, and thus there is no reason for me to restore the content. re-ping. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Primefac To reiterate, I did not ask you to restore it. Ergateesuk (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdel

When did User:Primefac/revdel.js become a thing? If it does what I think it does, Imma have to list it as a script resource at WP:NPP (and probably put it in the newsletter in a few days)? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I made it about a month ago, mostly because I figured that the request to add the functionality to Twinkle would take a while. If you're going to list it as a resource, let me get it a little less hack-y (I just sorta threw it together as proof-of-concept). Primefac (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I just want it to be as easy as possible for people to process copyvios in new pages, and this would greatly help with that. Ping me or post on my talk page when you are done tweaking it, and I'll list it as a resource. Thanks for your work on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, definitely. I'll try and get it worked up a bit better over the weekend. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, version 2 is up and running. I'm still working on improving it (trying to get it to actually load a list all of the revisions like TW does) but for now it's better than nothing. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added it to the copyright section [1]. You might want to tinker with how to explain the difference between a diff and an oldid there, because you're generally better at expressing such things than I am. I'll add it to the newsletter sometime in the next few weeks. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Wizard Redesign

Hey, hey, so essentially, we just need to move this and it's subpages over this (and it's subpages). Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Followup

Hello P. The move of these article wizard pages has caused them to show up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. This is a small glitch that happens with any page move of a protected page. All it takes to fix it is a WP:NULLEDIT. I have already done that with most of them but a few are fully protected and I can't edit those. When you have a moment if you could give them a quick a"null"ment :-) that would be great. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Aye, will do. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome and thanks for taking care of this. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC

FYI in case there is a request at AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Undeleting of article

Hi, I'm writing for helping User:Robinxu2017: He wrote the article 慕尼黑大学附属医院, which you understandingly deleted. He wanted to create that article in the Chinese wikipedia, but accidentally created it here. I explained him how to do it correctly. Could you please undelete the article in his User-Namespace, so that he can transfer it to Chinese Wikipedia? And please Ping him on that site, so that he find's where you moved it. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Thalhammer

Hey Primefac, with this edit a serious BLP violation was introduced to the article--serious charges based on a blog post. I have just reverted to an earlier version. Obviously User:LisaMarieStudio is the artist, or is associated with the artist (and needs a name change...). Whatever the problems with their edits, the content they took issue with should not be in the article, at least not in the way in which it was there, with that source. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, I know the first iteration of the page wasn't a great source, but I was under the impression that DCist was a reliable source. Was I off in that assumption? Primefac (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ha--I may have gotten confused in all the reverts, named and unnamed; I see now that you provided a "better source", which is certainly more reliable than that COI-y blog that was there before--I'm sorry. It will not surprise you to hear that a certain elected but nonetheless secretive cabal got an email related to this affair. For now I am not going to reinstate the content and may take it to BLPN for others to judge (whether the content and the tone and the source are all good enough), but if you look it over and say "yes, that's good enough", then please, by all means. Or, maybe, if you have time (I don't, right now), you can take it there if you think more opinions are necessary? So, again, I'm sorry, and thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    No worries, I've done similar things when viewing OTRS/OS stuff before (shoot first ask later etc). I'll go over the paragraph and make sure it's neutral (and remove anything that isn't directly sourced to the article). Primefac (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Tendentious editing noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on tendentious editing. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE violations by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

A declined draft

Hi. I recently saw this edit, which led me to this draft. It was declined at AfC by a user that you recently interacted with. He seems to be applying his own theories/policies instead of wikipedia's. The draft seems to notable enough for an article. But I am not at all familar with the subject. Would you take a look at the draft please? Thanks a lot, —usernamekiran(talk) 21:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, the user in question is no longer part of WP:AFC. As for the draft itself - I'd have to look into the sources, but the text itself is rather promotional. With some cleanup, though, it might be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdel script

Hi Primefac. Sorry for the intrusion, but I saw your message on Godric's talkpage. What is a revdel script? Thank you. Dr. K. 17:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Primefac/revdel is a script I wrote to make it a bit easier/faster to request revision deletion. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Primefac. Good to know. Best regards. Dr. K. 17:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Gaurav Narayanan

The creator of {{Gaurav Narayanan}} voted "delete" in the TFD discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for being too pedantic, but they said "if you don't like the article feel free to delete". They said nothing about the template. Maybe they meant the template, but Frietjes has advocated for keeping it so that's essentially a contest of a G7. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Oversite

@Primefac: Someone in the IRC told you would suppress minors ages. A minor wrote his and his brothers age into a draft article. Here. Bobherry Talk Edits 11:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bobherry: I have suppressed the information - please use the advice on this page to request oversight in the future -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you sir. Bobherry Talk Edits 12:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Just wanted to thank you for everything you do. Bobherry Talk Edits 12:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

ToUSD

I hope you are planning to fix all the broken uses of {{ToUSD}} now that you redirected the template. for example, see the large red error message in Polio vaccine#Cost. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes, is it just EUR that's throwing the error? Primefac (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
no, but you can easily see the errors in all five articles by clicking the items in "What links here". this is why it was still in the holding cell waiting to be fixed. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
the "To USD" template uses IMF data which doesn't appear to have Euro Area for 2016 for some reason, among other missing entries. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Saemangeum Seawall is not fixed. try reading the text. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
2010 Asian Games has the same problem. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I see you beat me to adding the Euro. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

thank you and asking for help

Dear Primefac! i would like to thank you very much for your very fast and effective interaction on my draft: Draft:Ferenc Moldoványi. i resubmitted my draft for re-review with your changes, wich improved significantly my draft, and wich were professional, and of course totally adequate to the wiki policies. my draft was in minutes again declined, and i watch this process totally uncomprehendingly, because in my draft there are no more citations, needed further references or footnotes... so...i don't know what to do in this situation... how can i improve my draft better than you? wich more changes are needed in your opinion? thank you for your attention and support Beckycornfield (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Beckycornfield, the page was declined because there were no inline citations. In other words, if someone wanted to find out which source "Ferenc Moldoványi was born in Debrecen (Hungary) in 1960." came from, they would have to look through every source. Adding inline citations (also called footnotes) allows for quick verification. See WP:REFB for more information about inline citations. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Primefac thank you for your answer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckycornfield (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Primefac dear Primefac! would you please shortly check my draft again, it's edited, in-line citations are done. so i hope my draft is now - with your excellent changes - adequate to the wiki policies ang good enough to accept. Beckycornfield (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have temporarily suspended access to the Helper Script by user:DrStrauss. There are too many recent issues being reported on their userpage. I have not checked their other reviews. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Primefac:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Bobherry Talk Edits 16:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Draft:Jamila Raqib

The subject is clearly a person of note with multiple references in international publications. I consider the non-publishing of this Jamila Raqib article sexist as many men with the same referencing are approved. Wikipedia need to get proper monitoring of sexist editors under control. Please can we have an appeal on this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsprod1 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Newsprod1, the draft was declined because the references do not demonstrate that Raqib is notable per the Golden Rule. Just because other pages exist does not mean that we must accept this one. If you are concerned that the page may be deleted please continue working on improving the draft. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Guys, I note that you have assumed I'm a man. Raqib is a published author which I cited and a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize 2017. This isn't really a borderline case. In other instances fellow editors come in to investigate a case and assist with refernces but I have to say that this happens far more in the case of male entries than female entries. All my entries are made with specialist academic knowledge of the field of nonviolent resistance and I do my best to highlight the active participants in the field. Newsprod1
Newsprod1, I think you are talking about a different conversation. As such, I've moved your comment to the proper thread of conversation.
As far as Raqip goes, the decline had nothing to do with her gender and entirely to do with the lack of independent reliable sources. We need sources that talk specifically about her, not just quote her or give a one-line mention. If there were to be a few of those sources added in I would be happy to accept the draft.
The fact that she was a frontrunner for the Nobel Prize was not initially included in the draft; thank you for adding that. I'm not sure if that automatically means she is notable (though obviously winning the prize would have done it).
Please keep working on the draft. If you want more assistance with the draft I encourage you to contact the Women In Red WikiProject, which deals specifically with improving pages about significant women. You can discuss the issue on their talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Superleague Formula and Template:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix

Your recent edits to these two templates have caused them to appear in [2]. JPG-GR (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. I will be properly converting these uses to their main template eventually, but I have to sift out the duplicate entries. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

AFC Participant Request

Hello, I am AmericanAir88. Two days ago, I put in a request to be part of the AFC team and as of now, have not heard anything back. I do not want to rush the process at any means but it seems you responded to the person below me. I am excited to see the result as I am committed to clearing backlogs. No rush at all, just giving awareness. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The user below you is an admin, and one I have interacted with positively over the years, so it was an easy/quick addition. For new(ish) users I tend to take a bit more time to evaluate their editing history and talk page comments, and I honestly haven't had the time to do so. I will try to get to your request in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. I did not know the user was an admin. I bet the user does great things for the encyclopedia. Sorry for the misunderstanding. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request PrimeBOT 21

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 21 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 02:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Not as decline rationale at AfC

Hi, Primefac. Recently there was some discussion over an AfC reviewer's permissions over the use of "what WIkipedia is not" . I see it quite a lot when I delete CSD'd submissions. It's also a preset in the script. I'm new to AfC reviewing and wanted to understand that rationale better. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, if a draft falls into one of the categories on the list of WP:NOT (be it "crystal ball", "soapbox", etc), it's a quick-and-easy decline reason. Sometimes the draft can be improved (e.g. a page about software that originally reads like NOTHOWTO but is potentially notable), and sometimes it indicates that there just isn't any hope for the page ever being acceptable. I personally only use it in the second instance, because if it can be improved the reviewer really should be indicating that (and I feel that a NOT decline is a "this will never happen"). Primefac (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Dlohcierekim, it's usually better to leave a detailed custom decline. It's not terribly helpful to new users to just link to WP:NOT one of several things in a 60k byte policy. GMGtalk 13:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, when I do decline as NOT (unless it's clearly just garbage) I generally link to the specific sub-section that I'm referring to. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Can that be done via the script?Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, you select "not" as the decline reason and then say "Specifically, this fails WP:CRYSTAL...." in the comments box. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, "custom decline" is one of the options. It's like third from the top for me, but I think that's just because I've used it so much. GMGtalk 14:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC

It might have been a good idea to let me and probably Kudpung respond before closing the discussion. But I'm not asking you to re-open. If he does not improve, I may possibly consider taking it to ANI as a disagreement between admins--a friendly disagreement, not a conflict--, with diffs. I've always advised people not to go to ANI, and I have in 11 years never started a discussion there, so I really want to avoid doing this. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, DGG, I probably should have let the two of you respond, but the overall consensus among the uninvolved commenters was that he hadn't really done anything wrong. If he doesn't improve, though, let me know (show a few diffs) and I'll kick him out myself. None of us are perfect, and he's made some good improvement since he first joined, but a net negative (or even a net neutral) isn't necessary to keep abound. Hopefully this will not happen, though. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I respect the decision to close it, I wasn't going to comment any further there anyway. but the whole thing developed from a mole hill to a mountain - that's why I rarely put in an appearance at places like, ANI these days, for example. People's memories are short - I introduced the quasi user right for AfC reviewing in the first place, just like I later did for NPP, and pulled and pushed ACTRIAL into motion which might be the root of a slight recent bulge in the AfC backlog. I am engaged towards keeping a clean encyclopedia - and I also have deep concerns for the civility climate. I was rather taken aback by Nick's personalised comments, but I made an effort not to make an issue of it. I'm not exactly a 'quick-on-the-trigger' admin and if my judgement might extremely rarely be questioned , I can't recall in my 1,000s of admin decisions ever having been completely wrong, and such acrimony does not make my volunteer work any pleasanter. At the end of the day, in order to maintain quality, the NPP and AfC processes need merging, a suggestion which DrStrauss himself understands well and supports - it would help us all to maintain a better overview of the processing of new articles Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think asking you to explain your rationale for removing a reviewer is in any way unacceptable, and I'm disappointed (and somewhat bemused) in the way you try to characterise it. If there are issues with reviewers, then the issues you identify which leads you to remove them from the process need to be clearly articulated to both the reviewer, and to the wider community in such a way that the reviewer and any other interested party can use that feedback to improve their reviews. It's absolutely no use saying "I've removed you because of complaints" because it descends in to a somewhat farcical process to ascertain what those complaints are and which (if there are multiple) you've acted upon, who made them and to determine if they're valid complaints or general griping about rejected drafts. We need to know when a reviewer is removed, if they're making minor issues which can be quickly resolved or are more serious, fundamental issues which will take longer to fix (if at all) and we need to provide a clear and consistent advice to all reviewers, so if one reviewer is making mistakes on each review or on some types of draft, we can ensure nobody else copies that mistake thinking it's current practice. I speak to a lot of reviewers on IRC and a common complaint is "but so and so does that and nobody complains". Nick (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Nick, I've tried to refrain from spelling it out to you, but the way you asked was uncivil and a borderline PA in anyone's book. It wasn't necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Catalonia (2017)

Hello, I saw that you deleted the page I created, arguing it was "a hoax". It's not a hoax, since independence was just declared by the Parliament. Whether this can be put into action, or whether the republic will be recognized, is an entirely different matter. A declaration of independence did take place, and for this reason the article is not a hoax. SuperSardus (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

SuperSardus, this is still very much a developing situation, and (much like talks of "Scoxit") could change rapidly in the coming weeks and months. Just because they declared independence doesn't mean they're automatically a new country. I think continuing to update Declaration from the representatives of Catalonia is the best way forward until such time as they "officially" are a republic. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thank you fow your answer. I didn't write that Catalonia is automatically a new country, but the Republic was, indeed, declared. There are | articles about the previous declarations. None of them were successful, but the articles do exist. I think we should apply the same criterion to this one. SuperSardus (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that all of those articles should be combined into one article, as there's really not enough to merit a full page on each one. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, I think that used to be a single article. We can maybe leave the article I created and request it be merged with the others. SuperSardus (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd want to read the topic in a single page chronologically, section for each round of trying to declare independence. Legacypac (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Europe's last dictatorship

When I recreated this page, I did not point it to the target that caused the page to be deleted in the RfD discussion, which means the page definitely isn't "sufficiently identical" and WP:G4 does not apply. (I don't remember the exact target but it clearly isn't Belarus.) Please restore this page. feminist 16:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. I think I was looking at the old version of the page and thought it was the new version. I've restored the page. Thank you for the note. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Primefac:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 17:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I have never even seen it in real life, but it seems like fun. Have a nice time :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 17:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Tensor product of representations

Hi about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations (2nd nomination),

Can you give me the access to Draft:Tensor product of representations since I would like to work on it? It is much more convenient for me to develop it as a single page rather than expanding the section in the existing article. I think the topic is notable enough to deserve a standalone article. Or it is not possible to provide the access if the purpose is used to develop a standalone article? -- Taku (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The page sat in MfD from September 1 until a couple days ago, after being deleted at an earlier MfD [3] which was overturned at DRV. No substantive work has been done on the topic in 3 years. The two MfDs and DRV plus AN and other discussions were long and detailed consuming much editor time but yet zero effort was made to improve the page in almost 2 months the last MfD was active, or in the last 3+ years. Now that it is finally deleted again, Taku shows up wanting to work on it? Very unconvincing and not credible. The modified request seems to be for restoration of the draft and it would be Admin malpractice to comply. If he wants a copy by email, no problem. I'd strongly suggest expanding the existing article until a spin out direct to mainspace is warranted, as suggested in the MfD close. If this shows up in Draft space again, a trip to AN is in order for a site ban for disruption. Legacypac (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not requesting the undeletion; merely the access to the deleted content. If the content was restored at say my user page, I don't think that contradicts the closure of the MfD. You wrote: "Very unconvincing and not credible" So that means I need to convince you to work on anything? I think it's up for the editors to decide how to develop a new standalone article; I don't think it's up to you Legacypac. (self-reducted) -- Taku (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The statement of intention to work on it is very unconvincing and not credible. By hey, go prove me wrong. Legacypac (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's not have this type of the discussion; it's just not productive. All I'm requesting here is the access to the deleted content so that I can finish it say at my user page. I think I should be able to develop it fairly quickly so that it can be moved to the mainspace. To reiterate, especially because of the ban, I want to focus on the content development. -- Taku (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Primefac, When Legacypac writes, "[During] [t]he two MfDs and DRV...zero effort was made to improve the page", he is not talking about himself, meaning he is not here in a role as an editor.  This MfD was never about WP:DEADLINE, it was about power control by the central authority of a deletion forum to make demands on an editor doing nothing worse than doing nothing.  AN is also part of this power control spectrum, with you receiving a threat to receive a site ban if you restore the article to draft space.
    I hope you will consider re-closing the MfD, as the sense of the closing I got was that the closing was based on Taku being a defeated opponent, one who had no more role in the discussion, which we now know to not be true.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll admit, I left this thread alone when TakuyaMurata first posted the request, if only to see what would happen. I'm not surprised but still somewhat saddened by the vitriol expressed here (on both sides). I am happy to restore the draft to TM's userspace, as I said I would when I closed the MFD. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Just for some clarification, I think the closure was, if deeply misguided, still a path to lesser disputes. This draft page was never meant to generate this much controversy. We are now at such a weird state that I'm generating disruptions by not working on the page and again generating disruptions by an attempt to work it :) So I'm just not allowed to win. Anyway, Primefac, thank you for providing me the access to the deleted content. Can't we just move on? -- Taku (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
TakuyaMurata, absolutely. From what I read (in multiple discussions in multiple places) it was simply the fact that the page sat in draft space that was causing ire. I hope that you will find no issues with working on the page in your userspace; please let me know if that does happen, because harassment of users simply trying to improve Wikipedia is a serious offence. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeking advice with an editor/article

Hi Primefac. You mentioned I could reach out any time with questions, so here I am. A user has been editing Michael Lovell to add the "worst university president" award. Them and I have been in discussion here. As the latest discussion comes from a new IP address, it looks like there have been three IP addresses involved, but seem to be the same person.

Am I wrong in my arguments that this "award" should not be included in the article? I was hoping someone else who watches the page might weigh-in, but that hasn't happened yet. The reference they provide looks to be a blog/editorial, and not a reliable source (please help me understand if I am wrong).

Their latest comment calls me "a subordinate of Michael Lovell" (I am not). Should I reply to the comment? Should I give them one more chance before requesting an admin to protect the page? Or am I wrong, and this "award" should be included?

Oh, and I recently realized now that Lovell was considered a runner-up - so he didn't really receive the "award" to begin with. = paul2520 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Plane of polarization

Hi Primefac, you rev-delled some of the revisions of Draft:Plane of polarization. The appropriate copyright release has now been secured- can you restore the content? Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

NAST Revision

Hello,

I'm the Digital Media Manager for the National Association of State Treasurers and my boss wanted me to update our Wikipedia page with the information I provided. It seems like those pages were reverted to an earlier format. Can you explain and the thought process and what content was the issue that caused the revert.

Thank you, Jeremy Dawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by NASTDawson (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

NASTDawson, the text you added was directly copied from the NAST website, which is under copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and removes them immediately. If you do not feel like adding in the information in your own words, you can read through WP:DONATETEXT and take steps to release the existing text for release.
As a minor note, I encourage you to read through our conflict of interest guideline, which will detail some steps you need to take regarding your affiliation with NAST. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Rugby league

Sorry, hit the wrong button.

Was about to comment, I think if you view two of the members recent history things may be clearer. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Doctorhawkes, no worries, it happens. If I hadn't been mindlessly refreshing to see the notification pop up I suspect you would have reverted it before I even know what was going on. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit notice

When you get the chance, can you be bothered to adjust the relevant edit notice to be more in line with this? I can't touch it. GMGtalk 10:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Not firing on all cylinders this morning, which edit notice am I editing? Primefac (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
[4] GMGtalk 11:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Lotte Hotels & Resorts

Primefac, sorry but I don't understand your reversion of my revert at Lotte Hotels & Resorts. I reverted vandalism [5], where anon user edited "[[South Korean]]" link to "[[South Korea]]n". Although it doesn't seem to make any cosmetic change in the Wiki, it clearly was covert vandalism. I presume Matthew hk mistakenly reverted my reversion thus I incorrectly suspected him of socking, and I admit I was wrong with that, but it doesn't seem such an edit is necessary for me to assume good faith on the part of the original anon editor. Thus I don't see how you should be reverting my revision. Hope you can clarify, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Optakeover, you did nothing of the sort. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but South Korean is a disambiguation page, which is not a suitable target for a wikilink referring to a country. When dealing with such names (such as American or French) we link to the country of origin. The proper way is to use the normal wikilinking syntax to add an "n" on to South Korea to make South Korean. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I accept your explanation. My apologies for my mistakes. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
No worries, it happens. Feel free to drop me a note if you ever have any other questions! Primefac (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

reasoning?

Recently, you made a decision on the deletion of the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting article. The only explanation was "the result was delete". Please provide more information.

To me, it would seem to be a better explanation if you wrote "There is a lack of consensus but I believe the article should be deleted" or "Failing a lack of consensus, I weigh in and the result is delete".

What is the explanation? There does seem to be a lack of consensus. AGrandeFan (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Will you extend the courtesy of making a substantive response, Primefac? Thank you! AGrandeFan (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as I have time to write something up. Likely I'll just respond to the other people in the section two spots above this, though, to save time. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Not trying to make trouble for you but this is a topic that captivates interest. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Would you kindly let me take a last look at the article? Maybe recreate it on my sandbox and let me look at it for a few minutes? I don't live in Wikipedia but if you let me know, I will let you know after looking at it so you can delete my sandbox. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
May I see it??? AGrandeFan (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it's one of those days. AGrandeFan, what is it you want to see? Primefac (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to see the deleted page to see if it is 100.0000% junk or if there is any useful information. I think there's one or two references that is of value to the community. AGrandeFan (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately due to there being a page currently at the redirect, I can't just undelete the page for you to view it, but I've copied its contents into this permalink for you to view. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this permalink. Sometimes, administrator are heavy handed or rude but this is very kind of you to show me the references in the deleted article. Some of them have information not in the deleted article but are of value to the main article. AGrandeFan (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

process of a Page in deletion debate.

Hey Primefac, i saw your message about the procees of deletion. Could you explain further how the process works. I tried to initiate contact with the person who requested a delete for a page i watch but no response even after 4 days. I know that after 7 days a page gets automatically deleted. Since no debate is possible if the other person doesnt answer, how can this be solved. I am pretty certain the deletion request is not correct in this case atleast. Do you have any advice for me sir?Sebastiannrk (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sebastiannrk, a few things. First, an AFD does not mean that after seven days a page is "automatically deleted", it simply means that we give a week's time in order for interested contributors to comment on the page. Second, the editors who nominate pages for deletion do not always have the time or ability to respond to every comment left at a deletion discussion.
I think that you have made some valid points at the discussion. After a week, an administrator will review the discussion and determine whether to delete the page, keep it, or relist the discussion to allow for more input. At this exact moment I think this discussion would be relisted, but there are still three days left before that decision needs to be made. Thank you for your questions, and please let me know if you have any others. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Account Creator Permission in active by your command

Hi user Primeface

I noticed that each time that i try using my "account creator" permission . The system do pop up a message see it http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:CreateAccount. Therefore, it been difficult using the right to create for group people during our meet up. Kindly help me out. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Olaniyan Olushola, I'll be honest, I've never dealt with ACC so I cannot help you. I will throw out a ping @Chrissymad, Dane, DatGuy, and Drewmutt: they all have the perm and I've worked with them before. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to restore page Syed Hasan Askari (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari)

Dear Primefac: Kindly assist in restoring the page Syed Hasan Askari (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari) which I created earlier with the help of several wikipedia editors. This page has been recently deleted due to copyright issue per the message received below. . In reality, I also created the FB page of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari therefore it should not be in violation of copyright. Due to this reason, requesting you to restore the page Syed Hasan Askari (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari) at your earliest possible convenience. Thanks in advance!

Reference: Wikimedia Commons <wiki@wikimedia.org> Primefac‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg‬". ‬ File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. • 16:22, 2 November 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page Syed Hasan Askari (G11, G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari/posts/1744203005801902:2 (TW)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedahmerraza (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately pages written on Facebook are copyrighted, and even though you may have written the original version the copyright still exists. You are welcome to recreate the page, but you will need to rewrite it entirely. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Tag deletion

Hi primefac, I'd be pleased to know about tag deletion from Draft:Yishaan Varma Aarveti. I feel the draft does not contain appropriate references. As it didn't contain even a single reference that could be considered reliable, I thought it would be better to get it deleted under 'promoting a person' tag. I have read on a few Wikipedia pages that BLP with unreliable sources should be removed immediately, though I doubt if that is applicable for drafts as well, and unfortunately I was unable to find a better tag than G11 for this. I feel I would have done a BLP PROD if it was there for drafts. I'll appreciate if you can improve my approach on this. Thanks! Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Simranpreet singh, the G11 tag is (I feel) a bit over-used, especially on Draft pages. The point of the Draft space is for new users to work on pages and get them to an acceptable point. Obviously, there will be some drafts that will never be acceptable, but being slightly promotional isn't really a reason to delete something outright.
My general rule (as a G11-patrolling admin) is to focus on the "would require a substantial rewrite" clause of the G11 tag. In reading through the page I saw that obviously there would need to be better references, but it wasn't so bad that it couldn't be easily rewritten to remove some of the promotional language. If I looked at a page and went "well, I'm going to have to remove 95% of the article leaving just the opening sentence" then it would be G11-worthy.
You've asked a good question, though, and if you have any others (or want to discuss this further) I'm happy to chat. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, mate. Considering the fact that the draft didn't contain a single reliable source and the person mentioned was not of much significance (as no such coverage was found anywhere on the web or in the news), what good could have done to it? Simranpreet singh (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I probably could have ignored the rules and just deleted it as G11 anyway (and if it were in Article space I probably would have done so). The issue becomes one of balancing the reviewer's time with the creator's time. It could very well be that the subject is notable per our guidelines, but the creator just messed it up by not including the "right" sources. Not G11'ing the page means that they still have an opportunity to show this without requiring them to rewrite everything. On the other hand, it's not the reviewers job to make sure that a draft (as submitted) is actually one of these "sleepers". This is why MFD is a good option for a "never gonna work" page, and is a little more enforceable when the creator invariably complains. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the username policy

The RfC on WT:U has now been closed with the entirety of the proposed text inserted into the policy page. I still think that the text has its shortcomings, particularly not being specific enough as to which characters are actually allowed (List of writing systems does not currently link to Arabic numerals, which technically means they aren't allowed even though Egyptian and Maya hieroglyphs are?), the direct use of live Wikipedia articles instead of defining the policy on groups of characters or Unicode blocks, and the "decorative" thing which would be more useful if it were clarified to be more specific or were changed to a ban on some combinations of diacritics with non-letters and multiple combining diacritics.

Is it worth the time to make another RfC to amend these things, given that the policy would obviously be looked at with common sense and that the issue almost never comes up with non-emoji usernames anyway? Should the policy be amended? I probably wouldn't write it since I don't think I have the time for it right now. Jc86035 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think further discussion would be useful at this stage. I suppose WP:C and WP:NLT are exceptions, but generally nothing at Wikipedia is spelled out in glorious detail (not bureaucracy). A key point is that any action against a name that is considered to violate the new policy should occur in a gentle way, with persuasion before sanctions are considered. Let's see what happens. If examples occur where the new wording is inadequate, the issue can be dealt with then. If a new account is created with a name that looks as if it has been devised to test the boundaries of the new policy, that new account should get a sharp response IMHO. On the other hand, if a user whose name is nothing but a symbol comes along, and it turns out that user has a thousand productive edits at other projects, we should take more time to see what might be done. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The ink is still wet on this, and (as I mentioned in the proposal) it's only really been "tested" a few times (and with clear-cut cases). We probably don't need to tweak it unless there's some big flaw or people do start trying to get around it. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Salina Vortex Corporation

When explaining the company's international presence, is it advised to still list country names without using flags/grandeur, or is it best to leave country names ambiguous and avoid using bulleted lists? Thanks for the help Ltc1993 (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ltc1993, when a company is in 80+ countries, it's not necessary to list all of them, but maybe give a few of them? Something along the lines of "...80 countries, including those in Europe, Africa, and Asia" - it shows (in general) where the companies are located, without bogging us down about every specific one. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Great advice. Thanks, Primefac!Ltc1993 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please look into this.

Hi, Primefac.

Please I want your view and advise on this. User Doc James an adminstrator I have respect for, incorrectly deleted the page Nalaka Gunawansa (you will see the URL of the copyright violation). I tried discussing it with him amicably twice but no success, Each time I talk, he speciously kept derailing the topic with unrelated topic or accusations on me but unwilling to accept that copying within Wikipedia cannot be deleted via G12. At sometime he will made many replies before I made to confuse me, another time he will say I am accepting promotional stuff in AFC, there is time he said, one reference is not well sourced, (until now I can't figure the dot between not well sourced and what I wanted to discuss) he is completely unwilling to discuss why he tagged page with CSD G12 (because he saw in mainspace and draft) and subsequently deleted it and intimidating the person the called his attention to it. I want you to help me look into these:

1. I know I am not perfect, I do mistake, but I declined more than 100 AFC submission while accepted only less than 20. But this admin in his attempt to intimidate me, he kept repeating I am only accepting "promotional stuff" Please look into my move log, if among the articles I accepted mostly are promotional (as he kept saying), delete them all and remove my access to the script. I believe AFC project is bigger than any user. Note: On 30th October, he sent me private email, with his best example of my "promotional stuff" here is what he sent Jack Ogden (jewellery historian).

2. Explain to him that copying within Wikipedia (within drafts too) is not unambiguous copyright infringement and cannot be deleted via CSD G12 as per as we respect what the CSD 12 policy says. If I am wrong, please correct me. Note: after the deletion, he may have restored it and deleted it again with append "without attribution". I suspect this because my comment for him to restore it was made at "06:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)" exactly, but now the deletion log, shows it was deleted at "06:35, 30 October 2017", that's "19 minutes" after my comment. Well, it is obvious, I cannot request restoring of what's not deleted. But my curiosity is why both deletions where not shown in the log. Still, his no attribution alibi is not covered in G12, I gave gave him example of admin who restored content copied within Wikipedia, Instead to reply on that he repeated his newfound phrase "promotional stuff"

3. Here is the talkpage of the author of both drafts. It has related questions and answer. Here is section of my talkpage with related answer to question for the author. [[User talk:Doc James#Deletion and CSD G12 criterion| Here is my attempt to discuss with Doc James which he speciously kept derailing despite assurance to discuss what he want in different thread.

4. I've no relationship with the page or author of whatever nature and don't bother whether it is restored or deleted. But I've great worry for deletion summarily with wrong criterion and attempted failure to show that like what policy say doesn't matter, or even if it is wrong he used it and ready to use any alibi to derail the attempt to show him he did wrong. Also worried with his persistent attempt to intimidate me, (even in email) (which he never complain on my talkpage), but only when I've shown him something wrong he did.

5. In his reply today 2, November, he claimed the drafts were created by socks, and the first draft was rejected. Well, when I accepted it I have no knowledge that similar draft was rejected. And from my conversation with the author he is newbie with two accounts. (You can see that in link to his talk above). Unless Checkuser result shows otherwise, he didn't do any wrong with the accounts, that will make me suspect him. And I only know that he control both after he answered my questions (linked above). Also when Doc James deleted the page, he knew not this either, he only deleted it because he saw it in another draft. And this is of course wrong, but he is reluctant to accept it.

6. I know this maybe too long, but it is only done to link to all relevant things for your convenience. Thanks  — Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: (talk page stalker) Seriously, I think it's better to write an e-mail or post in WP:AN/WP:AN/I if you are going to complain about multiple admins, with multiple admins. What kind of response were you expecting here or here? Alex Shih (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I am sorry Alex, if you're offended. But this is legitimate concern if indeed you read it all at content value not its "longish face". It concerns AFC and they happened the same time, I am not the one who make them so. And if you look at his talkpage somebody has already told him and he accepted what I persistently tried but he evaded. I will withdraw it after I am sure you see it. To @Primefac: I am sorry for posting what have no value (while I knew not) on your talkpage.  — Ammarpad (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look into this yet, but please don't assume that it has no value. I'll look into the matter. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Ammarpad, I've looked into this a bit. I think there were some valid points made on both sides. From the "G12" perspective, traditionally copy/paste page moves within enwiki (without attribution) are not allowed, but generally they're either histmerged or G6'd. However, Doc James is not wrong in deleting it as G12. Also, given that there doesn't appear to much in the way of significant improvements of the newer version, there really wasn't much reason to restore/histmerge.
You're throwing around a rather serious accusation that Doc James has somehow done something improper or shady with regards to how he handled this situation. As far as the "time" issue from point #2, he made the deletion at 05:35 while you made your post at 06:16. I'm guessing your time zone settings were showing a disconnect between server time and your local time. There was nothing untoward about his actions in that respect.
I think overall there is simply nothing to do in this situation. I do, however, suggest taking in some of the concerns raised regarding your reviewing into consideration; there's nothing wrong with receiving criticism (constructive or not) about one's editing practice. Even if you don't change your habits, you at least know that someone has an opinion about what you're doing.
If you still really do feel that Doc James is doing something improper, then you should take Alex Shih's advice and go to WP:AN, because there's nothing I can (or will) do about it.
If in the future you have concerns or questions about any part of your experience with the AFC process, I would ask that you post on the AFC noticeboard. I ask this because not only will it allow other admins to weigh in on the issue, but also it will give other AFC reviewers an opportunity to see how these situations can/should be handled in the future. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The primary issue is that (1) there was already a submission to AfC which was declined (2) a second creation of the exact same content as a new AfC looks like a simple attempt to disregard the first decline. You add to that that the content was promotional and poorly referenced and the 2nd account copied from the first (socking or copyright problems) that is enough to qualify it for deletion. It is not simply copying within WP, there are a bunch of problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. As I said, I don't find anything procedurally wrong with what happened; it's just a bit harder to dig through the timeline when everything is deleted. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think its well over, with all what had happened, the editor (I think both accounts) have already been blocked. Sometimes it is even necessary to leave what is right in order to enforce the other right. I hope it is over here  — Ammarpad (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Two questions...

  1. If we raised the bar for AfC reviewers to include either a minumum of 2 articles created or autopatrolled rights plus 1000 edits, it would reduce our work load at NPP and AfD, would it not?
  2. If I promote an article to mainspace from the AfC queue, is it automatically marked as NPR patrolled or is that what is being discussed now re: combining the two? Atsme📞📧 18:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. Personally I already do that (check their creation history, talk page, etc), which is why it sometimes takes a while to get someone approved.
    2. Unless an NPR/admin marks a draft as patrolled, it still needs to be patrolled by an NPR after it is approved. This is what the discussion is about currently, because some feel that removing that second check is an acceptable course of action in order to reduce the backlog. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
:-) TY. Atsme📞📧 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Atsme:If the 1st proposal is strictly implemented, I will be prob. immediately shown the door from any matters related to AFC. And autopatrolled....Sigh....Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 04:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
No way, Godric. You've got more than enough edits, and you already have NPP user rights and lots of good experience. Admins would still have the discretion to make allowances and judgement calls based on an editors performance but I have seen a few articles in mainspace that passed NPP which will in all likelihood end up at AfD or possibly back into Draft. That's what motivated my questions here about raising the bar. Atsme📞📧 05:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Well AfC is not going to be perfect. It depends on the proportion that get AfDed or PRODed, and right now it is about 1 Afd and 1 PROD a day, which is not that much. Hardly a workload decrease but would remove many many reviewers from AfC, which is struggling with backlog. Also why does the bar have to be higher than that of to get NPR? Galobtter (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Having a minimum standard doesn't meant that just anyone who meets it gets in. We've declined the requests of plenty of users who meet the bare minimum but have no practical experience in article creation or review. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:56:12, 8 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Thomasmurrell


Mary Wigg has passed away now. So I'm not sure this is possible. Who would be a person who could do more research? An arts editor based in South Australia? I'm sure there is information in the public domain but it is pre-internet.

Thomasmurrell (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thomasmurrell, pre-internet sources are perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia. If you do not know anyone who lives in Australia, you might want to contact the folks over at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and see if you can get some help with that. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Greetings! You did some fantastic work at Editor of the Week, back in June, that made everything about creating and distributing the actual Award so much easier. In preparation for next year, I wonder if it wouldn't be too much to ask if you could create (when you get a chance) the "#if exist" in the Hall of Fame designations for the year 2018. Thanks so much for all your efforts on behalf of EotW. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing Buster7. What's the first date the award will be presented? Also, as a note, I used the #ifexist when I rewrote the page so that one didn't need to go through and edit the list every time a new award was given out ;) Primefac (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
January 7, 2018. Thanks! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Some help...

Can you reverse the move at this edit by a non-experienced promotional-editor in light of the thread at User talk:Davykamanzi#Articles moved to draftspace.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 04:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been dealt with. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this has been resolved.And thanks for the lightning-quick action at User talk:Vishnuvardhana.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:HASHEM KOTBY

User User:HASHEM KOTBY and User:6G PROJECT are possibly the same editor due to their userpage content. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

PROD on Pando v. Fernandez.

Hi, I removed your Prod on Pando v. Fernandez. It was put back with various incorrect claims twice by an editor whose username matches the defendant in the case, I have left a comment on the talk page there and warned the user, but as it was your PROD to begin with I thought it best to bring it to your attention. The issue does not seem to have reoccurred after my warnings so no further action is obviously needed at this point. Dysklyver 13:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended confirmed

I don't understand which ones of my edits are counted as "not legitimate". I'd be happy to receive an explanation of why you removed my extended confirmed status and how excacly I can conduct "legitimate" edits. Mr. Dodo'sss (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That section of the notice was part of the "some of your edits may have been deleted", and since none of your edits were deleted they should not necessarily be considered "illegitimate".
I removed your EC status because you created an account, made no edits for a month, and then proceeded to make 500 edits in three days on one page. Following your confirmation of EC status you immediately rolled back a bunch of edits made to EC pages. This is what we call "very suspicious". Primefac (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I made 500 edits on ca 10 pages, not one. Second of all, you're right – I made this account over a month ago. The edits I rolled back to were made less than a week ago, so how could I possibly have created an account for the soul purpose of rolling back to edits that weren't even made yet? Plus, the only reason I restored those versions at all is because I looked in to the sources listed and they are actually factually correct.
Also, you still haven't answered how I can get my extended back. My edits on protected pages were deleted, but I've still made over 500 very useful edits on non-protected pages, including updating a whole list of countries' populations to Nobel prizes, reinforcing already existant and adding new entities to the lists, adding info & illustration about new research in quantum mechanics, etc.
So, what more do I need to do to become extended again? Mr. Dodo'sss (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) My only question is - why are you so desperate to become extended confirmed? Galobtter (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Pfft, how am I the one stalking you when you're the one who removed my rights and then told me to contact you here in the first place? I'm not desperate, I just care about restoring (and adding more) correct information, which I am unable to do right now. Mr. Dodo'sss (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the {{tps}} comment was from someone else who is watching my talk page. Please make sure you check the signatures left at the end of comments.
As for your question - please feel free to continue editing Wikipedia. If you see incorrect information on an EC-protected page, you should make a request on the talk page using {{EPER}}. I have zero issues reinstating your EC status, but so far all I see is a quick succession of suspicious activity. The only thing that will alleviate that is to continue editing Wikipedia productively. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I'll make sure to check who's writing what in the future.
I'm happy to continue editing Wikipedia, but many articles within my area of expertise are now locked for me. So unless you wanna fact-check (which I have already done) the info that you rolled back, I'd suggest you reinstating my status. Mr. Dodo'sss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Mayestron (rapper)

Hello, I am Chris I just want to recreate the page called Mayestron (rapper) which you deleted on the 22 February, 2017. The article was created by Papamayani which is now already banned on Wikipedia. I just contact you because the page told me if I want to recreate it, I need first contact you, that why I contacted you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislogan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Chrislogan, I think you have the wrong admin. I never edited, deleted, or otherwise had anything to do with that page. You might want to contact either GB fan or Deb, as they were the two that most recently deleted it. You might also be able to convince There'sNoTime to un-salt the page, but I think you're best off creating a draft using the Article wizard, as it will be reviewed by experienced editors and will be less likely to be immediately deleted. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ghalib bin Ali

______ Hello,

I'm iteemh 11/13

Can you please create a redirect page for "Ghalib Alhinai" to "Ghalib bin Ali" as I am not sure how to do that. The last time I tried to do it, I was warned for creating a new page for the same person. I do not want to fall in the same trap again. Please help me do this correctly this time. Or, kindly change the title of the page "Ghalib bin Ali" to "Ghalib Alhinai" as this is the correct format and representation of the person, first name then last.

Your support is highly appreciated.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iteemh (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Iteemh, I'm genuinely not sure what the proper title of the page should be. If you want to change it to a different/better title, you should go to Talk:Ghalib bin Ali and start a Move Request (see WP:RM#CM). A Move Request gives people the opportunity to provide input onto a potentially controversial page move. If you need assistance with this task please let me know. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for the help Primefac. I have made this request to the "talk", but I am not entirely sure how this will work out. So who gets to make the decision? Is the vote made by any person or does it come from specifically assigned people? Also, I kindly need your support in knowing how to file a complain on an administrator on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iteemh (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
(Iteemh (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC))
Iteemh, I see you have done the move request properly, and so now other editors will be notified of the request and discuss the situation. An RM runs for a minimum of a week, though sometimes it can take longer if there is a lack of consensus. At the end of a week or two, an uninvolved editor will assess the consensus and close the discussion appropriately.
As far as "complaining" about another editors conduct: the first best place to discuss the issue is with the editor themselves. If that doesn't work, and if it is a content issue, then a discussion should take place at the article's talk page or at DRN. If it is a behavioural or systemic issue, then it should be brought to WP:ANI. Please note this final option should be viewed as a "last resort" as there are many less toxic ways of dealing with situations. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Primefac for your support. Helping me out by explaining the proper way of editing has helped me avoid making the same mistake again. I appreciate it. As for complaining about another editor, I have already written to the person directly but so far, there is no reply; I will wait and see. Thanks again! All the best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iteemh (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)`

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks on behalf of harassed editors everywhere. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Colombian Chorographic Commission

Thanks for catching that plagiarism - I'm going through the class's work now to look for more. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Plant taxonomy templates

I note that you recently protected a whole series of Plant taxonomic templates without any discussion at WP:PLANTS. We are scheduled to begin a massive update of bryophyte and pteridophyte taxonomy based on recent papers, and our members do not have template editing access. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, I misread the initial request for protection. I will drop the protection to semi. Tom.Reding, I think you just broke my record for "fastest note concerning an administrative change"... Primefac (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry! (not sorry!)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Addendum here. It's quite big though, just over 1 MB, listing just over 30,000 templates... Let me know if you need me to split the page up. Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Needs splitting, as TW only goes down to about mid-C. Are you sure these protections are all necessary? That's a very large number of pages. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That does appear to be the consensus, and there has been no objection at WT:TREE, here, for a week now.
Pinging all the editors in that thread, Peter coxhead, Plantdrew, SMcCandlish, just to make sure everything's kosher.
If so, then we should probably place a note at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system (and anywhere that's appropriate) that all subordinate templates should be WP:SEMI+.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. It is a big number, but this is Science! Seriously, this is an encapsulation in template form of a shipload of pretty well-verified data. It's easy for drive-by goofballs to do unhelpful things to it that aren't immediately caught (how many of us watchlist 30K of pages? Even adding 30K pages to your watchlist would be quite an endeavor, much less actually watching them). It's unlikely that an anon IP editor changing one of these things knows what they're doing. Maybe some non-anons who might make incorrect changes don't either, but they're a limited, manageable pool, versus teh entire interwebs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm way less enthusiastic about this than I should be. I chalk that up to be cranky about having my request for template editor permission denied because I wasn't jumping through the hoops in quite the right way. I'm not happy about having any of the taxonomy templates restricted to template editors. Reasonably experienced editors ought to be able to add references to taxonomy templates (a sadly under-utilized feature of the automatic taxobox system), or insert new ranks (effectively turning a parent template into a grandparent). The number of fully protected taxonomy templates is relatively small, but I'd really like to see them set to extended confirmed protection at most.
Of course, I understand this is about semi-protection of taxonomy templates which is a pretty low bar. That's probably a good idea. Playing around while I'm not logged in, it looks like only an account is needed to create a random template. But creating a taxonomy template requires being autoconfirmed. OK, so semi-protection of existing taxonomy templates bring them in line with bar needed to create them in the first place.
I'm seeing some stuff on the last page of Tom's list which probably merits deletion rather than protection, especially at the very end of the list. There are templates for viruses; the automatic taxobox system doesn't support viruses (virus species names often violate the autotaxobox assumption that a species name is only two words with the genus name as the first word). And there are some templates using common names (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Cuckoo roller) and binomials (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Paraleucogobio notacanthus), which are unused and not standard within the automatic taxobox system. I'm not sure any taxonomy templates that aren't used in articles space deserve any protection. The boundary between 1 and 0 use taxonomy templates seems to be between Zyzzyx and Aaaba in User:Tom.Reding/List of Taxonomy templates requiring protection 7 November 2017 (6). Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a list of unnecessary and unused taxonomy templates at Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. If anyone finds any taxonomy templates that fall into this category, please (a) comment out the existing content and then (b) add this category. Every now and then I ask for templates in this category to be deleted, rather than doing so one by one. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) There is no need to semi-protect these templates. The MediaWiki:Titleblacklist already does this with Template:Taxonomy\/.* <noedit|errmsg=Titleblacklist-taxobox-template|autoconfirmed>. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

JJMC89, does the MW blacklist function as a "soft-semi-protect"? The reason I ask is the taxonomy templates were added to that list well before I did my scan for protection status, and looking up a random unprotected taxonomy template still shows page protection as "Allow all users (no expiry set)". Does the protection only "activate" once someone who wouldn't have otherwise been able to edit the template tries to edit the template?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: I used incognito mode and tried editing that template - it gives: You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Due to the high impact of editing taxonomy templates, it has been decided to disallow new users to edit them. If this template needs to be fixed, feel free to leave a notice at this template's talk page, using a {{edit semi-protected}} tag to attract the attention of editors.
So yeah. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 13:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Great! I only wish that the protection displayed were consistent with the blacklist, but that's just gravy :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
All that work for nothing... Well, that blacklist seems wayy more easier and maintainable than whatever it is you were trying to do.. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 13:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I will take a blacklist over batch-protecting 30k pages! Good discussion guys, thanks for having it. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: This rule is equivalent to semi-protection but the pages aren't actually protected, so the API and page properties don't show it. Normally the TB prevents page creation except by those with tboverride. The noedit option makes that rule prevent editing (in addition to creation), and autoconfirmed allows autoconfirmed users to bypass the rule. More at mw:Extension:TitleBlacklist#Editing the blacklist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding empty sections

Hi Primefac. I noticed you were the one who closed this discussion and I was wondering if there ever was an RFC or some other form of consensus about removing empty sections, and even more precisely, creating them. I'm asking because of an editor who systematically adds empty sections to hundreds of articles, which seems pointless to me, but I can't quote any policy against it. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Muhandes, as far as I am aware there has been no such discussion, but I also don't follow the Village Pump so it might have slipped past. If someone is systematically adding hundreds of blank sections without later going back and actually filling them in, they should probably be warned. If they ignore said warning or continue wasting other people's times, they should probably be brought to ANI.
If, on the other hand, them creating hundreds of empty sections is just the first step in a larger plan (one in which they'll eventually fill them in) then that's not an issue.
Bottom line, talk to them first, see what's going on. Then decide if administrative intervention is required. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't even thinking of intervention, I just wanted to know if there is consensus for deletion or vice verse, keeping the sections. For the specific case, they seems to have been adding the sections for month, never to come back to those articles. Another editor reverted most of them and I left the editor who added the section a friendly note. Thanks for your answer and best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_13&oldid=1143239909"