User talk:Primefac/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Primefac. 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.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Hi.Is there any way of knowing how many drafts get submitted through the Article Wizard? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I could probably ballpark it, but at the moment we don't have any inherent tracking in the Wizard that would allow for an easy search to see how often it's used. If it's needed for anything I could probably whip up a tracking category. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It's going to be needed in an upcoming discussion with the WMF on solutions to reduce the workload on both NPP and AfC. There are three ways drafts land at AfC:

• 1. From NPP 'move to draft'
• 2. Voluntarily from editors who create their articles as drafts first
• 3. Voluntarily from editors who created a draft and submitted it through the Article Wizard.

It's important to know the split. Years ago the Wizard created an article template for the user, but it doesn't seem to do that now. On 15 October 2017 you effected the moves of all the Wizard pages to the new version. The edit summary was 'per RfC'. Do you know where that RfC is? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is archived here. I'll get back to you on the other stuff. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have created a tracking category at Category:Drafts created using the Article Wizard; unless I missed a trick somewhere it should only be populated by pages created using the Article Wizard. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Forgot about a few script things, will see if I can figure out a more permanent tracking solution. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, it should be fairly trivial to add a template to the AFCH removal list for accepted pages, yes? Primefac (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Howdy. I'm happy to take a look. Can you elaborate a bit on what "AFCH removal list" is? Is there a link? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

When AFCH accepts a draft it removes various templates such as {{AfC comment}} and the like, so if I were to add a tracking category template (much like {{drafts moved from mainspace}}) it could theory remove that as well upon acceptance. That being said, I'm starting to like Kudpung's edit summary suggestion indicated below, as it wouldn't involve changing the script. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submission wizard, Edit summary: Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard would seem to indicate voluntary submissions through the Article Wizard, while edit summary:(example) Kudpung moved page Mid cap company to Draft:Mid cap company without leaving a redirect: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace (via script) is a move made by NPPers i.e. not from the Aricle Wizard. Perhaps creating the stats from the Edit Summaries would be one way of doing it, but all three of the criteria above need to be broken down. Does this help? @Novem Linguae:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's is the edit summary when someone uses Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Submitting, which is the "AFC submit wizard" (a script-assisted way of submitting a draft). I could add a similar note to the Article Wizard, though. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

   Done - drafts created through the Wizard will now have an edit summary of -- Draft creation using the ] --. Happy to tweak or change the text as necessary. Primefac (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I almost forgot: Criterion 4: Equally important is to know how many drafts in the sample period are submitted by IP users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  You're starting to ask for multiple things; "submitted by IP users" is different than "created by the Wizard". Different kettle of fish, but still doable, probably by using a tracking category on the |u= parameter. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, so I've created Category:Draft pages submitted for review by an IP, which is a bit of a misnomer as it currently tracks any page where the |u= parameter is set to an IP. If you want more specific numbers, I can modify so there are categories for each of the statuses (unsubmitted, pending, declined/rejected). Let me know. Primefac (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, I'm just going to do that, since I feel like otherwise the cats will be oddly stacked. I'll link the new cats from each other. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• I can't find an RfC under the link you gave me. Only a discussion between a handful of editors (me included) about some suggested changes, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the current version apart from a few formatting errors, but the template article page that used to be given to the creator has disappeared. Do you know if that was intentional? Bsed on experience at NPP we're thinking how we can improve the UX of new users who register with the sole intention of creating a new article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  That might not have been the RFC itself, but the actual RFC was pretty much just a rubber-stamp exercise, which is why I generally refer to the discussion as "the RFC" even though I'm technically incorrect. Apologies for the confusion. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  No need to apologise. The current exercise, where en.Wiki is concerned, is to take a holistic approach at the entire onboarding of users who register with the sole intention of creating an article, helping them with that creation, and the subsequent flow through NPP and/or AfC. Not making any radical changes but streamlining and improving the UX for both new users and reviewers. That why we need some data on the use of the Article Wizard. Five years have passed since the 2017 change (which I supported), but there has since been a huge change in the kind of new articles we receive, and their provenance.

  Thanks for creating the edit summary. That will be excellent for the future, and will be embedded in part of the project, but do you have some ideas how can we can obtain some stats now for 1, 2, and 3 over a sample size of say, the last three months? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  The first should be fairly straight-forward, as I suspect most NPRs will be using a script to draftify which will leave an edit summary that can be traced. The second could, I suppose, be checked by "moves from the draft space to article space" with no AFCH or other review-related indicators. I think you'd likely need to split #3 into two - one for folks who create a page using the Article Wizard, and one for folks who submit using the Submit Wizard. If I can get the IP tracking going, #4 should just be a case of cross-checking the category they're in with the AFC daily submission categories. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is great! Thanks Primefac. I'm really curious whether the acceptance rate at AfC is different for people who went throught the Article Wizard vs other groups of editors. I believe we need to improve the Article Wizard notability explanation a bit, but it should be better than no explanation. Femke (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  I doubt it, but that's why we crunch numbers :-p Primefac (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why we need the number-crunching. It doesn't appear as if the 2017 Wizard is being used much and if it is, it doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. The previous Wizard offered thematic new page templates and we always knew if an article had used the wizard. An overhaul of the Wizard is in the pipeline. It will be more of an update to take into account the new kinds of articles that now make up the bulk of the creations. It won't be a new design, but we'll be trying to get the WMF to adopt it and make it part of the package we want them to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have much capacity, but happy to be part of the conversation to overhaul the Article Wizard if that would be useful. Could you point me towards the conversation about the overhaul?

  I've been thinking about a more interactive approach for the Article Wizard, where people are guided to gather sources first that can demonstrate notability, before they start writing. Last time somebody collected the numbers, only 13% of the AfC reviews were accepts iirc, mostly failing on notability or verification. If we have WMF support, we may be able to do some A/B tests on Article Wizard options. Femke (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, can you please clarify why an external link to the builders of Whelan House is an ELINK violation? Would I have to get permission from the company to do this or is it for another reason? Thanks in advance Helen Larkin (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links § Important points to remember; elinks should not be in the article body. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac Helen Larkin (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the replacement for Major League Baseball Umpires navbox in this discussion? I am now seeing 82 redlinks from Template:Major League Baseball Umpires navbox. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think Primefac may have accidentally deleted the primary navbox along with the crew chiefs navbox. Both have become redlinks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case. My apologies. I think between the two of us everything has been restored. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Primefac: Can you please take a look at this The editor on good faith was trying to copy across to the MSIG namespace on meta and it landed here. I tried to csd it, since removed. The editor left a message on my page. Can you please take a look at it and expedite. It is well outside what I can do. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been moved back now, I've cleaned up the remaining redirect, but I think there might be both technical and language issues at play. I'll see if I can shed some light on their talk. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

"With all due respect, this is not the best of ideas." A common thought. It reminds me o' the opening o' A Tale of Two Cities, naturally. I have heard it suggested that one ought to put upon their user page ideas and aspects pertaining to them, additions o' what is so, rather than what is not - yet this was. Is there a rule forbidding it? Such is the frail state I appear in, evidenced by my present writing, I think to it, and think on and on. All who start travel this way, by routes rapid or meandering, with many junctions and turns to avail themselves before the final step. It appears I am thick within the brambles, without sense of turning or time to consider - thus it is that I proceed. This place o' precision and truth, o' such bold force to assert defiant deeds about everything is as a station from which many travel to and from in frequent journeys to seek greater wisdom of the world. Well I am from it, with mistakes the constant pattern, deeper into the dark and away and apart. Even this page, tainted by the twisted prose I inflict, scorning its use from meaning, well, elaboration only elucidates my repetition. Around we go, singing and skipping, then off and into the wavy distance. ButterCashier (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it forbidden? Not strictly speaking, though it does fall under "non-public personal information", and we have historically found that it is better for all if such information is not published on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you do a quick run on Category:Pages using infobox video game with unknown parameters to remove "width" as it's been removed from the infobox? About 140 articles. Not a lot but more than I feel like doing by hand. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, though a) I'm doing it with AWB myself, and b) if you turn on "ignoreblank" it takes care of 99% of these cases. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 3 days ago, you replaced an article about ultramassive black holes I created with redirect to article about supermassive ones, because it already contained the information on my page.

But why is that wrong? I think it could serve as a "base" for an article, that could be further expanded. If you deleted it because of duplication of information, shouldn't information about ultramassive black holes be rather moved to a separate article than creating a redirect? And can you please link me to some wikipedia help article about situations like these (since I didn't found anything, that explains it to me)? I'm pretty new to editing wikipedia and happy to learn more about it :)

Link to the history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultramassive_black_hole&redirect=no Maty1000 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy § Ultramassive black hole (and the previous discussion §Stupendously large black hole further up the page) for why this page was redirected. There's nothing saying that the page cannot (someday) be un-redirected and expanded, but the consensus from those two discussions seems to be "not right now". I would encourage you to join in those discussions, as WikiProjects are the best places to discuss changes like these (when it's not being discussed on a given article's talk page). Primefac (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

All done! 2601:640:C780:2B90:2555:5C67:60:D869 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Congrats? Primefac (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

Hi! I happened to see you say on WP:BN that you always forget to add "Special:PermaLink/" to a wikilink when you copy an oldid. I just wanted to recommend to you Enterprisey's diff-permalink.js script, which adds a box with Special:PermaLink/oldid or Special:Diff/diff to any permalink/diff page, and a button to easily copy that text. As a bonus, there's no more need to hunt for the oldid in the URL. --rchard2scout (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Will definitely need to give that a try. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, happy Saturday! I recently came across GroppeBoucher, noticing they were resubmitting drafts, seemingly at random, that had been previously declined without making any improvements. These are not drafts they created or previously edited and as far as I can tell, they have never created/submitted a draft of their own. At the time, I reverted the ones that were still in pending status and left them a note asking them to stop (along with asking them to respond but they didn't). I checked back a couple days later and noticed they had submitted some more so again, reverted the pending ones and left a warning. On November 1st, @Bonadea: also left them a final warning but they have continued. I just reverted Draft:Efeler, Efeler they resubmitted today and you can see all the declines on their talk page for the ones that were re-reviewed. I did take a very brief look at their other edits and while most are likely not useful, some are and I didn't see anything obviously disruptive (except maybe WP:GAMING) so thinking a block from Draft space is appropriate, unless you (or anyone else happening by) have any other suggestions. S0091 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, Primefac. @Blablubbs blocked them as a sock. Blablubbs, was randomly resubmitting AfC drafts a common behavior with this sock? S0091 (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't immediately recall seeing that before, but there have been (relatively minor) shifts in behaviour over time. The primary behavioural marker for the case is accounts making large numbers of tiny edits that remove whitespace, modify diacritics, or make minor changes to punctuation. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Glad this could get sorted. To answer your original question, yes, a draft-space partial block would be reasonable. If you see editors like this in the future making pointless/unhelpful resubmissions in a manner that suggests they're not actually attempting to be helpful, I would just revert their submit entirely (i.e. don't decline it) and wait for someone interested in the page to do the work. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The Technical Barnstar

Thank you for your work at Template:RfA/readyToStart. You opposed the change, and yet when it passed, you chose to work to make it happen. As an American, today is election day; what happened after our last election is fresh on my mind. I guess I see this as a quasi-peaceful transfer of power, where both "sides" work to make the result happen. In any event, I am grateful for your assistance. A sincere thank you. HouseBlastertalk 12:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Aww, thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! In the Template:Year in various calendars, it is controversial to claim that we are in the kali yuga, the Dark Age of Hindu mythology, which Savitri Devi believed that Hitler was once destined to bring to an end. (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-41757047 !!), in addition, there are messianic leaders like Kalki Bhagawan, who claim to have ended the Kali Yuga. And too Kali yuga isn't a calendar! In this sense, I think the best thing to do to remove the Kali Yuga from template! Thank you in advance for your assistance. Jvbignacio9 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I see you have made a template-protected edit request, which is good. I'm not quite as active in that space these days as I would like but if I get a chance I will take a look at your request. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I was after some advice please about the recent addition to List of LGBT writers by LesbianBookBlogger. Anna Larner doesn't have a Wikipedia article and I believe that Bold Strokes Books is a self publisher? Should I revert? Many thanks Knitsey (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, we do not keep redlinks in lists like these. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Knitsey (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I have produced a list of example motions that could be proposed at ARCA at User:Crouch, Swale/Motions. All 4 different parts should each be tried to see what can be done rather than just proposing a single motion. I would strongly urge that in the next appeal we think about the type of articles I can create namely a motion that only allows me to create a certain number of civil parish (on top of the existing 1 a month on anything) namely something like I can create X number of current civil parishes a week or similar rather than increasing the number of articles on any topic that I can create. As an interesting note I recently learnt about pre-1974 parishes and the fact that they were often more arbitrary and didn't have their own councils which may be an exception to the general rule that civil parishes are presumed notable, see this comment for example. While I would like to focus on current parish at least until all have been created, in the future if we have a motion on allowing me to create former civil parishes it could exclude pre 1974 urban parishes. The distinction between urban and rural parishes doesn't really exist in law anymore but often urban parishes are controversial (usually due to taxes) and are often changed or abolished more often while rural parishes tend to remain stable for many years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I have seen this, but it might take me a few days to reply. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not I am on the Committee next year, I would advise you just ask that your sanctions be lifted. This nickle-and-diming every year is getting old, and to your credit you have managed to stay within the boundaries of your ban for a good while now. The more complicated a motion you put forward, the less likely it is that you will be successful. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that if I try to get my restrictions lifted completely I will just be told no and will have to wait yet another year. I think in 2022 I can be trusted to follow requests from other users without needing binding editing restrictions. If you do aim to lift the restrictions completely would an editing plan/a list of suggested/advised restrictions be a good idea such as article creation rate, article quality and article topics be a good idea. Plans like creating the (current) parishes first seem sensible and I think so that the community doesn't think I'll get into trouble editing plans do seem like a good idea. I would like to make a significant start on getting the current parishes created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I have replied on the Wasps RFC talkpage to Skeene88 and awaiting a response.

I believe the content to have higher importance on the page than it currently has.

I will keep you informed if dialogue has not been forthcoming by skeene88.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.247.135.179 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I am currently watching the talk page and that discussion; it was only started today so it may take a day or three for a consensus to develop. I also note that the Rugby Union WikiProject has been notified, so there should be a reasonable number of opinions given in the coming days. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response and the gathering of opinions. 90.247.135.179 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to give you a heads-up.

Parts of the Wasps group, Arena Coventry Ltd & Arena Coventry 2006 Ltd, have a High Court appointment tomorrow to appoint an administrator. It has been threatened that both companies may go straight into liquidation. This will have a knock on effect of paying the bondholders at Wasps Finance where Wasps took out a £35m bond option which is still to be repaid, and the 250-year lease (Arena Coventry Ltd) reverting to Coventry City Council. This in turn will have a major effect on the club (Wasps Holding Ltd), and its ability to field a team. For Wasps RFC to compete again in the rugby pyramid, all creditors must be paid in full.

It could be a busy day tomorrow.

I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes. 90.247.135.179 (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There has been talk of a pre-pack arrangement in administration, but bondholders which have expressed a preference could be challenging the pre-pack, which includes the bondholders losing their secured creditors position and their position in receiving money in administration/liquidation. This could get very messy, very fast. It also, on the other hand, could lead to Wasps playing in the Championship next year.

This is the current situation. 90.247.135.179 (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Until something happens and gets reported on, it's not like the article can be updated either way. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. 90.247.135.179 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi You removed "excess detail" from this article, not sure that is correct, another part of his scatter-shot defence is "nurse dobbed him in, illegally took finger-prints etc" the facts I placed there wholly refutes all of this. Thoughts? 2404:4408:638C:5E00:666D:DDCF:AE5E:A34C (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I removed things like "the police knocked on his door". Clearly, they did that, as how else would they have performed their duties. The coma bit is unnecessary in the lead (again, excessive detail), as is the specific time at which they arrested him (which is unnecessary anywhere in the article). I don't know what you mean about the fingerprints, as my edit didn't have anything to do with that. Primefac (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The US at least has a problem with common courtesies like knocking on doors when you're a policeperson. :) Izno (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering why you removed the accusations section on the Boyinaband Wikipedia page. I think they are inportand enough to be included in there

Best regards,

Jhowie Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The accusations presented at that page were not supported by reliable sources, so they had to be removed. If there are sources other than Reddit and YouTube that discuss the allegations, I do not see why such content could not be included. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac, I hope you are well! I was wondering if you would be willing to provide me with a list of my deleted edits and their contents? There are only about 7 in total and most of which are me nominating pages for CSD. I wanted to know all the details so I can manually add them to my CSD log which I am creating. Would you be happy to provide all the information for me? Thanks Blanchey (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User:LogiAnimations/sandbox was a G11, User:ClueBot III/Indices/User talk:Blanchey and User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:Blanchey/Archive 1 were under G6 as no longer necessary. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Does it also say which dates I made the edit? Also, did you see a deleted contribution on the previous version of Gemma Oaten made by me? Blanchey (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Same as the dates of deletion, and yes, you just removed a redirect and gave a generic db-reason. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Primefac Hallo ! ! wish you happiness I was just replying to the message happens to be on your user talk page Saw you were replying to the conversation 4 hours ago，I have no formal English education,I also try to keep the story short，I have a few questions I hope an official can help me with。1.I just ran into it in December 2020Wikipedia is doing global integration project for being invited to the creator site help download mobile beta Wikipedia app,But I don't know that it's not just a simple download APK format software,which in turn mistook the site for “GitHub.org”So I boldly accepted the task assigned to me by the team results in numbers entered because of the virtual keyboard identified as“Characters that are not Arabic numerals”Can't find the project leader even after triggering the alert So I transfer that task to another team member,So it's seen as malicious damage and then dumping the mess on someone else As a result, it has been permanently banned from this website。If possible, I request to investigate my personal activity records Including geography and ISP the only one assigned to me IP number Location。you are the supervisor The right to retrieve user activity records，Only in this way will it be easier to voluntarily authorize to be investigated make people understand Am I doing sabotage with a deliberate mentality? 2.I Been viewing recently Topics discussed by people on the wiki project，In fact, there are many people who have always been talented But I can't find a partner to work with,I have seen this question frequently on the discussion pages in 2011A dispute arises only over a small detail of the article,really regrettable This is the biggest reason why I keep reading only and not editing，I'm currently recruiting people who can invest in mobile devices website design projects,Can I write an email to contact you?You have been on this platform for a long time I believe you already found out The biggest problem is Obviously own a network platform with rich resources but WMF Your own official promotion activities are not on your own platform，In fact the database here More than just social projects Even developing a speech recognition system is a piece of cake。You can write me directly to find time to talk about your work goals, my plan should be to have many different professional skills of members work together，The link to the site is here>]Jc.Mandy 01:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, but I genuinely have no idea what you're asking, but if you're making a job offer I will have to politely decline. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In request 1, I think they are asking you to run a CU on them. I don't understand much of the rest of the comment, just a little bits and pieces. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought a CU might have been what was meant, but I will also have to politely decline that one as well. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@User:PrimefacThank you for taking the time to read my message，I do have a bad habit Often drags the point of the topic further and further away It makes it difficult for others to understand what I want to appeal to。

• • Q&A:**

A1:I don't actually want to Add any work burden for others without authorization,What I want to express is“On the Wikimedia site platform There are many talented people who work silently”,Maybe your personality is more biased than mine I like to immerse myself in the corner of my interest Being alone doesn’t bring unnecessary stress and responsibility。 A2.Originally, I prepared one in May about chinese font s project in the incubator，Chinese characters There are 2 fonts“Simplified and Traditional”Due to historical factors, it has become 2 different countries But on the wikimedia site Chinese font Classify two different languages ​​into only one “Chinese”In fact because the peoples of the two regions have separated almost 70 years idiomatic words in daily life Already very different，as if i was an asian educated in chinese for“English(UK),English (US)”Both of these also use 26Words made up of English letters Semantic representation indistinguishable i know british style English and American style English,Just like the current Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese，This is a serious misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up ASAP，That's why I'm proposing to drop countries as languages Word of file extension，I don't think any regime is qualified claiming to be the only official representative Orthodox language and culture inheritor，That's why I've been looking why dialect open source It will cause foreigners to misunderstand Chinese culture，Because I didn't learn editing syntax And only know a few simple English words，If you want to integrate the original old editor left Article resources is in need of Wikipedians around the world jointly promoted，Because as long as the code is uniformly formatted,for the future AI The automatic analysis software system can put the correct real context Automatic translation presented to more foreigners to watch，I think this is a good time to strengthen communication everywhere at the same time Because they can teach each other the content of the translation at the same time Let the correct knowledge communicate effectively with each other delivered to every region of the world I also like western culture very much Hence the motivation to learn，My answer is these two points。 what is“UC”？ UC What is the full name of？Could it be Senior User Experience Supervisor?😂😂😂Jc.Mandy 04:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Old prod § Template-protected edit request on 20 April 2022. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look at this when you've got a bit of spare time? What's being discussed is something that's been an issue for quite some time. I've used this template template in the past and have simply worked around this problem by manually adding the dates in the "day-month-year" format commonly used in British English, but that's not really a fix per se. I'm not sure whether the last bunch of edit requests fixed things or made them worse, but the issue still is unresolved since the |nomdate= parameter continues to be displayed as "day-month-year" regardless of what format is used for the |condate= parameter. This is probably not a super pressing issue since I'm not sure how confusing the difference in date format is, but it probably would be nice if the displayed in the same format regardless of what format is being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

If I get time, sure. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am Fostina Dixon and I am asking that you do not include the year I was born for several reasons on any sites including Wikpedia. FossieMaestra (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion or exclusion of content on Wikipedia is one that is built on consensus. Currently the consensus is to include that information, though there is a discussion on the article's talk page about its possible exclusion. You should join in there, and please keep the lawyers out of it this time around. Primefac (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

hello Primefac (talk · contribs) I hope you are doing well?? I wish you all the best in the ongoing election. Anyway I can see one of your duties is to help in templates creating and so on. I really help on creating new templates in other language wikis. Most especially infoboxes and the others. Hoping to hear from you. Thanks a lot Yaw tuba (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not really sure how much help I would be, given that I only speak French and would thus not really be able to edit the interface in any other language. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi sir Primefac (talk · contribs) i hope you won the election.

Einahr (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Primefac (talk · contribs) could you please block this ip ], they already went 3rr, with removing sourced content, on Hussar page, even though they got warned. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done, though you might be better off using a venue like WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I was doing that but sometimes it gets too slow, I even tried page preotection.Theonewithreason (talk) 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also Primefac (talk · contribs) could you please restore sourced content removed by IP, ] the ip removed 3 sources, and I do not wish to go in any more reverts today. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It was done by another admin, thank you and have a nice day.Theonewithreason (talk) 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I see you delinced the Histmerge at 2022 eruption of Mauna Loa. Much of the text at its creation was nearly identical to text from the draft at the time. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The content is in different order and has different wording. There are some things that were taken (or inspired by) the content at Mauna Loa (as the edit summary of the draft also indicates). In other words, I still see this as creation-in-parallel unless the article creator indicates that they copied from the draft page. Primefac (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I only made a note if it because I noticed a couple sentences I wrote in the draft appeared in the article. Thanks. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

Hello Primefac I hope you're doing well. I see your comment regarding history merge on my request. Sorry that you found my request weird, but I tried to be specific so that it's doesn't get rejected. I will be more careful the next time. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't necessarily find your request weird, more that the situation was weird. It doesn't really fit the histmerge paradigm, and REFUND is technically the relevant venue. If anything, I should apologise for giving an unhelpful undelete reason. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nah you don't have to apologise. I was not aware of refund or the relevant venue to go through for this kind of request. So, I'm really grateful to you for dealing with my request, and understanding my reason. Thanks for the quick response, stay safe. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Article wizard/Category (Diff 1125019106), I assumed this was the intended target based on its uasage at Template:AfC redirect error. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I made a similar edit to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Blargh. I was (apparently incorrectly) under the impression that the only reason we had ver 1 was for historical reasons, and that it was not used any more. At some point I'm going to have to sort that all out, I guess... in the meantime I have self-reverted; my apologies (though in the future, a more descriptive edit summary might help prevent this sort of thing). Primefac (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

HI, Primefac, Just wanted to say thank you for reviewing my article today Mahmoud Shehabi Khorassani

Keep up the great work 👍

Thanks again

Docteur Mansour Chehabi (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you unprotect the merged {{Hover title}}? It does not have any transclusions now. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Does it need to be unprotected? {{tooltip}} is template-protected, and I feel like that's probably a good thing. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We have lots of unprotected or less protected redirects to high use templates. MusikBot II applies escalating protection if the redirect template usage gets high enough. Here's a recent example. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac,

You speedy deleted the S&S 2022 page, saying it was copyright violation against the S&S source page. I created the page based on the format of The Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2012, which I now see has had the list excised. It had the list yesterday when I created the 2022 page.

In any case, why not just delete the lists and leave the remaining information? Geoff Canyon (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not that it's an excuse, but I'll add that the 2012 page seems to have had a substantial portion of the 2012 list continuously since its creation in 2012 until now -- does no one have code that checks wikipedia pages for likely list copyright violations? That seems doable. Geoff Canyon (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We do not have an automatic checker, though we do have tools that will check; it just requires someone to run the tools. As far as your page goes, I'll see what I can salvage. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As a minor note, I have restored the 2012 list because it is not actually a copyvio - that list is just the titles and years, whereas yours was copied with other offending text which matched the source. If you were to re-add the content in the same style it should be okay. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I can easily re-generate the list with just the titles and years. I'll do so -- but doesn't Wikipedia:Copyright in lists pretty much say that copying the whole list is a copyright violation? Geoff Canyon (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It does, so my apologies for being wrong and confusing. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

And just to clarify: as I put on the talk page before it was deleted, I added the country of origin and director because that's common public knowledge; i.e. the information could be gathered from IMDB, RottenTomatoes, or any number of other sites independent of the actual list. To this non-lawyer, that seems like the *less* likely copyright violation. If we agree to add any portion of the list, the country/director should (imho) be acceptable to add. Geoff Canyon (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries -- I'm not trying to get away with anything :-) I just went off the (ten years!) precedent of the 2012 page, and now it's burning me.

What do you think about just adding the top ten from each list? Fair use? Geoff Canyon (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That should probably be okay. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, on my way to do that. I'll leave the countries of origin and directors out, but I think it would be useful to add, easy to do, and (as I wrote above) not a violation. Geoff Canyon (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, since you didn't respond to my comments on the AFD I will ask here. Is there any great harm caused by these additional disambiguation pages? Generally I find them so insignificant as to ignore what goes on there. I feel there is something being left unsaid. Rschen7754 01:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not about "harm", and since that seems to be your major argument, I will simply point you to WP:NOHARM and save myself typing out pretty much the same thing. Primefac (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

I'm not sure whether your comment after mine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 1000 was a dig at me or a vote of support. Lately, we've had a lot of sockpuppets show up at AFDs a few days after registering an account (or sometimes the same day) and so I was making a query to the new editor. So, far, I've done asked this kind of question three times in an AFD discussion and the first time, the editor was shown to be a sockpuppet, the second, the jury is out and this was the third. If you think it is impolite, I will stop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I felt at the time that it was a BITEY comment (i.e. "there's no way you could know this") but on reflection you are probably correct. I think I was reading too much into the tone. My apologies for my own tone. Primefac (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi sir Primefac (talk · contribs) how do add new party color to the page Module:Political party/M? — Einahr (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC).

Instructions are right on the module subpage, in the §Updating this submodule section. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thank you sir Primefac (talk · contribs)!!! — Einahr (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. The new RfA "on hold" template seems to be having trouble with transclusion: it appeared as expected on my RfA but showed it as on hold on the main WP:RFA page. This worked, but I figured I'd let you know so you can try to find a more permanent solution. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Bugger. I forgot that nominations are transcluded (LST doesn't transclude). Your fix works, obviously; will just have to see about making it less problematic in the future. Thanks for the heads-up. Primefac (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for doing the work to implement the changes to the RFA template. I know I'm not the only one who appreciates the time you've put in to make this a reality! Levivich (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, here's a new category that I created that you can add to your userpage. Category:Wikipedians who have earned the 100,000 edits award. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the notice. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Now, Template:RfA/readyToStart is completely unused. So, @Primefac:, do you agree with speedy deleting it as G7? If so, then go ahead and delete the "readyToStart" subtemplate yourself. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to my talk page because a) that is where it goes, and b) there is no reason for everyone at RfA to be commenting on whether or not I will be G7'ing a page I created. Yes, I do plan on nominating it for deletion, but I want to make sure everything is good to go before I do so. Please do not feel like you need to micromanage my editing in the future. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Dinoz1 (chat?) 13:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barnstars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5 Check Users Checking 4 Oversighters Hiding 3 GAs 2 Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Rlink2 (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC) This message was generated using {{subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia}}

Rlink2 (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!
	Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing,

Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see this diff] from a now indeffed editor who has corresponded with several of us by email. Since they neglected to ping you this is a courtesy note for your information. It is not a request for any form of action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, they pinged me. And sent an email. Primefac (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh bless them! They have achieved being indeffed on Commons as well, but I doubt it is the last we will hear from them. Some people are immune to help 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. I've struck out the part of my piece misrepresenting your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 1000. I've also placed a note on subsequent contributor Presidentman's talk page.]. I've been a bit slow on the uptake but hope this is what's required in accordance with best Wikipedia practice. Rupples (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that, thanks. It wasn't strictly necessary but it is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my neglect here, lack of knowledge with RD criteria 2 and 3, and sorry that you have to revdel another revision (I thought of AIVing the questioning editor given a level 4 warning but they've already been reported, my comment was in retrospect extremely weakly worded, was already partially addressed by the time of the posting, didn't really add much, and also quoted a disruptive question. So it probably violates Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls and revdel process, similar to quoting an article excessively that was a copyvio during AfD). Thanks, VickKiang (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Aye, no worries, it was not meant to be a chastisement but more of a general note for future reference. Primefac (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

More on this RfA, but unrelated to the above... What is this? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Look up ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Curious as to why you added "End of this RfA" to Extraordinary Writ's RfA. Is this something we should consider doing for all RfA's? SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

See this comment; folks were ignoring the giant "do not post below this line" line, so I thought I would add in a separate section to stop it happening again. It's basically a "proposed fix" at this point, but if there isn't any opposition or concerns expressed I'll be adding it to the preload template so that it appears in all future nominations. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• what the dickens... Isn't your edit summary a violation of WP:ANTI-INCIVILITY? Does anyone really say dickens anymore unless referring to the novelist? :p --Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  Probably, though I suppose I forgot to capitalise the D in that case... Primefac (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  Humbug! If people can't be bothered to read the notice already at the end of the RfA, better to just indef block them now and reduce the excess population of editors! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'll be sure to float that as an idea at our next 'crat cabal meeting. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI, since you approved the request for templateeditor permission at Special:PermaLink/1125546323#User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, I thought you might want to be aware of User talk:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ#Unauthorized bot. Anomie⚔ 02:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ooft. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For being literally everywhere and nothing but helpful. DecafPotato (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hah! Thanks! Primefac (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on your talk page, but could you please look at my request for permission? I am pinging because you have been active on the page and it's been a while since some activity on the page. Coderzombie (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I have been travelling the last little while and have not had an opportunity to attend to that page. I will hopefully be able to clear out the AFCH request backlog this weekend. Thank you for your patience. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, Could you clarify this? Thanks, — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what needs clarification; in the last two RfAs you have told other editors that you might strike their !vote yourself and their edit "would haunt them". You are obviously not the only person in these two RfAs to comment on non-supporting edits by other users, but you are the only one who is doing it in a menacing and borderline threatening manner. I was asking you to consider the words you use when replying to these types of edits in the future; i.e. I am not saying you cannot or should not question the suitability of someone's !vote or question, but that you should do so without making vague threats about it. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Winters @Primefac, I hope you're doing well. Can you please restore the content of Raavan Leela. Though, it's a redirect now, it was created by me, but I requested deletion of the article previously to make way for move to Bhavai (film). As, I wasn't aware of wikipedia policy earlier, that suppose a movie title changes we can do history merge or redirect to the new title. I hope I'm not troubling you and you would be interested to process with my request. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I can undelete the page, but it will stay in its current location - simply having created a page first in a different location does not mean that a histmerge will be performed; a histmerge is only for when there was a copy/paste pagemove so that attribution can be maintained. If this is still satisfactory please let me know and I'll get on it. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Primefac, I don't have any issues with the current location. So, you can go ahead and undelete the page. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 09:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I recall (I think?) that you don't always see pings same-day, so just a courtesy note; no need to reply if you don't want to. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 22:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I might see pings same-day, it's mostly a case of whether I care enough to check them same-day ;-) I'll take a look later. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Just as an update, I have no thoughts, so I don't see much point in replying there. Primefac (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As suggested I'll make the proposal to remove completely as 1st choice (with an editing plan) but otherwise the proposals at User:Crouch, Swale/Motions should be helpful and hopefully we should pass one that specifically allows me to create a number of parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings, Primefac. Could you please load next years Hall of Fame as you have so kindly done in the past. Thanks. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed; that was on my list of things to do this week. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No rush! You are the Best!! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Buster7, are we still running on Sundays with the occasional oddity (like NYE this year)? Primefac (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Sunday is the official day. I sometimes award on Saturday but usually just for my own convenience. ―Buster7 ☎ 03:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done! Primefac (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you please fix the area where it say 'Cite error: A list-defined reference named "EoWfI" is not used in the content (see the help page)" at the bottom of the notes section in this article Harley Race. I tried to fix it, but was unable to. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

, still a little tipsy from new years celebrations ;p -- œ^™ 08:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You removed my edit on the camp Meriwether page, despite my addition containing accurate information regarding myself staffing the camp. I would appreciate if you would reconsider your revision. Gllis (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Gllis, every addition to a Wikipedia page, especially those involving living people, needs to be supported by a reliable source. You might know the information is correct, but how can I or any other reader verify the information? We cannot, unless there is a source that supports it.

Now, on the substance of your edit: most staff are not included in articles like these; the individuals are not notable, and it would just clutter the page with unnecessary detail. You are welcome to make other changes to the page if necessary, but please again keep in mind that you will need sources to support any changes you make. Please let me know if you have further questions. Primefac (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, can you share the code you used for substing {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} that is discussed at User talk:Primefac/Archive 37#Wikiedu subst run? A similar template {{WAP assignment}} has sat at WP:TFDH for a while now, I can submit a BRFA to subst it by modifying the code you used earlier. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It was a literal subst: situation, there was no special code. WAP isn't subst'able at the moment, and would need to be converted into a sectioned message first. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you might have used a module to place the section in a proper part of the page. Some of these are placed between other templates at the top of the page such as in Talk:Malnutrition, a straight subst by creating a section would be inappropraite in cases like that. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The regex that borked a few times was simply moving said template below the other banner templates so that it would subst as a new section and not have the banners below it. The template itself was a straight subst. If someone wants to make a dated, subst'able version of the template, I am happy to run my bot on it. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I have setup a subst'able section version at Template:WAP assignment/sandbox. Results at Template:WAP assignment/testcases. Not sure whether to include categories or not. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Needs to have some kind of timestamp as well so that these naturally fall off the busier pages with archiving. Izno (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed; that was the thing a lot of people took issue with last time. I got around it by re-signing but I don't know if that's still a good way to do it. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have included timestamp Special:PermanentLink/1130470862. Also unlinked the template so that it won't populate Special:WantedPages when it is deleted. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I'll see about getting it sorted out this weekend. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, for the record. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Primefac! Hope all is well! I want some enlightenment with some your declining of CSD attempts on two article titles examples I've noticed which you came on board are the article titles "Barbie (franchise)" and "Paramount Television (original)". The first was as a civil dispute of the re-organization of the coverage of Barbie media franchise articles here on WP. I invoked an RM which reached initial consensus for the move, but eventually concluded that that title should refer to the dolls. I invoked CSD for that title I felt wasn't needed anymore but you declined, citing that it was valid and that it should refer to the dolls. I've targeted the title where it should rather be, so no worries there.

My worry is with your decline of the second CSD attempt I made yesterday, citing no reason for deletion. My reason is in repetition that it is one of many attempts by users to create unnecessary disambiguation attempts when they have no clue or regard to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Fine, one may argue that a new "Paramount Television" came in 2013, hence the reason for disambiguation, but it changed name to "Paramount Television Studios" in 2020. A different admin bought into my CSD tagging of "Disney Media Networks (original division)" as created in error or redundant as "Disney Media Networks" is only one and its article content can be reorganized. Why this?

As I've stated already, this is a digital encyclopaedia in unified agreement but I want some enlightenment on why admins like you decline CSD of redirects which are unnecessary and need deletion into oblivion. Intrisit (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

As a minor note, I have added links to the pages in question in your post for ease of navigating.

The Paramount page was moved a year ago, and there are a ton of incoming links. We don't delete redirects that were created purely because of a valid move; you even stated in your nomination that you couldn't find an appropriate CSD reason, which should have given you an indication that it was not a valid CSD reason that you ended up giving. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, the "Paramount Television" article is two; the current one had a name change in 2020, which I incorporated into my last/latest edit. If my CSD tagging isn't valid, then please enlighten me why certain previous redirects and unnecessary disambiguation attempts were reverted/deleted by admins like you and others aren't – even if they are/aren't CSD candidates. Intrisit (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Eastmain (talk · contribs · count)

Hello,

You removed my autopatrolled rights with the following comment:

> -AP, many articles being deleted recently, probably needs additional checking going forward

I should explain that the rules for notability have changed since I created the articles in question. When I created articles about obscure railway stations or high schools, I did so in good faith because the topics were considered notable at the time.

Please restore my autopatrolled rights. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled has literally zero effect on your ability to create, edit, and otherwise work on improving Wikipedia. As I said elsewhere, having half of your talk page full of declined drafts and deleted articles makes me think that what you're doing should be checked, which is why I am disinclined to restore AP to your account for now. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

…but actually my deletion was inadvertent as I scrolled through that page. But thanks again, I appreciate your good will. Jusdafax (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hah! No worries. We were all trying to figure out what would work and what wouldn't, and I think we started tripping over each other. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

(I originally put this in the talk page of the template in question) I'm trying to add a link to the banner for each of the child programs. PensRule11385 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond there. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Based upon what Praxidicae said I'm not sure if this is a moot point or not, but the color/colour parameter doesn't appear to work. Additionally, the color_text only affects the non-link text, as can be seed in the example section of the page. PensRule11385 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing a few colons (which I've fixed). I've been thinking about it, and I'm not sure that we should have any links in these headers. I'll have to see what some of the other similar templates do, and at the very least we should consult a wikiproject or two. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been asked by user:Davidelit, whom you have blocked from this article (only) to review your block. I have, of course, not changed the block in any way, but would appreciate your review therof. It is possibe that a block applied to all participants could be seen as overkill. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes; in hindsight a week for a first offense is a bit much. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for lifting the block. Could I respectfully suggest that the block on user:Merbabu be lifted for the same reason? Regards Davidelit (Talk) 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Primefac! Back in November, you reviewed my request to add Plaintiff in Chief text to the Wikipedia article about me. I submitted two additional requests back in November, but neither has received any feedback. Would you be willing to take another look at the Talk page? I'd like to make sure they've been submitted properly. Thanks again, Jim Zirin (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you have properly submitted the edit requests. As you have likely seen on the template, there are (currently) over 200 edit requests, and sometimes it takes a while to get to them all (I checked and the oldest is from August '22). Personally speaking, I appear to have missed the notification that there were new posts on the page. I cannot make any guarantees when it will be looked at, but if I get any time I will take a look. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, while you are right that mewatch did not exist when the page was written, mewatch is Mediacorp's official website, so it is very likely that the plots there are official plot summaries, copied from some earlier official source that can no longer be found. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 10:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, on a third read I have to agree with you - those are big-corp plot summaries. Also didn't know about the connection between those companies. Nuked. Primefac (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, do you feel that I would qualify to officially join NPP? I believe I meet all of the explicit requirements, and although I'm not very active at AFD, my CSD log shows mostly red links and I'm generally good with applying maintenance tags. Figured I'd ask here before actually formally applying since you seem to be one of the admins who routinely handles NPP and AFC stuff. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm involved with AfC but not really NPP (at least as far as PERM-granting goes). You might be better off asking one of the coordinators for their opinion. My general advice, though, is if you really do feel you are ready, there's no harm in applying; if you are not successful you will get feedback on what area(s) you need to work on to reach success. Primefac (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Primefac. I added my name to the list for the purposes of keeping record who is involved in this task. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Until the end of last year, AFCP was a defacto member's list since one had to be on it to participate, so I can see where you're coming from. Since admins are now able to review without being on the list, though, it is somewhat less of a "members list" and more of a "script access" list (similar to the AWB checkpage). It would be nice to have a list of admins who are participating, but for maintenance purposes I don't think it's that list. I might see about setting up a separate member's list that admins can add themselves to if they so choose. Primefac (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants#Probationary members, can "Sarrail" be changed to my current username? Thanks. Tails Wx 17:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. On an unrelated note, the "fly" on your user talk is incredibly problematic, I was attempting to click a link and twice got redirected to the image itself. Please consider removing it. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this,  Done. Tails Wx 17:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. I have no objection with your closing of this. But please allow me a suggestion: You stated in your closure remarks that you "see no issue with the RFC proposer withdrawing under heavy opposition". While there is nothing unusal about that -it's something I recall also doing at least once-, there is still a significant issue left unresolved: The initiator explicitly rejected that "heavy opposition" and that does not bear well for the future. The initiator not only opined, falsely and quite baselessly, that the eight or nine unanimous responses to the RfC do not represent a consensus, but dismissed any and all responses ("their comments necessarily be viewed as valid")! I would suggest and hope for some advice on policy to be addressed to the initiator, since they're certainly going to revert on this. (See the statement posted after the self-closure: "I do not wish to withdraw my proposal."). Take care. - The Gnome (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If they did not listen to the multiple rounds of comment and advice on that talk page, I doubt one more voice will cause them to change their viewpoint. If they do decide to get disruptive about it, we can deal with it then. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you please undelete Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology/doc move it to Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology/doc. {{WikiProject Molecular Biology}} is missing its doc page after some project banners were merged to it per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 16#Template:WikiProject Cell Signaling. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, though obviously it will need some updating. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

I wanted to look for an old request/discussion of an editor having AFC rights back in August and the links on the participants page says old requests can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/Old Requests. But these requests on that page are only listed as archived up to April 2022. The months aren't active links but I clicked on 2022 and went to the 2022 archive page but it would be helpful if the page that editors were sent to was more up-to-date.

Do you know of an eager new AFC reviewer who might be up to the task of updating the Old Requests template so that it goes up to December 2022? Thanks! And I hope your 2023 is starting off well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It's on my list of things to do, might get to it today. Primefac (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Howdy. What is the latest on this project? Is there a template sandbox somewhere?? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

TTM decided to go in a completely different direction than I was planning on when the TFD closed, and so I left it to them to deal with (especially since I feel like they're doing it in completely the opposite of the intended result of the close). I honestly don't know if the module is actually built or if it was just in progress, and since there were other (lower-hanging) fruit to deal with I figured I'd crack on with them first. Might be worth pinging TTM, though their last post at TFDH seems to imply that they don't want to discuss at TFDH...

Personally, if I were to take over the merge, I would make it into one single template/infobox so that the whole "multiple submodules" thing (which was the primary purpose of the TFD) is avoided. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Also thanks for the welcome back. I've missed being here. <3 Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)