User talk:Primefac/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Infobox TransAdelaide station

Hi, I noticed you added several parameter names to {{Infobox station/sandbox}}. Instead of adding the parameter names, it might be better to turn the being-deleted box into a wrapper of {{Infobox station}} and then substitute its uses. (I think I was going to substitute this a while ago but couldn't get around to replacing the previous/next fields with {{S-line}}.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 03:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Jc86035, that's what I'm doing. There are too many exceptions to the rules I made in the /sandbox, so I'm subst'ing and checking them manually rather than substituting everything and then cleaning up one hell of a mess. Primefac (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Never mind then. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have not finished yet, could you please modify your script/template/process to combine the old |street= and |suburb= parameters into the new |address= instead of just using the street and leaving the reader to guess which suburb/town it is in (they do not always correspond to the station names). Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

ScottDavis, |suburb= is not a valid parameter in {{Infobox TransAdelaide station}}, so I'm not surprised it got overlooked when I performed the merger/replacement. I will go back through my edits and revive anything that might have been skipped over in the conversion. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologise if I used an abrupt tone. I only looked at the diff, not the fact that the suburb was not displayed in the pre-change infobox either. Thanks for doing the infobox change, as it did not look easy. I added suburbs to the new boxes for the northern part of the Gawler line. Cheers. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nah, Scott, you're cool. I was mostly explaining why I hadn't moved that information over. Thanks for letting me know; everything should be as close to original as possible. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox company left-overs

Hey, I saw that you removed two parameters from the {{Infobox company}} template earlier today, and one of those from the doc, I have since cleared out the coords field from the doc as well, however, it seems like both parameters still have left-over fragments in the template code, which I cannot edit. Under the }}<!-- Tracking categories: line (near the bottom), please also remove | coordinates and | slogans| slogan| Slogan| company slogan| company_slogan. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 21:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Lordtobi, thanks for the heads up. Thought I got everything. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem! For clean-up purposes, would you mind removing | Predecessor as well? It is the only left-over from the capitalized parameters removal long ago (apart from ISIN). Lordtobi (✉) 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Lordtobi, I've removed it from the Template Data (so "Predecessor" doesn't actually appear in the documentation anywhere). I'm hesitant to just remove it from the actual template, though, because there might be an article or two still using it. If you're really concerned, I can set up a tracking category, but for 16 characters of code it hardly seems worth it. Let me know, though. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be of my interest, I always like cleannes on everything, so if you could set that up, hunt them down, and then remove it in its entirety, that would be nice. Lordtobi (✉) 22:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Do you know if there is a script to automaticly clean infoboxes (or other templates) from outdated parameters, etc.? I also wonder why the visual editor sorts the parameter the way it does, out of the normal ordering. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not know of any script that would do that, mostly because there isn't really a good way to define an "outdated" parameter. There are many times where I've added/subtracted a param in the template itself and forgotten/missed its counterpart in the /doc, so any sort of "match" between the two wouldn't always be correct (also, there are numerous times where the /doc doesn't list every param). So... even if there were such a script, I'm not sure how much use it would be. The tracking categories are really the best way to keep on top of these sorts of things.

No idea about VE, I prefer just editing the code so I haven't used it in a couple of years. Primefac (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

weirdness

something odd has happened - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Belgrave_railway_line is the first one I checked.

I tried reverting your addition - still there - so I reverted my edit and looked at others - they have:

REDIRECT Template:Infobox rail line

From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve this page's edit history after its content was merged into the target page's content. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) nor delete this page. For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use

• With history: This is a redirect from a page containing substantive page history. This page is kept as a redirect to preserve its former content and attributions. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated), nor delete this page.
  • This template should not be used for redirects having some edit history but no meaningful content in their previous versions, nor for redirects created as a result of a page merge (use {{R from merge}} instead), nor for redirects from a title that forms a historic part of Wikipedia (use {{R with old history}} instead).

instead.

Never met that beast before, I think there is a need to do something, I am not sure what - hope you can - cheers JarrahTree 14:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

JarrahTree, my apologies. There was a merger of {{Infobox Victorian rail line}} into {{Infobox rail line}}, so IB Victorian became a redirect. However, {{VictorianRailwayLineInfobox}} was already redirecting to IB Victorian, and Wikipedia doesn't like double redirects. I forgot about that issue (and normally a bot comes along fairly quick and fixes it), but I've gone ahead and redirected to the proper location. It should be showing up properly in the next hour or so (if not, just purge your cache). Thanks for the heads up! Primefac (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining - no big deal and do not apologise if you sort it out - there was a group of lines you had edited that I thought were relating to the current puffing billy and hoped you caught your set of edits; as I imagine a non editor - reader would probably have total lack of understanding why the messages are there or what they meant  :) JarrahTree 15:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Gurunkz

Thank you for your correction re: the template listing. My agenda was solely to revert the most recent sock from the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal farm. Every once in a while they make a reasonable edit--accidents will happen. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting lang-zh?

Hi, I just noticed this. Are you sure {{lang-zh}} was meant to be deleted? I'm not sure I remember seeing that in the discussion. Is there something I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

When two items are merged, they become one. The old template isn't needed if the new one can do the job of both. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That's generally true, but I don't remember the discussion ending in a consensus to delete, rather than redirect. Have I missed that somewhere? – Uanfala (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the consensus was to merge. You haven't missed anything. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

AWB in archives

Do you think it is a good idea to edit archives marked as "This is an archive of past discussions for the period up to 2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page."? You might want to reconsider Talk:Judas Iscariot/Archive 1. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield, if the only change being made is to change a template call so that it actually displays properly, then... yes. If I leave the archive completely alone, then the template no longer works and does not display what it should. If there was an archive saying "template X shows {{X}}" then I would just comment it out. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

subst:'ing using AWB

Your substituting kjv in articles didn't work. The articles with problems I've found are: Exsurge Domine, John the Apostle, Liar paradox, Lokma, Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, Multiculturalism and Christianity, Physician, heal thyself, Sobe (sister of Saint Anne), Unitatis redintegratio. I've fixed these, but I'm not sure if there are others out there that needs some fixin'. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Subst does not work inside ref tags, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Dammit, I know. Bgwhite, Magioladitis, thank you for the note. I remembered the subst/ref issue and went back through all of my edits but clearly I missed a few. I guess I'll take another pass.... Primefac (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT

Your bot request has been approved for trial. I've added non-automated access to the bot account for AWB for your testing. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: IRC question

Hi Primefac. I saw your question this morning. Yes, I have a few AWB bot tasks in the pipeline. Why do you ask? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, had a question but I've since gotten it sorted. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How'd you do that?

Hello!

I added refs and tried to accept the Selves We Cannot Forgive article last night, but couldn't figure out how to get rid of the redirect to make way for the article. I thought about just removing the #redirect and copying the text from the draft, but I didn't know if it could be done while preserving the history. How did you do it? I'm sure I'll encounter it again! (Digging back into AfC - I've been focusing on other areas - I hadn't realized that the backlog had gotten so out of control again.) Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

JSFarman, you have to get the page deleted. I use {{db-move}} for draft acceptances, though a standard {{db-g6}} will also work provided you give the rationale in the edit summary. If you can't remember the codes, Twinkle also has the G6 options listed. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, of course. I should have thought of that! Thank you!JSFarman (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

My apologies. It was a touchscreen error. I touch, the screen refreshes and takes my touch as a click in whatever is now in that location, in too many cases that's a rollback. And then the cancel option on the pop-up gets ignored... And then you beat me to fixing it. Aargh!!! Thanks. Cabayi (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Cabayi. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

NAC deletes at FFD

Hey Primefac, non-admins don't have authorization to close FFD discussions as delete. It isn't like TfD. Even if I agree with you, which I do, please leave that to admins unless there is a RfC authorizing it for non-admins. I would have closed a lot of them myself that way if I could have. --Majora (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Majora, will do. I was asked by an admin (off-wiki) if I would be interested in reviewing at FFD. I took that to mean I could NAC the same as TFD. I probably should have asked for more info; my apologies for breaking the rules. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I was thinking about starting a RfC on the matter since the backlog there has gotten to the "this is ridiculous" point. The problem with FFD is that it involves copyright issues as well. We could have 10+ people all voting keep and the image would still be deleted because it is a violation of one of our copyright policies. I've slowly been working through the old ones and closing them as keep or relicense when I see ones that I can. It is just the delete ones we don't have authorization to do. --Majora (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Convergent Design

Hello, I noticed that you made some edits to the Convergent Design page that I am trying to get accepted as a Wikipedia article. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Any other tips you may have for the page would be gratefully accepted.

I don't know if you attended the Wikipedia Conference 2016 in San Diego over this past weekend, but it got me excited about this and other future articles. A great venue to meet fellow Wikipedians and a no-brainer for me to attend because I live in San Diego.

--Patty Mooney (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pattymooney, sorry for the delay in replying. I only took a super-quick look at your references, but they look decent and the draft isn't terribly promotional. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

14:36:47, 11 October 2016 review of submission by Tpetpe

• Tpetpe (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Søren Sørensen (microbiologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Primefac.

Many thanks for taking the time to look at the submission for the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Søren_Sørensen_(microbiologist). I have tried to address the comments made. I am a little concerned that it is getting rather long and includes too many references (N.B watch out for the Danish character "ø", it can cause problems in links and searching documents especially if replaced with "o").

This is not so much a request for a re-review, but a question as to if scientific notability is sufficient to merit an article submission.

It is difficult citing why the work is notable without using PRIMARY references, as the area of work has been contributed considerably by the person concerned. I have left some of the PRIMARY references in as they are representative of the work and at least of high scientific impact. Also the area of microbial interactions is based on very recent research, so is not well reported outside of the scientific community in which the researcher is very much central making it difficult to exclude him from the references.

You mention that "As a note, h indices do not automatically demonstrate notability". I understand that h factor is of course only intended to represent scientific impact. The h factor of 50 is especially high for microbiology which I think justifies scientific notability.

But does this mean that scientific notability should not contribute to general notability as required for submission criteria? In which case including high impact scientific publications (as these are the main changes made) would not contribute to notability? Currently there are about 10 primary references and about 15 that are from the scientific press (Such as Nature).

Microbial interactions in evolutionary and socio- biology are innately theoretical and tend not to get too much popular press, so excluding scientific publications would certainly make the article invalid and so shouldn't be resubmitted.

Would it then be better then not to resubmit if scientific notability does not contribute to general notability.

Many thanks

Tim

Tpetpe, sorry for the long delay in replying. As I mentioned on the draft, primary references (i.e. things he's published or co-authored) show what he has done, but not what sort of impact it has had. In direct answer to your question re: h index: no, a high scientific notability does not automatically mean on-Wiki notability. This why we have guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:PROF, and why independent reliable sources are so important; they give us a metric to show that someone has become noticed and are doing valuable works.

I see that you have already resubmitted the draft, but you are welcome to continue working on and improving it while it is waiting for review. Good luck, and if I haven't fully explained something (or you'd like to ask more questions) please don't hesitate. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 2

Your task #2 has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:20:57, 2 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by NicePaul

• NicePaul (talk · contribs)
  • User:NicePaul/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thank you for pointing at the issues with the article. I'm a newbie and not all of the rules are clear to me. But I try to learn.
I'd like to know how strict the conditions for complicated server-side software are? As millions of people use it every day, but don't know about it. Just one of the examples: http://www.myvideo.ge/

NicePaul (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Asian Games Ceylon

The template is unused, so I see no reason why it can't be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am re-opening the discussion. Feel free to comment if you want to have an orphaned/duplicate template kept. Frietjes (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Frietjes, no offense, but did you not read my close? {{Infobox Asian Games Ceylon}} is a hardcoded instance of {{Infobox Country Asian Games}}, which means once I finish merging it into {{Infobox country at games}} Ceylon will be deleted at G8. Thus, your nomination is redundant. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

so why don't you delete it right now. it's unused and duplicates {{Infobox Asian Games Sri Lanka}}. the ultimate decision is not "keep" which is how you closed it. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I have to clear out {{Infobox Country Asian Games}} first so that the pages dependent on both templates don't get screwed up. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

And technically, I did not close it as keep; I just closed it. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Declined TfD speedies

This may be (definitely is?) a bit pedantic, but {{Infobox Country Asian Games}}, {{Infobox Country Mediterranean Games}}, and {{Infobox Country Pan American Games}} all have existing transclusions in other templates which are unused. The WP:IAR supporter in me wants to just delete those as uncontroversial maintenance, but the "don't want to get yelled at" part of me thinks a quick TfD nom of the other templates (of which there are many) is preferable. It should go through without issue, so I'd rather do that than get yelled at for speedy deleting several dozen templates later. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've declined {{Bien de Interés Cultural}} as well for the unrelated reason that it still has existing transclusions; it appears a bot went back and "rescued" references where they had been used twice in the same page. Please double check that you're removing all instances of that ref tag when you fix the few remaining transclusions and then nominate again. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oh damn, and this is the one time I decided to make myself useful by clearing out the holding cell! Sorry Rob. You are much nicer than me; I just nuked these. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Um... okay! Rob, I will definitely be sure to double-check if I'm orphaning something used in references in the future; I shouldn't have missed those Cultural refs that were hiding. As for the "Country games" templates, I had every intention of just G8ing them as dependent on a template that didn't exist any more. I guess Opabinia regalis saved us both a bit of work! As there are another five such templates at TFD at the moment, I will add in a note regarding the "dependent on these templates" templates so they can be taken care of all at the same time. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, G8'ing a hundred pages would be a waste... a couple lines of python will fix that! Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Whelan - 1916

Hi Primefac

Apologies for removing the header in my article a couple of times. I wasn’t aware that these were being reinstated, as I couldn’t see the comments surrounding these actions on the Talk Page (I think because the page was redirected) and was unaware of the situation. Similarly I appear to have lost my connection to NickD’s Talk Page in the military zone, so I’m a bit at sea here.

What I was actually going on for notability was WP:ANYBIO http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography rather than strictly military guidelines, as the Easter Rising was an extraordinary situation. While the histories of the major figures are well documented, with the centenary of the event, people here in Ireland are interested in the more personal stories of the participants in the Rising. I am very disappointed to have missed the writing contest on Wikipedia, which ended last month: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/WLM_Ireland_2016_Writing_Contest , as I believe that the Patrick Whelan, Irish Volunteer article would have been of interest in the category People and Places of 1916.

Where I believe that Patrick Whelan meets the notability guidelines in WP:ANYBIO are as follows:

1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor – Patrick Whelan received the 1916 Medal posthumously.

2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - The Easter Rising only lasted 6 days, but it is a seminal event in Irish history. Patrick played his part in this significant military event and gave his life for his country. As one of the Volunteers, he is honoured at State events and annual State Masses in recognition of his sacrifice to help build the foundation of the Irish State. His name was included as part of the logo for the centenary events this year.

3) The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication - This refers to the UK only, but Patrick Whelan is listed in 'Who's Who in the Dublin Rising 1916' by Joseph E.A. Connell Jnr. His story is also documented in Ray Bateson’s ‘They Died by Pearse’s Side’, with Patrick mentioned specifically on the back cover.

As well as being documented in the Military Archives, Patrick Whelan also has a building named after him – Whelan House, which is located beside O’Rahily House in Ringsend, Dublin. O'Rahily was a leading figure of the Rising. Both buildings were named in recognition of the men’s part in The Easter Rising of 1916. https://www.google.ie/search?q=whelan+house+ringsend&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOyYqP5YfPAhUMCMAKHSeoBF0Q_AUIBygC&dpr=1#imgrc=Oq6Ll_FST9IOuM%3A

Could you please reconsider my article in light of these facts Primefac?

Thanks and kind regards

Helen Larkin (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, Helen Larkin, my opinion hasn't changed much. Here's my reasoning.

1. The 1916 Medal was given to just about anyone who participated in the Easter Rising. It is (to be somewhat simplistic) equivalent to a participation trophy.
2. I'm genuinely curious about what part he played. From every account I've read, he got shot almost before anything started. This goes back to point #1, where the simple fact that he was present does not make him notable. We are not a directory.
3. Again, simply being in a directory of people who fought in the East Rising does not make them notable. This would be like going to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in the USA and claiming that every person listed on the wall should have an article.

I was actually going to concede that I may have been a bit harsh when I suggested that the streets and buildings were named willy-nilly, but this article basically confirms that notion (the names were simply given out because the person was a local and died in the Rising).

This all goes back to my original point - there simply isn't enough in-depth coverage about Whelan (or his greater contribution to society) than "he was in the Rising and he got shot". When I can summarize a person's entire notability in one line, I have a hard time believing they should have an article on Wikipedia.

On a note regarding your first few paragraphs - I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for, but Nick-D's talk page is here, and the Military History WikiProject is at WP:MILHIST. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you are really giving this article a fair shot, if it had been a more seasoned editor publishing it, I doubt that it would require such vigorous defence! Also, it would be nice if you actually addressed some of the points that I brought up on the page's talk page, rather than just directing me here. Just to reply to your points:

1. This is an absolutely untrue statement. Only around 2,500 medals were issued. Those who were Killed in Action had their names enscribed on the medals and they were officially numbered. I'm not sure what the figures were, but the inscription wasn't applied globally. I feel that you are drawing an analogy with the medal given to all those who fought in WWI, which is not a fair or accurate comparison given the difference in scale and nature of the awards.

2. As per 'Who's Who in the Dublin Rising 1916' by Joseph E.A. Connell Jnr., Patrick Whelan went down to Kerry and returned with news of Roger Casement's capture. As a participant in The Easter Rising at all Patrick Whelan deserves a mention. There were so few who turned out on the day anyway. The whole event was almost over before it started - it lasted only 6 days in total - so to dismiss Patrick's contribution as getting 'shot before anything started' is to miss the point entirely. Patrick was shot during The Battle for Mount Street, which was the most significant event of the Rising in terms of British casualties.

3. The Easter Rising is not on a par with the Vietnam War. This is a fallacious argument. We are only now beginning to talk about the Rising at local level given the unfolding Decade of Centenaries.

4. Having a building named after you in any age and at any time is a big deal. We may be a smaller country than the US, but it is still a significant honour to have anything named in your memory and honour, never mind an entire building. See my point about the naming of the Whelan building at the same time as The O'Rahilly Building, or was he just another person who happened to die during the Easter Rising too?

Both myself and another Irish editor have done some more work on the article since you last looked at it. If we submit it again, I do hope that you will give it a fair chance rather than imposing rather strange and unsuitable barriers for entry. Smirkybec (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A thought

Wasn't AWB rules - I simply went too deep into the category tree when generating a list of redlinks to create. I try to exclude things like that, but apparently was firing blanks that day. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Makes sense! Primefac (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Category move

Re this move: I'm not convinced, 'I've only seen those' is not a strong argument. I myself have seen very much of these old name patterns (and actually created lots of them). For sure, the removal of 'Article' is wrong. Next time, pls propose first. -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, will keep that in mind. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

15:44:55, 4 November 2016 review of submission by 74.113.162.226

• 74.113.162.226 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Ventura (Entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, would you please help me understand, specifically, what about the sources are not significant? There are multiple articles from the New York Times citing Mr. Ventura as an entrepreneur, WIRED, Mashable and others. He also founded a company which already has an active Wikipedia page. Any specific help you can give would be much appreciated!

Thank you.

Saying "Ventura is an entrepreneur" and nothing else does not demonstrate notability. I've gone through the references again. Aside from the Wired article (which I previously stated as a good reference) there really isn't much there.

• AE Today - this talks about his speech itself, and almost nothing about Ventura.
• NYT 1 and 2 - as I said before, these are about his business (and personal things like how he decorates his flat).
• Business Insider - This is an interview / tour of their house.

The other references given are just name drops, one-sentence mentions, or interviews. I just don't see anything in the way of significant, independent coverage of Ventura. However, what is there is all reliable, so if you add a few more pieces that talk about Ventura specifically you'll have a decent draft to resubmit. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Notability of Rene Azurin

Thank you for your comment on the article I have submitted on Draft:René Azurin. To answer your question re notability, Azurin is probably the leading public intellectual in the Philippines but generally avoids any personal publicity because his strong criticisms of corrupt politicians and dirty politics sometimes engender threats from the powerful in government. (In fact, he has always refused to enter politics and has declined offers to join government.) Politicos of course get a lot of publicity and this may make them seem more notable (and worthy of Wiki inclusion) even though their contribution to the society would indeed be negative. This seems ironical -- the corrupt can be more "notable" than the reformer.

Anyway, below are some quotes about Azurin:

• (From the former president of Korea University):

Stationary Bandits is an erudite man’s incisive and perceptive look at political power. Elegantly written, it lays bare the myths and common deceptions that political ruling classes like to perpetuate on the citizens whom they consider their subjects. I am very much impressed. People living in democracies everywhere (not just in the Philippines) should pay close attention to Dr. Azurin's discussion of how politicians who acquire control of government tend to use the concerted power of the state to further their own interests and take advantage of the people. People still living in autocracies should read his ideas and consider how they might use these to possibly change their situation. Ultimately, for political elites everywhere, Stationary Bandits is a subversive book. I recommend it highly.

--Dr. Yoon-Dae Euh (President, Korea University)

• (From a Professor Emeritus in Political Science of the University of the Philippines and one of the founders of the two leading polling organizations in the country):

Power Without Virtue is an extremely provocative, timely collection of essays on various dimensions of Philippine governance. Dr. Rene Azurin, a veritable Renaissance man as well as an indomitable Orphic spirit, melds a comprehensive knowledge of Philippine history with a keen sense of what strategically needs to be done -- what, indeed, sensibly could be done -- to change this country’s largely regrettable history into an economically rewarding and politically liberating process for most Filipinos.

Power Without Virtue reveals the oligarchic workings of a nominally democratic regime. It exposes the various weapons of mass deception that predatory authorities systematically inflict on their beleaguered and mostly politically marginalized constituencies. Naked power and falsified virtue make for a punishing combination in the economic management and public administration of this nation, as Dr Azurin shows in his often skeptical, at times understandably near-strident, essays on economic development, public finance, leadership and public accountability, law and justice, environmental protection, labor concerns and – yielding to what must be a temptation much too gross to resist – the sociopathology of Filipino politicians.

The exposition and analysis of these concerns is intelligently done and can be forcefully convincing . Empirical proof and persuasive logic, historical and contemporary evidence, national and international databases and expert as well as intelligent lay perspectives backstop the essays in this collection. However, Dr. Azurin does not merely interpret ; he seeks progressive change and his essays are often an exercise in innovative prognostics – the identification of policy options strategically designed to neutralize poor outcomes and bring about better ones. This is actually where the greater value-added of Dr. Azurin’s present work, it’s “virtue” in a manner of speaking, might be properly located. Clear-minded, programmatic strategic thinking is a sine qua non for Filipinos who refuse to remain mired in the numerous quagmires of their history. Power with virtue could yet attend the governance of this country should Filipinos finally decide to become -- in the words of a hopeful Academician -- “the nation that they could be.”

Dr. Azurin’s volume is a signal contribution in designing a roadmap towards that promised land.

--PROF. FELIPE B. MIRANDA (Professor Emeritus in Political Science, University of the Philippines and Founding President, Pulse Asia Inc. and Founding Fellow, Social Weather Stations)

• (From the former publisher of the newspaper BusinessWorld):

"René Azurin is just the sort of inquirer and sense-maker the public needs for it to be redeemed from the confusion and obfuscation engendered these days in the service of the powers that be. It's a role he plays with consistent grace and conviction. He is able to cut through disingenuousness with his power of deduction and clarity of thought to reveal motives and paint the big, plausible, and often absolutely true picture. This collection offers shining illustrations of his deeply perceptive and thought-provoking essays."

-- Vergel O. Santos (Publisher, BusinessWorld)

• (From a constitution expert and a member of both the 1972 and 2005 Constitutional Commissions):

One does not need to always agree with René Azurin’s often iconoclastic views to concede the breadth and depth of his thinking and the persuasiveness and elegance of his writing. The range of vision he brings to bear on his analysis of contemporary issues is truly impressive. He draws from an easy familiarity with such subjects as history, politics, technology, economics, philosophy, psychology, and business to make always eloquent presentations of a uniquely “strategic perspective.” One could hardly be accused of exaggeration if one were to say that Dr. Azurin is the profoundest strategic thinker in the country today. His weekly columns in BusinessWorld are both incisive commentary on the problems of our society and literary gems at the same time.

--Jose Leviste Jr. (Constitution expert and member of the 1972 Constitutional Convention and and 2005 Constitutional Commssion)

• (From one of the pioneers of the IT industry in the Philippines):

Hacking Our Democracy is a comprehensive commentary on how the Commission on Elections’ unreasonable insistence on a flawed automated election system supplied by foreign reseller Smartmatic is causing possibly irreparable damage to the Philippines’ election system. Written in elegant language laced with patriotic fervor, this book offers an excellent exposition of the technical and other issues surrounding the subject of automated polls. Every truly concerned citizen should read it.

--Augusto “Gus” Lagman (IT industry pioneer)

The foregoing are written comments about his books. I hope they may convince you of Azurin's "notability".

Thank you.

Santos.juan (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Cynegtica (Nemsianus)

Hi - thanks for the useful edits to the new Cynegetica article: I guess my first attempt went a bit overboard - and you helpfully pruned it back! CHRM2 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Always happy to help, CHRM2. Nice job overall! Primefac (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass template deletions?

Hello. I am contesting this edit and any others like it. Can you please explain why this was done? This breaks the ability to easily see connections regarding where a source is cited (i.e., all the articles that cite it), and to cite the source easily, and to transclude the source's bibliographic data instead of forking it. — ¾-10 00:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Conversation continued at the section for this template at TFD. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning {{China line}}

Hi, AWB isn't working on my computer right now (and regex doesn't work in the online script, which would make it rather tedious), so could you help fix the {{Rail color box}} transclusions (only the metro systems, not CR or CRH) which were affected by the {{China line}} replacement? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No offense, Jc86035, but you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that you wanted to do? Primefac (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: Essentially, add |inline=yes to the instances of {{Rail color box}} that you substituted a few weeks ago for the 25 or so metro systems which were in {{China line}} (these, except HK-MTR and Peak Tram). The stuff about <br/>s and {{Plainlist}} could probably wait a while. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Jc86035, this is both a combination of me not wanting to do unnecessary work as well as honestly just trying to figure out what's going on; if there is {{Rail color box}}<br/>{{Rail color box}}, why do we need to include |inline=yes? Is the difference between {{legend}}and {{color box}} really that important when they're on their own lines in the infobox? If it is, that's totally fine, I'm just trying to sort this all out Primefac (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: Because some of them have been substituted already (some, in Shenzhen, seem to have been fixed after your replacement by Epicgenius); I'm not aware of any other metro systems, except Chicago's, which use the large {{Legend}} boxes; it's nice to distinguish in some of the interchanges between main line and metro/subway; it's used inline in some places; I don't think it works properly with <br/>s (need to check); and it sort of just feels aesthetically incongruous. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Jc86035, done. Got about 1300 pages, and anything that needed plainlist got it to boot. Might have missed some, but at this point in time I honestly don't care anymore :p Now that I've seen the difference, I agree that inline was necessary. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks for your help! :) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Primefac,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Pleased to meet you! I have some interesting boxes, etc, and things that can be used on my sandbox page, here's an invite: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Twillisjr/sandbox Twillisjr (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Interlanguage link

Hello,

I have no idea how you were informed I wasn't informed about the recent change regarding this model. Just, I now have a problem which appears on this page which shows that I don't know how to turn the French Roman populaire into "Popular novel". Maybe can you help? Thanks in advance, LouisAlain (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

LouisAlain, if the article title on the foreign wiki is different, you include it after the language. In this instance, it will be {{ill|popular novel|fr|roman populaire}}. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaaah! Well thank you. LouisAlain (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @LouisAlain: And FYI, we don't have any special informants regarding who's not aware of the change, unfortunately. A few of us are just going through the new transclusions trying to ensure that the change runs smoothly and inconveniences content creators as minimally as possible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually the change is quite easy to implement so that suits me fine! LouisAlain (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

anomiebot

ContactPoint still has problems. Looks like you and the bot are fighting on this one. Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone ahead and fixed it manually. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Some random G7 deletions

For the record, I created these two pages, when it was rather unnecessary. Due to module restrictions I was unable to G7 them, so this is my "official" request. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Primefac. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for directing me to the "Third Opinoin" deal. Your help is very much appreciated. 69.63.86.114 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 4

Your bot request was speedily approved see the notes at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 4. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Replacement of coordinates parameters in infoboxes

Hi, would you like to help out at Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes? It's fine if you don't, but I'd like to take a wikibreak due to real-life commitments and currently there are only two other editors working on updating and fixing the infoboxes. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Might do; I have a ton of work on {{team appearances list}} that I need to finish, but after that I'll see if I can fit this in. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Declined

Today you have declined two of my pages . The Draft:List_of_Mickey_Mouse_(TV_series)_episodes and 'Draft:List of Timmy Time episodes' But this is to give the episodes a page of there own smaillery to List of Disney's House of Mouse episodes and. List of Shaun the Sheep episodes 82.38.157.176 (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If the list of episodes (e.g. in Mickey Mouse (TV series)) needs to be split into its own page, the content should simply be copied and pasted into the new article. It doesn't need to go through the draft process, because it already has been accepted. See WP:SPLIT for more information. Happy to help out further if necessary. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Do of mind giving a hand on both lists82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a day or three and I'll see about getting everything moved over properly. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks another series which could do with a list of episodes page (season 3 needs to have episodes description at least) is The Mr. Peabody & Sherman Show which aired its 3rd season about a month ago82.38.157.176 (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! ツ

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Dear Primefac, I remain very grateful to you for your prompt assistance with my request for help, yesterday. Thank you also for your contributions to our encyclopedia, and for all you do in support of your fellow editors. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Huckleybuck

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft back in July. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Huckleybuck

You said at the time: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I've since run across this page which discusses whether my primary source is reliable: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_94#pagat.com

In addition to that, I've trimmed the content to just that which is sourced.

Another reviewer said, "Pagat is a site run by an individual, and most likely not considered a reliable source because it is self-published, and has no editorial board." John McLeod is the sole editor, but he does get a lot of contributions and corrections from members of the International Playing Card Society. Further, the article that he wrote about Huckleybuck was published in their journal. So while his site isn't peer-reviewed, his writing about this game has been.

If you could take the time to look at it again and give me any further suggestions, I would appreciate it. If not, I understand.

Thanks again, Brad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blwhite (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Blwhite, rewrite (or remove) the "Summary Description" section so that it's not just a bunch of quotes and I'll be happy to accept it. Thanks for pointing me to the RS noticeboard. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Primefac, I can see that the summary of the Rams group doesn't belong at the top. I'd like to keep that information if there is any way to salvage it. It seems relevant, to give a picture for where the game sits in the larger context. I restructured it and moved it to the end. But I don't know if the heading, "External References" is the best. Open to any suggestions. Thanks!Blwhite (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Isla Coronados

I believe you reverted my edits to the subject page in error. As stated on the talk page there:There are three islands known as Isla Coronado(s). One in Lorreto Municipality, another group in Tijuana Municipality and another in Ensenada Municipality. Isla Coronados is not Smith island. Isla Coronado aka Smith island is in the ensenada municipality near Bahia de Los Angeles. Please review so that we can re-revert the edits. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 03:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

cdw1952, fair enough, and to be honest I had forgotten about your talk page post. However, that is all the more reason why you should use edit summaries when making massive changes to a page like that. At the very least I would have known why you were editing. You clearly know a lot more about the situation than I do (I mostly just accepted it at AFC), so carry on! Primefac (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely response. Sorry about the lack of edit summaries. There was a lot going on and I made multiple rapid edits. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 03:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Arkansas Misleading information

The reason for removing the information is because it is very misleading. The articles referenced were misleading. The President never was involved with any of the negotiations regarding the President's house. The university VP for Finance and the Chairman of the Board were the individuals who pursued this. Meadors wasn't even copied on the letter to the VP. Pointer22 (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Pointer22, if the information is incorrect, then you need to start a discussion about it. You can't just continually remove sourced content and expect people to just accept that. One of the key things to remember is Bold, Revert, Discuss (and we're at "discuss"): post on Talk:Allen Meadors, get a discussion going, see if there isn't some way to resolve this without getting yourself blocked from editing. Primefac (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As i mentioned in my previous reply this information is incorrect because of the sloppy editing by the articles referenced. Meadors had left the State to work out of country and was not part of the conversation but he was never part of the President's house discussion. The Chairman of the Board and the VP of Finance handed the entire discussion. It was noted and verified that the President wasn't even copied on the letter from the Food Vendor and the VP (however at least 4 other people were copied). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.241.45.230 (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate what Primefac has already explained, the place to discuss this is Talk:Allen Meadors. Please provide reliable sources there that support this alternative version of events. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:1800Approved

PleaseOrangeMike (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I honestly have no idea what I'm doing.

Is there a way of getting my 1800approved page up?

Sorry for my ignorance, but the gobedly-gook and symbols instead of free text has me utterly confused and perplexed.

Most times I can't even get access to these talk boxes. I'm hoping this one works.

Thanks in advance ! Cheers Ken

PleaseOrangeMike (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

PleaseOrangeMike, I'll be honest. Making a page isn't easy. You're not the first person to have a page be deleted. Here's what I suggest: get yourself familiar with Wikipedia by going to The Wikipedia Adventure. It will run you through how to create pages and deal with syntax and generally navigate around. I have heard from tons of people that it's a huge help. After you're done with TWA, if you still have questions that haven't already been answered here or on your talk page, drop me a note and we'll see what we can do. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

RADC http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rush_Alzheimer%27s_Disease_Center&oldid=753353157

Thank you Primefac, but that is exactly the issue - when I added the link to the NIA to my new article (subject line), it was red, and when I clicked on it, I got a no link to this entry reply. That's why I sent that NIA cite to you.ROSMAP (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, not sure if my last post went through I don't see it on history - anyway, I did add a contribution using the recommended format, and the contribution came up "red" and reported to no reference in Wiki. So, I found the same subject for NIA that you mentioned, which is why I asked Dodger67 the question.ROSMAP (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ROSMAP, the link looks fine to me. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, got it now: "Next, to create the category, click on that red link, which brings you back into the editor. Adding this new category into the appropriate parent category is much the same as with an article: at the bottom, simply add the parent category (e.g.: Category:Parent category name )."

I barely got through the article, let alone an optional category, so I will defer to the seasoned editors at this point.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROSMAP (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	thank you so much for your service Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 5 has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Remaining transclusions (sort of) of PDFlink

I'm trying to remember: were you the editor who substed {{PDFlink}} before it was deleted? I found one hidden in some bad syntax in Fort Robinson, so I went looking for more and found 14 articles. It looks like most of them are inside HTML comments, but if anyone ever uncomments them, they won't know what to do with this long-deleted template. A couple of others appear to be trapped in bad syntax.

Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I was the one working on that, yes. The easiest thing to do is just remove the template itself, since the content is usually just an external link. If you don't feel like doing it yourself I can take a look when I get time. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll let you look at them. Most are a little strange, and I'm sure you dealt with some edge cases in your substing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I will certainly come to you if you have questions, and engage if mistakes are made in the reviewing. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Floor is yours

...at the AfC Participants Talk. Cheers. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S., if you have a more informal beef, that you want to air, I would gladly hear it here as well. I cannot please everyone, but I can AGF and give it a try in each case. By the way, good schools, an uncle-in-law is retired from MSU, and though I've never visted Glasgow (my loss), it was spoken of warmly/highly, in the visiting time I spent between Oxbridge. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

16:07:19, 8 December 2016 review of submission by Ocfootballknut

• Ocfootballknut (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Template:1970 Pacific Coast Athletic Association football standings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is my intent to create articles for San Diego State (already submitted for review), Long Beach State, Fresno State, And San Jose State for 1969 - 1975. Each of those would use the applicable PCAA standings template.

Ocfootballknut, fair enough. I've moved them to the Template space. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wanted to say

I am glad my tags brought you to edit at the APHC article, but I object to a variety of the changes, for various reasons that have to do with a perspective based on a lot of time at that article (reading, editing, strategising). I will not (obviously) revert, but I will look to changes, to make sure they move the article in a direction that I think we both will agree is best.

An instance/example of disagreement is captured in this change [1], where I think my edits were the more conservative and respectful of previous editors. The "angry words" you refer to were not angry at all; I use all caps in in-text notes, because otherwise they do not attract attention. The deeper matter here is that the Dworsky text has as its history a merge, of an independent Dworsky article, with this article, which engendered a great deal of discussion (before my time). I respected the outcome of that merge, by leaving it in the article, as a footnote, so people could source it, edit it, and therefore make it encyclopedic (rather than having it disappear). The same conservatism was evident my not removing listed participants based on the red label criteria, because (a) our policies and guidelines allow some red wikilinks to appear, and (b) because lack of such links is often capricious. (For instance Dworsky, a mainstay of the show over three decades, who does not currently have an article, but certainly should not be deleted for lack of one. Just an example of the capriciousness, not of a mis-deletion; but there will be other regular or semi-regulars that deserve to be on the list, despite lacking an article.)

Finally, the removal of the inline tags is counterproductive. I return to that article, as I have time, to fix issues. The few places that had those were sections where—as I have indicated at greater length elsewhere—one could find sourcing and misattribution issues, if time was spent looking. As a result, I concluded I needed to check and source each sentence. Now, I still have to do this, but I have to add time, for going back to earlier versions, to see what had, and had not already been checked. Do you really have the interest in this article, to make reasonable adding effort onto others that do? Could it not be the case, that you could look in on such articles, and see if the placement of such tags accomplishes a purpose? As I said elsewhere, the tags would disappear, one-by-one, as the sentences were checked, in the problematic sections/paragraphs. Now it is not clear which of those were problematic, either for me as a continuing editor, or, meanwhile for readers.

This is not, though it may seem, a criticism of the sourcing and general edits that you did. As I said, I am glad the article received attention, from a fellow dedicated and bold editor. But I do perceive you were editing with a negative perspective regarding me, and so threw some of the proverbial baby out with the bathwater (and so made it harder for me to contribute as well). Respond here, since this is something on the more personal level? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, I just took a look at all the edits between the one you linked and the current version. The only mass of {{cn}} templates that I removed either a) were replaced by references, or b) involved a string of every-sentence-had-the-template, which is just unnecessary (and even then, I only did that to two paragraphs).

Got it, for an example, see below. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Second, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any redlinked artists on the page, but when the list was more than 50% redlinks it had to be trimmed. I'm not opposed to adding some of the "more regular" regulars back in (even if they don't have pages), but a list of every guest artist is unnecessary (and I didn't feel that I could accurately re-add the "right" people).

Got it, but my style is more to call attention and hope for movement, as this does not make the source material as hard to come by, as does the remove-and-add-back strategy. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the caps - it's considered shouting. You cannot fault me for thinking it was shouting.

Not all shouting is angry, mate. (=_=). Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Finally, there was no negative perspective; adding {{cn}} tags after every single sentence makes it very difficult to read, as well as being a bit of overkill (it's also listed in its own section of the cn documentation). Thus, I would have done this to a page edited by you or any other editor (and I have made similar edits before).

Long story short - I came across the page through your contribution history, but I did not make the changes I made because it was you who had made the changes. I think at the end of the day the page is better for it (both your and my edits) and it will hopefully continue to be improved as time passes. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with closing statements, and glad there is not persistent beef. We do have different perspectives on what is necessary and over-tagging, but my views are opened to continued refinement. (I am only ever put off by drive-by detagging, as much by its additive twin, when it slows my ability to improve and article.)

Here is what my editing leads me to, as a next step, after finding a good source, and extracting it, see A_Prairie_Home_Companion#Film—except in this case, you jump-started the process by providing a good, very interesting, and authoritative source. Note the residual tags, for material not appearing in that source (content that was in the section, that predates either you or I, and that, respectfully, deserves to remain until a source is found). Bottom line, the tags make clear, operationally, what is, and is not sourced, in paragraphs that have been ID'd as having discrepancies and misattributions (at least when I use them, they do). Look forward to more of this very productive sparring, from time to time. Cheers, happy holidays. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change

The addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical Edge, Inc. was by a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change, who imitated and forged statements from other users. It should have just been deleted and the IP reported. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. Wasn't really paying attention to the contribution history, just the fact that a nomination had been added to an existing one. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox country at games

I see you are setting these to automate the appearance list, but it is not working on a number of pages, e.g. Afghanistan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games, Bahrain at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games, Bangladesh at the 2007 Asian Indoor Games, Bangladesh at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games. As you seem to be going through them alphabetically there may be others that will have the same problem.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne, thanks for the heads up. It was only those four. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops you did it again.....

See the switch statements here. Could you please clean them up. It's getting old on this happening, so I'll do something drastic to make you stop. Next time it happens, I'll show up at your door in a Britney Spears' school girl outfit and sing her song. If you don't die from passing out and hitting your head from seeing what no human or animal should see, you will be permanently blind. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite, you'll have to be more specific. I see nothing on that page, implying that either nothing is wrong or it's all been fixed. Either way, I don't actually know what was broken, so I can't really work on fixing it... Primefac (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, found 'em. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

But the next time I screw something up, a bit more insight into what I did would be good ;) Thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Somebody must have removed or fixed the ~20 articles from CheckWiki page. Rarely does that happen for that CheckWiki error. The page gives all the article's name and problem. Bgwhite (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Which, I suppose, is why I asked for more specifics. Bgwhite, I fixed the half-dozen pages I found (all related to Yugoslavia at the Paralympics) with an errant #switch statement, but I didn't see any evidence of more than that. I'll do a deep dive and see if I can't find those missing dozen or so pages. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have found (and fixed) all of the pages related to my recent actions that had #switch statements in them. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country at games

Hi, I see you updated Template:Infobox country at games I think this has caused some issues as a number of articles have popped up on Category:Articles with missing files that appear to be related to this for South Africa, Congo etc. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks KylieTastic, I'll make sure that gets fixed. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I had just realised I could fix muself as I found the module it's defined in - but I'm at work and I guess one needs to check the valid historic flag for the dates - so I'll leave it to you as your probbaly more qualified on the subject ;) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, so far it's just simple misspellings. Whoops! Primefac (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Some mysterious script errors have popped up. I listed some of the articles at my sandbox (permalink) (feel free to edit it if useful). Peering at a couple of cases shows them calling {{WEG country}} or {{Infobox country at games}} and perhaps others. I do not see why there is no visible error. However, the articles are in the hidden Category:Pages with script errors and struggling through the article html source shows an error from Module:Country alias namely: "Invalid country alias: ." (the dot seems to be the invalid alias). I still have no idea how the templates are working to call the module, but I'm sure you can figure it out! Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Johnuniq. Most of the ones showing a script error were due to the infobox; it was running an #if statement with no alias (which is why a big red error wasn't returned). I've modified the parameter check so things should be sorting themselves out. The rest seem to be either wrong country codes or missing a value in "country alias". I'm in the process of fixing them all. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. I haven't had time to look at the templates that end up calling the module, but I did glance at the case above. It looked as if a bunch of logic in the template is working out what parameters to pass to the module. I would think that such logic should be in the module and if wanted I could add code to handle anything needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq, if you're talking about the logic in header15 of {{infobox country at games}}, that's mostly logic to determine what gets displayed, not so much what gets passed to the module. The issue was that it wasn't checking if |country= was a valid parameter (i.e. for the full name), so it was running a three-letter check even if a three-letter code wasn't passed.

Of course, if you're referring to something else, then do explain further. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

RE:Reverting my edits

Sorry I acted like that. I just said that because I though you were doing it with bad faith. I just didn't understand what you were doing and didn't realize that you created some of them.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Seacactus 13. Admittedly I overreacted a bit. And I'm surprised at how many weren't created by me... guess I got a little carried away. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I undid my reverts. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your discussions were closed

see this thread. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitted page - ATMIA - ATM Industry Association (22 Dec 2016)

In other to address "notability" issues I have a) added sources specifically dealing with ATMIA rather than quoting once / one sentence in the article; b) diversified sources by adding others than ATMmarketplace and Finextra ; c) removed previous bulleted lists; c) reduced number of sources in half (from 80+ to 38)

Look forward to hearing from you in due course, season's greetings

Bernardo CIM2014 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request declined

Why should that template be deleted, rather than stay as a redirect? The TfD said to merge, not delete, and the redirect seems helpful to me. (I couldn't remove the tags, as the template is template-protected). Pppery 03:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Pppery, it gives the wrong impression. An admin not aware of the redirect could try using {{unblock request declined}} without parameters and discover that it |decline= isn't automatically included. Additionally, you should re-check the TFD - the request was for a merger but the result was "delete". Primefac (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 6

Your one-off [Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 6|task 6]] request has been speedily approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I misread that request, it has been reopened. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You will see

…my response to your latest statements, at the AfC Talk page. But I would ask, starting from your initial insinuative comparison of me to the Korean reviewer (for whom there was evidence of misdeeds in reviewing), to accusations of ignorance of the AfC purpose, to your latest speculative statements about all that I might do wrong—that you recognize that your statements are extremely prejudicial, such that would never be allowed in any actual procedure aimed at a formal, fair adjudication of a matter. Your knowledge of my actual heart and motives is scant, and so your conclusions regarding them (your "If you…" statements) are off-base. You cannot possibly know how I will do something before I am allowed to do any of it. If you cannot be fundamentally fair in your dealings, perhaps you should recuse. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, I have been with AFC for a long time. I have had to clean up after many reviewers who were not doing their jobs properly, the most recent instance being the most troublesome but certainly not unique (there are a few threads that I've started about rescinding AFCH permissions). As Robert has now mentioned on the Participants talk page, it's not so much a question of me assuming good faith (which I do) but rather questioning whether potentially acceptable drafts will be declined simply because they do not meet GA standards. So yes, I'm being preemptive, but being preemptive is a better usage of my time than cleaning up AFC messes for months on end before something gets done. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, absent actual evidence, Primefac, you lump me in with these many "malcreants" (my word, miscreants if you wish). This is the very definition of prejudging. (You actually have no evidence of "potentially acceptable drafts [that] will be declined.") I imagine you did not even look at the Steelism draft, that two other editors had already rejected, where I spent a half hour, trying to suggest ways to move things forward. (I then reverted the edits, so that I was not being heavy-handed with the new editors.) No, your prejudices are misguided. I want articles to get in, on good trajectories. Hence, absent real evidence, I would argue such preemption is in its very essence a failure to AGF—to assume I will engage, in the spirit and pattern I see with Robert, as I have stated. But you will do what you will. We are wasting our precious lives at this. We could have done 40 reviews each by now. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, Primefac, if you think it aligns with WP expectations, acknowledge this "to save my time" preemption statement, in the main Talk discussion. Since it is, at least in part, your motivation, per your statements here, you should state it there as well. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Primefac: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Draft:Pseudo-pseudogenes

Hi. This was my first attempt at creating an article. I had to look up what neologism meant when I read your rejection! The research article that coined the term was in NATURE, one of, if not the, most respected scientific journals. I believe that this qualifies as "requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources". In addition, the article metrics as of today indicate that it is in the 98th percentile of tracked articles of a similar age in all journals and has been picked up by 3 news outlets and 3 blogs. I don't feel the need to cite those sources. Before I read your rejection but after you read the draft, I had edited the article to include another paragraph about a different research article that identified 8 human genes that were previously classified as pseudogenes. I believe that this is an important topic of interest to many people, so I am going to resubmit. Thanks for your time and quick consideration. DennisDrdfp (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Drdfp, while blogs are not acceptable sources, you should be using the news outlets in addition to the PRIMARY sources. This will demonstrate that it's not just a handful of scientists making crazy claims on the fringe. In fact, that's exactly why we want independent reliable sources for articles. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Primefac: I take strong objection to your fear about "a handful of scientists making crazy claims on the fringe." Nature articles have strict peer review procedures, MUCH stricter than any news outlet, I would bet. The term "pseudo-pseudogene" passed that stringent test to appear in the title of the article. I suspect that you are not a scientist and don't appreciate how prestigious Nature articles are nor how carefully reviewed they are. Note that I am not part of the study and have no connection in any way to it, except for admiration. You appear to be focused on the novelty of the term "pseudo-pseudogene", rather than focusing on the new concept it embodies. There is huge interest in genes in the media. There is a wp site about pseudogenes. The new concept embodied by "pseudo-pseudogenes" is that DNA analysis etc is itself an evolving endeavor, and as more information is gained and analysis is done, there are some fundamental changes in our view of genes and pseudogenes that means that there is significant function in so called "junk" DNA. If you don't appreciate that, and if you are predisposed to thinking about crazy scientists making claims on the fringe, I hope that you'll turn your review of the article over to an experienced scientist. DennisDrdfp (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Drdfp, I never said your draft was about crazy scientists on the fringe. I was saying that the rules and regulations we have in place are to avoid such topics. You are saying there is huge interest in the media about this topic, but your draft lists none of them. As an aside, I am an experienced scientist, though it has nothing to do with my ability to interpret the guidelines set out by Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Primefac: I have added references to 4 unaffiliated reviews of the original pseudo-pseudogenes paper and the extra sentence "This article was reviewed in many more than 4 independent articles (there were 743 Google hits for the phrase "pseudo-pseudogenes" as of 12/27/2016), but 4 are listed here, ranging from another presitigous but unrelated scientific publisher to a website promoting creationism.[2][3][4][5]" I have resubmitted the draft. Please review it. If it is acceptable now, I don't think you can imagine how bizzare I think it is to have references from intelligent design/creation websites strenghten a report about hard core molecular biology and natural evolution. DennisDrdfp (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Primefac: Please don't spend any more time reviewing this page and end this thread. I've decided to edit the existing article "pseudogenes" and then make "pseudo-pseudogenes" only to redirect to a section of "pseudogenes" that I will compose. Thanks for your time. DennisDrdfp (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 9#Template:Slovenia Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship

Can you tell me the policy on which these templates were all deleted? –HTD 00:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, precedent (navbox creep as well as the dozen previous similar TFDs linked in the discussion), and a distinct lack of rebuttal other than "this makes no sense". If you feel I have made my close in error you are welcome to request a deletion review. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. You deleted it on a basis of an essay, and on "similar TFDs" which are not "similar" at all. Outside of a DRV, is there a chance of relisting this instead in TFD, or do I have to go over the bureaucracy and make a DRV? –HTD 13:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Howard the Duck, I am willing to consider re-opening the discussion, but answer me this: how is this TFD, which was for a national squad at the FIBA World Championships, different than these? In each of the other TFDs, they were for non-medal-winning teams at international events and were thus deleted. They may not all be the same sport, but the rationale for all of them is the same (so they are "similar"). Primefac (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There are different types of basketball. The one played at the highest level is the one where there are 5 players on the court per team at one time. There are other variants like 3x3, and informal games like slam dunk contests. In 5-a-side basketball, the highest competitions where national teams play is the Olympics and the FIBA Basketball World Cup ("FIBA World Championship" before 2014.) The only valid comparison was the 2002 USA squad, which didn't place 3rd or higher on their home floor. The other comparisons were invalid:

• UNCAF Nations Cup/Copa Centroamericana is a regional tournament between Central American football teams. This would be like navboxes for Centrobasket teams.
• Youth and junior basketball competitions are youth and junio basketball competitions.
• UEFA Futsal Championship is a continental championship on a lesser-played variant of football. This would be like navboxes for FIBA Europe 3x3 Championship teams.
• Caribbean Cup is a regional tournament between Caribbean football teams. This would be like navboxes for FIBA CBC Championship teams.
• The 2002 San Francisco Giants is a club team in Major League Baseball. This would be like a navbox for the 2002 Golden State Warriors.
• The 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins is a club team in the National Hockey League. This would be like a navbox for the 2009 Los Angeles Lakers.
• The various Azerbaijani championship squad navboxes look like club teams in Azeri football league. This would be like a navbox for the basketball teams in the Azeri basketball league.
• The various club squad navboxes are for club teams playing in their respective football competitions.

This means that the only comparison would be deleting all 2011 Rugby World Cup squad navigational boxes, and 2011 Cricket World Cup squad navigational boxes. –HTD 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm still not convinced that these templates should exist, but in good faith I'll relist the discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL for some reason a bot closed it. Can you undo it? Bots are still stupid, FWIW. –HTD 17:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Discographer/Various

Do not ever commit vandalism on my page again as you did by blanking it. That is not your purpose as a bot, or the bot will cease to exist. --Discographer (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have seen problems like this with obscenely large pages. The bot has to check to make sure it was able to load the entire page before making changes. I wouldn't call it vandalism, but just a simple bot error. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, vandalism doesn't usually include links to accepted bot tasks and the reason why the page is being edited... apologies for the accidental blanking, but a simple note would have sufficed. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Bad syntax

So, what's the fix after this edit? I can't imagine this is how the end result is supposed to look. There are dozens more as far as I can tell. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Plastikspork, we didn't notice that issue until after the bot started doing its thing. I'll be going through the transclusions and merging consecutive usage like that. Hopefully it's not a huge number and I can do it manually, but if not it'll probably be another BRFA. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I found that one by following this link from the database report. I would think you could find a bunch by checking to make sure the date parameters are in the places where you expect them. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, totally different issue. Interesting. Thanks for letting me know, I'll bring it up on the template talk page. Primefac (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Plastikspork, which database report was that from? Would be helpful for finding the others. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates/1. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Basic fix would be that the syntax of Article|Title|Date be converted to [[Article|Title]]|Date. Didn't think anyone was mixing the named parameters with the "create your own" syntax. -- ferret (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither was I, but apparently so. Seems like there's a fix in progress on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: User:PrimeBOT on animanga articles

There is a discussion at WT:ANIME#User:PrimeBOT is messing up our templates regarding User:PrimeBOT's recent changes to three animanga templates on articles containing {{vgrelease}} which needs to be addressed.--十八 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

02:33:38, 30 December 2016 review of submission by Embby

• Embby (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Travelers United (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Travelers United was on the National NBC Nightly News tonight - Here is the story. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/air-rage-forces-delta-flight-land-cases-soar-n701336 NBC does not have the full broadcast up yet but I will send you that when it is done (or you can look it up yourself)

I talked with Charlie how Travelers United is viewed as insignificant within Wikipedia but they have pages for all the major groups that fight against consumers.

Again, I think if the NBC National News is convinced that Travelers United is big enough as a go to source for info on traveling conditions, I think Wikipedia might want to consider them a credible national source as well.

Embby, this is just a quote from Loecha. TU isn't mentioned except for his being the president of it. Please be patient, I have lots on my plate but our deal is still on; I still plan on doing my best with the draft. Primefac (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! ツ

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Dear Primefac, Thank you once again for always being so helpful to your fellow editors via the Help desk. You always go the extra mile, and I remain most grateful to you for all the assistance you have given me personally. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 11:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Dupont Cirlce Hotel Problems

Thank you for undoing the section wipe from IP 208.58.66.193. Please note that someone using that IP has wiped the section repeatedly in the past. I think that was the third time they'd done it. Do you know of any way to prevent that section from being wiped repeatedly? Gotosan (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Gotosan, if a page is repeatedly vandalised by IPs, you can request page protection at WP:RPP. Primefac (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Primefac much appreciated, I've never done that before, will try that if the problem continues. Cheers! Gotosan (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

19:40:07, 3 January 2017 review of submission by Ssinyakov

• Ssinyakov (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anna Reinke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

OK, made some adjustments and cited the sources. What else can I improve? Cheers. Ssinyakov (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:30:16, 4 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Editoremacb

• Editoremacb (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Behnam Tabrizi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing the Behnam Tabrizi article -- I'll do my best to revise it. Editoremacb (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Editoremacb (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:XXXYYYYriders

I see that a number of templates in the format XXXYYYYriders have been nominated for deletion with the deletion to take effect after they have been substituted. I spotchecked some and see that you have been doing the substitution. I'm hoping to avoid having to manually check each and every one of them so can you tell me that you believe you have completed the substitution on all of them?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, to the best of my knowledge they are all orphaned. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I deleted them all; please let me know if anything turns out to be an issue and any need to be restored.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Incredible amount of work relating to cyclist templates S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Discussion at AN

There's a discussion at AN regarding your close of the infobox country TFD. See WP:AN#review of a non-admin closur. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Samuel Neaman Institute

Hi. I see that there was a potential copyright infringement in one section of my draft article. In order that I can re-work it to avoid the infringement, please can you restore it in a place where I can rework it? ThanksGolan789 (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Golan789, generally we do not restore copyright violations and encourage editors to start over from scratch. However, you are welcome to ask RHaworth, who was the one who deleted it, and see if they are willing to undelete the page. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)