User talk:Primefac/Archive 40

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.

I'm not sure which BLPs you follow, but at Talk:Elliot Page certainly most of the misgendering comments have been removed (e.g. here, here, here and here). Only a few examples if misgendering survive in that Talk archive - mostly semiprotected edit requests that were quickly answered. I am curious where you see such issues being resolved so differently. Newimpartial (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Chris-chan and Levine are the two that come to mind immediately, but I'm rather tired and can't think of the others at this point in time. As I said at the latter's talk page, if we're going to be consistent, we should be consistent, but we might need an RFC or other centralised discussion to codify this apparently-increasing practice. I'm all for being as accurate as possible, even on talk pages, but is there really a consensus to remove all misgendering on Wikipedia? It really does make me think that we'll spend more time policing this than just telling folks off for it. Primefac (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, in reality, there is a clear preference from some editors to redact misgendering words rather than removing whole comments, an equally clear preference from other editors to remove comments entirely where the comments do nothing more than misgender and complain (and to revdel if they include non-notable deadnames), and a preference from a third group of editors to leave comments in place and tell editors off as required. I'm not pretending that there is a clear consensus on this in general, but the policy basis of the first position seems clearer to me than either of the other two.

Also, I think many editors are more lenient about "clueless" first-time misgendering but take a harder line on repeated, abusive or trolling applications of the same. Certainly the blocked or banned editors have been repeat and/or trolling offenders. Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

For me, this is why there needs to be a wider discussion about how best to deal with these situations; I too have outright removed edit requests that are clearly never going to happen and made in clearly bad faith (such as the ones you have posted here), and I don't think anyone would begrudge me those edits, but removing a comment saying "we should add her birth name" to a section discussing that very topic is, to me, inappropriate. It is unfortunate, of course, that any such large-scale discussion will likely result in a no consensus, as they tend to bring out both the best and worst of our editor base. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a good example of why I typically favor word redaction rather than edit reversion, at least where the comments amount to more than just "grammar is based on biology thpthpthpt" with some misgendering and/or deadnaming thrown in. With effort, editors can learn how to make their arguments without actually breaking the rules, but IMO the incentive structure they face ought to encourage that (which feeding the trolls, well, doesn't). Newimpartial (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you see my response at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Make a passthrough of Template:Banner holder? Been a couple weeks now, so I don't know if you're looking to give further feedback. Izno (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I did; I'm not. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I added up all of the CU numbers, and only came up with 800. The total at the bottom shows 4,862. Did something go wrong with the script used to calculate this table? I figured something was up when I was in the top 10 CU's! SQL^{Query Me!} 06:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Short answer is yes, I forgot to change the cell reference. I'll get that updated shortly. Primefac (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. I have a question about this PrimeBOT edit. The bot converted a WikiEd template that is often used by WikiEd students on article talk pages from a template to a regular talk page post. The bot added the post to the top of the page which is generally not done for new posts. Is this post a "sticky post" in that it will never be archived? I only noticed this after trying to figure out what was going on at WP:HD#Archiving. If the editor who was asking about this at the HD once again tries to archive that talk page, they might end up archiving the post added by the bot as well since it's sitting at the top of the talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is that the bot did something once that it no longer does. See this discussion, which is basically summarised as "there should be a sig so it can be archived". Primefac (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've posted a query at WP:ENB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Saw your rev/del there. I've suppressed the name in the article as possibly libelous/defamatory. Did you see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valdemarpeterson? Doug Weller talk 11:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it's libelous, but I don't care enough to revert. Thanks for the note though. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Ok, but suppression is the first resort. I'm happy to discuss it on the list, I could be persuaded. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, my laptop is badly damaged and it would take more than a month to come back. Part of AfC and NPP, I request you to temporarily grant me page mover rights on my mobile account, and put them to stop by likely 40 days? I was looking at some NPP articles and had to push them to draft but I don't want to put load on admins by leaving behind redirects. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I was on holiday and missed this. I see that your request has been granted, though. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I normally wouldn't leave a message like this, but could you please take a look at my request over at WP:PERM/AWB, if you find the time? Sorry to bother you specifically, I just saw that you're one the admins who's regularly active there. Thank you! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I am, but I've been away on holiday and still catching up on more pressing matters (both IRL and on-Wiki). If there are still open requests by the time I get down to the AWB PERMs, I'll certainly take a look. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I know we can't form consensus on this particular app, but we can talk there, is that okay?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not use Discord, sorry. You can find me in various places on IRC though. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

User:MomanizerABCD! appears to be a vandal. People are trying to clean up the vandalism and he's just reverting all reverts. [1]

They've left a big mess, and I'm pretty sure most of it is vandalism and it needs to be shut down quickly. I saw you on the active admin list which is why I came here instaed of AN/I or AN/V (someone already listed him on AN/V).

I also suspect sockpuppetry connected to another blocked account, but I'll put that together later. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

MomanizerABCD!: IT'S ME. I'm Policina, a.k.a. DudleyPuppyLikes2ChewHisButt. — Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That's about what I figured. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm too slow :-p Primefac (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for the quick response! (And at least the user admitted to the sock, making the SPI easier - although I pretty much had it figured out based on some of the content/edit summaries) ButlerBlog (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, I hope you are well. Yesterday whilst patrolling recent changes, I reverted an edit which turned out to be correct. I apologised to the user in question although they are getting very irate with me on their talk page and they are saying something about many other users too, I’m not really sure what’s going on. this is the user who i am communicating with, hope you can help. Many thanks Blanchey (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what help I can be; some people on the internet get irrationally angry at minor inconveniences. You've done what you can to apologise, so it's probably best to just walk away. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting, I probably will. Blanchey (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I was granted with the script and i was reviewing but recently i changed my username from Owlf to DIVINE, so can you please grant me the access in this username and remove it from Owlf? Regards, DIVINE 📪 11:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done, with apologies for the delay. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thankyou @Primefac DIVINE 📪 21:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And of course I'd explain why I removed it. I was planning to suppress it. I wish I'd outright checked with him about who he was, but as he seemed to expect us to know, and it was obvious.... Doug Weller talk 16:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if it seems like I jumped in unexpectedly, there are a few different discussions happening in various places and while it's pretty obvious, it's not explicit so the general consensus across those conversations was to suppress. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Find by me although I would have preferred to do it myself. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I just remembered I'd added them elsewhere and I've suppressed them. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but the the public scolding has taught me not to try to be of help again. Best would have been a message on my tp. It's amazing how being Arbcom members and bureaucrats changes people's approach to experienced but common or garden Wikislaves. I can understand why there is a consensus against editors wearing both hats. Retirement is obviously the best place for me, but it's hard to let go when you've left a legacy you're fairly proud of, even as an anonymous username, one that goes back before many of our users were born. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

If I had left the message at your talk, then the user (and anyone else passing by) would not know the information is incorrect. I could have avoided a ping, but then you might not have known if you needed to post next time. This was not in any way meant to be a "scolding" as you say, just a note that you had made a small error. I also don't see how my hats had anything to do with my note, as it was just left for your reference for the future. We all make mistakes (if my talk page archives are any indication...) and I hope that this single act doesn't kick you off the project - you know I respect your opinions and the work you have done over the years. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac, I'm not one of those people who look under every rock for possible offense, but knowing that a certain committee rarely does any due diligence, and that some members of it indeed occasionally alter the way they interact with other users, my sensitivities are somewhat strained. Indeed, I often wonder why I bother with Wikipedia at all. In similar circumstances, others just retire completely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, apologies for the intrusion given how busy you are. In July 2021 you granted me AfC probationary reviewer rights. Noting that is now nearly 12 months since then, I am just wondering if you might know when you would have a chance to assess my promotion to reviewer? My AfC stats are here if that helps. With appreciation. Cabrils (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I generally update things like that the first weekend of the month, but my "first weekends" have been taken up by real-life priorities since April. I think things have slowed down for me a bit, but only time will tell. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course! Completely understandable, and this is certainly not a priority. Again, with appreciation for all your contributions. Cabrils (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you I’m sure you’re busy. I wanted to ask if you could assist me or direct me to someone who could assist me with the singer Chris Brown's page. I believe that the edits on his page are violating mos:LEAD & WP:NPOV. The lead section does fit the four paragraph guidelines but those paragraphs are EXTREMELY lengthy. The lead is full of trivia in my opinion things like radio records that the artist has broken etc should be restricted to his legacy section or on the song's lead page. Also he’s being dubbed as "the King of R&B" "by several" in his lead when the citation provided only states that radio personality Ebro Darden and his fans have called him such. Which is not enough for someone's lead on Wikipedia. I’ve tried to give a more neutral edit that was shorter and less biased in his favor without removing too much of the information provided and it keeps getting reverted by editors who are clearly his fans. What can or should I do? Kanyfug (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I also want to add that several editors have complained about this on the talk page. And I also want to make note of a mention in the lead that states that Billboard has called him one of the most influential and successful R&b acts. Which is completely false, the citation states that he "become one of the biggest names in R&B and pop" in the past nine years. Kanyfug (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

If a single editor is editing against consensus, then raise the issue at WP:ANI and seek sanctions against them. I think that's the best quick advice I can give. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac I got a message from you re: copyright of a portrait of Patrick Whelan, which seems to have disappeared now. Can you please resend, so that I can look into this issue and fix it? Thanks Helen Larkin (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The message is at your user talk on Commons. There is nothing to "fix" here, you blatantly took an image from Fitzpatrick's website and uploaded it to Commons against his explicit copyright statements. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, Hope you're fine & just to let you know that I've fixed my signature as per your suggestion. I want to request you to look after the rejection of Draft:Tulsi Bhagat. I created this draft almost one year back and that time it was accepted from draft to mainspace and later it was again moved back to draft from mainspace as the reviewer mentioned that it was his mistake as i don't remember much but it can be found on my archive or you can easily access the deletion log in that page. But I'm quite confused that one user rejected the draft Draft:Tulsi Bhagat. Being a new page reviewers I'm well known about those things and we don't create draft to get rejected while it might pass notability and was weakly passed before too & being a member and editor of Wikiproject Nepal , As per WP:BIO, this article is clearly notable and 3 independent reliable sources are required for AFC pass, it has more than 3 sources. The reviwers seems to lack the knowledge of proper AFC reviewing instructions guidelines as they have rejected the draft instead of declining which is surprising. In only clear cut cases the draft get reject otherwise it is declined. Regards,  DIVINE  00:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, the first step is always to discuss the matter with the reviewer, but I see you've already done that and been both incredibly vague and incredibly rude about it. Maybe you should try again with them, being more specific and less critical, and if that doesn't go as well as you would like then I can offer more advice. Primefac (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you update these articles?

• KTUL: Could you go to programming and remove the Two and a Half Men, because the show no longer airs on the station.
• KMYT-TV: Add on programming Forensic Files.
• KTPX-TV: Add 44.8 HSN because the subchannel is back on, and add on subchannels template.
• KGEB: Add Category:Buzzr affiliates below.
• KJRH-TV: Change KJRH-DT6 to this: "KJRH-DT6 is the Circle-affiliated sixth digital subchannel of KJRH-TV, broadcasting in standard definition on channel 2.6. On May 17, 2022, the station launched the subchannel."
• KUOC-LD: Add Category:Decades (TV network) affiliates, and Category:Quest (American TV network) affiliates below.
• Template:Tulsa TV: Fix KZLL-LD 39.2 Twist, 39.3 beIN Sports Xtra/, 39.5 beIN Sports Xtra en Español/, 39.6 Novelísima.

Hduueudtdi (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is no, but this is more because I am not familiar with these pages (nor do I think I have ever edited them) and it would take me five times as long just to verify the changes you want to make as it would be to actually make the edits. Being slightly out-of-date is not the end of the world, and you will be able to edit them soon enough. As a very minor note, I have formatted your post for readability; if you do not prefer this way I will change it back. Primefac (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I am approaching you since you have granted me (probationary) AfC reviewer status:

1. Can I place a userbox, for instance {{User wikipedia/AFC}}, on my userpage?
2. Can I include myself on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject?

Thanks in advance, NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes to both. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Primefac I hope you're doing well. Can you guide me what's the criteria to become a Edit Patroller. I hold simliar permission on commons and wikidata see here. Thanks, Have a great day ahead! C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 08:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to WP:NPR, which is described there. Not being a part of that project I couldn't really give much insight into their criteria, but it should be laid out on their information pages. Primefac (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I mistakely commented via Ip here Talk:Communist Party of Nepal (United) as my account was automatically logged out. Will be there any problem? But i have already clarified it there too and why i offen got automatically logged out while i always click on keep me logged in for 365 days while signing in?  DIVINE  19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed, but next time send an email so that my 541 page watchers don't also see that IP info. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Thankyou :)  DIVINE  19:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, i want to approach you about the contribution to the new draft article about Momentous, the new nighttime spectacular at Hong Kong Disneyland that debuted last week on June 18. Could you please change the status of the article from draft article into an new article, giving that nighttime show already received significant press media coverage for example from WDW News Today, The Standard, SCMP, and others. In addition, the show already debuted a week ago and there's a some contribution from users like Mt parson. 180.254.169.85 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't do reviews on-demand, but if you wish to submit the page for review place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and it will be looked at by someone from the WP:AFC project. Primefac (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. the draft article has already submited. 180.254.165.100 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, again, Primefac,

I work a lot with expiring drafts and I noticed today that PrimeBOT was working Task 30 in Draft space fine until April 2022, did 2 more Task 30 edits in May in Draft space and then hasn't been active since then. I notice that its description says Remove deprecated parameters from templates when requested so maybe edits in Draft space just haven't been requested lately. I see it's been busy with Task 30 edits in article space so maybe the latest requested jobs just haven't involved drafts. We recently had something similar happen with FrescoBot's work in Draft space, it was very active until October 2021, went inactive for a few months and then came back to its regular level of activity in April 2022 so maybe this is part of a regular cycle of activity and inactivity that I hadn't noticed before.

Any way, I thought I'd just check in and see what was up. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Task 30 is template-dependent, and ran 10 days ago (19 June). If the template(s) being edited by the bot aren't in the draft space, well, the draft space doesn't get edited, as you surmised. Given that the templates are usually infoboxes, and drafts will often be using the most up-to-date version of an infobox (as opposed to article-space where a deprecated parameter might still be in use), I'm not overly surprised there aren't that many drafts being edited. Primefac (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Primefac could you please check my contribution and do revdel, I have tagged some articles. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Do revdel on what? Please be a bit more specific. Primefac (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Oops sorry. Next time I will try to more precise. Today I didn't do much editing so thought it would be easy to find through my contribution what to do revdel. Once again sorry. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, could you please protect 2003 Midwest monkeypox outbreak and hide the revision history that I just reverted? It contained highly offensive material. I am sorry for not being able to do this but I am unable to as I don't have the controls, but I wanted it removed ASAP because this is not okay at all. It's so sad that such vile people exist DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:RFPP is the best place for you to request protection in the future. Primefac (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will request it there next time. Could you please remove/hide the revisions that were done on the 28th June? The most recent ones were hidden but not from the 28th. If not, do you know where I can request this? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that diff out. Not sure how it slipped through. Primefac (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I raised it at WP:ANI#Excessive vandalism at Monkeypox-related articles, and edit filter was created. It is hidden from public view so I don't know what it is doing but it looks like the vandal has found another go-around. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Primefac hope you are doing well? I came across your edit were you have deleted it. I tried working on same in my User:Pushhkar/sandbox so I need your Suggestion, do I move the Article directly to the MainSpace or Shall I take the Wikipedia:AFC Route to Submit the Article. Thanks Pushhkar (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that it was deleted before, it would be a good idea to pass it through AFC as an additional check. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I hope you are doing well. Two random questions: how to add a website to blacklist (or edit filter?) so that it cant be used on wikipedia as reference, external/plain link. 2: if need be, is there a way to delete a page with 5,000+ edits? If yes, how? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Two less-than-random answers:

1. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions
2. Contact a steward

Primefac (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

erm... Thats a very odd way to keep us (admins) in check/line. eh. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the stews, and that's actually more of a technical issue than anything (server lag etc), which has it's own special name. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

yeah, I vaguely remember about reading about VfD being deleted, main page, then a bot to edit main page repeatedly to make 5000 edits so that no-one would be able to delete it — ending up in server resources being consumed, then there was page move of ANI too. It sounds funny depending on listeners' perspective. By the by didn't you realise I referred to myself as an admin? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• follow-up question: if an entry is added to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, then is there a way to check if someone tried to add that link? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like there is (or should be) but I do not know for sure and a quick check of where I thought it might be turned up nothing (but that just means I could be looking in the wrong place). Primefac (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Usernamekiran: I assume you are talking about mrwiki? You can get a log of every attempt to add blacklisted links in mrwiki here. This can be filtered by users too. 2405:204:5702:1FF7:0:0:1C25:98A5 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  yes, and thanks. From the lead given by you, I found this log list. Your help is appreciated a lot. Users like you should have account. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I rescued this from G13 and resubmitted as myself because I assume the original author/translator (Hypuxylun) will not be addressing the issues that caused you to decline. Am I right in understanding that you have assessed this is a notable topic but there are problems with the content of the article? I appreciate that this is an article about a living person so special requirements apply. We strive to have articles without unsourced material that is likely to be challenged but that's a higher bar than I'm used to clearing with my AfC reviews. What are the exact sourcing requirement for AfC acceptance? I'm happy to trim down the Career section as necessary to clear this. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

75% of the draft is unsourced, meaning WP:V and BLP are failed, which is more relevant than GNG by itself. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your decline but that didn't answer my general question. WP:V comes into play for statements that are likely to be challenged. I'm going to WP:AGF from the author and the subject has appeared in certain plays and television spots listed in the draft. This is not contentious material and, if anyone does want to challenge it, it should not be difficult to find information about these and review the credits. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Nearly every unsourced statement in the Career section can (and should) be challenged. "affirming to be the only one in the world to do it"? Unsupported by the reference. "broke the audience records"? Unsupported by the reference (which I'll note is not even a proper reference, just a link to a search!). He taught philosophy? Says who.

Seriously, if you're going to say that we should AGF that the creator knows what they're talking about, then we shouldn't even bother with references, because of course someone writing about someone else will always get it right. However, it is not the reviewer's job to find references; it is a reviewer's job to determine whether those references are sufficient for demonstrating notability and verifiability. Now that I've gone through the draft a second time, I am going to add "fails GNG" to the decline rationale, because currently there is insufficient coverage in the provided references. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Do you apply this same level of rigor to all articles or is this because we're dealing with a WP:BLP here? ~Kvng (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am always willing to explain my rationale for declines (or accepts, if required). Every draft is different; some are much easier to review than others, but I follow the same process for all of my reviews. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Our AFC overarching accept criteria is to accept submissions WP:UNLIKELY to be deleted. Based on my AfD experience, I would consider this one a keeper.

I see a wide range of what editors consider acceptable referencing. With the possible exception of WP:BLPs, I don't think we should be applying referencing standards above what we currently find tolerable in existing main space articles. Wikipedia is successful because of collaborative editing. If we don't get incomplete/flawed drafts to main space, they have little chance of being improved to the level of quality we're looking for. ~Kvng (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The referencing was clearly not "tolerable" in article-space, given that it was draftified for not being notable, then not improved before it was submitted for review, and then declined because the references do not demonstrate notability. I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of or get me to claim, but arguing that I have done something that shouldn't be done (when clearly that is not the case) is rather a waste of time. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm an AfC reviewer and I'm trying to calibrate the work I do there by learning your thinking. This is a notable subject but the article is unacceptable and I wanted to learn why. I will probably improve and resubmit the draft. ~Kvng (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, and apologies for my tone: I was dealing with some real-world stuff last night and some of it slipped on-wiki. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to start fresh, can you block my account and revoked all of my right. I will freshly joined with new account despite of any arguments in future, don't think I'm emotional or anything as I'm well educated and aware about everything i want to start freshly . Thankyou  DIVINE  19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Once you have created your new account and linked it to your current account (to avoid claims of sockpuppetry) I can block your current account. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll again join wikipedia after one year and I'll post in your talk page. Thankyou  DIVINE  19:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

And i mentioned and requested i wanted to start fresh with new account and block this account and revoked all rights its all up to you.  DIVINE  19:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

[2] here admin told me that you should take a long time to do draftification as i was here since almost 8 years you just revoked my right in few minutes without answering my fresh start as i told you i want to start fresh if you can revoke my right and block me. I think it's fair enough I think i didn't spent my 8 years to have fun here in wikipedia. Regards,  DIVINE  19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest, you're starting to not make sense any more. You asked for your perms removed and for your account to be blocked. I'm fine with removing your perms as requested, but I generally only self-block if there is either no plan to return to Wikipedia or if there is a definite "new account" to link to. If you are planning on a true clean start, then whether or not I block your current account is immaterial, because in theory you will never edit with it again. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want any new rights on my new account as i wanted to edit wikipedia and neither I want to claim any right referring this account, that was my request, can i start fresh as any new commers?  DIVINE  20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that is always an option, just be sure to read the guidance at Wikipedia:Clean start. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to face any sockpuppet in future , as i mainly edit related to Wikiproject Nepal.  DIVINE  20:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Primefac waiting for final answer.  DIVINE  20:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

To which question? Primefac (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to face any sockpuppet in future , as i mainly edit related to Wikiproject Nepal. DIVINE 20:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)  DIVINE  20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Reassign my all rights immediately as I'm not satisfied. Regards,  DIVINE  21:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Satisfied with what? You asked for your rights to be revoked, which I have done. You ask to be blocked, and I told you the circumstances under which I will do that. You then say you want a clean start, which is your prerogative. You keep telling me to answer your question but you have not actually asked any questions. Half of your comments make little to no sense, and now you're saying that you're not satisfied with me doing almost everything you asked for. Primefac (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Primefac the reason i asked you to get my right revoked was my decision whis i asked you for and the reason i asked you for is that i feel that you're the good admin who always helps everyone. As i mentioned that i want to start clean & i also mentioned about that most of my edits will be related to {{WP Nepal}} so, i don't want to face any sockpuppet in near future and yes i really love wikipedia and really want to contribute here not to fight or disrupt. Regards,  DIVINE  09:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

DIVINE, If you link to your current account in your new account you will not be accused of sock puppetry. Wrt Wikipedia:Clean start#Editing after a clean start it doesn't apply if you were not considered to be disruptive I think. 0xDeadbeef 10:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this as a stupid idea to mention your old account when you want to have a fresh start,its like attacking axe on your own leg.  DIVINE  18:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If a user who is not under a cloud stops editing from account A, and starts editing from account B, then it is not considered as socking. Just to be on the safe side, there should be gap of at least a month (to avoid accusations of socking) between the old ac's last edit, and new ac's first edit, and a "retired" banner. The two key factors here are no cloud, and no overlapping. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

usernamekiran Thankyou, i checked those links & easily assumed/realized that it's not like an fresh start. Btw I'll be editing with this account & I want to thankyou all out for this is all what makes wikipedia a better place and Primefac I want some break with NPR, Rollback & PCR right but will request back again in future when I'm ready & with some draftification issues which Sdrqaz mentioned about before. Regards,  DIVINE  06:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Primefac, Good day, The deleted article now has Draft: Escaype Live. As you are aware, I have tagged the article multiple times for revdel. So should I go ahead and review the draft, from what I'm seeing I assume their is no copyvio. I have recently faced copyvio investigation, so thought of asking your views if I should continue with AFC or you're inclined to remove the rights. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 02:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking of me, or why you need my permission to review a draft. If you have done a copyvio search and found no violation, then you've done what you can. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac I assume their is no copyvio in the draft. So, shall I go ahead review the Draft:Escaype Live and accept it. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 08:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See this discussion. Is there really an issue? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a mountain/molehill issue; a BLP DS notice is perfectly acceptable to give to someone editing that page; just because BLP doesn't apply to the subject, there are still living individuals involved and that content must adhere to BLP. Also, there is not a requirement for there to be a DS notice on a talk page for the article to be in a specific DS area. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you think the wording of the alert accurately reflects the wording of the revised sanction? Thanks. I'm not clear why the fuss, but... Doug Weller talk 11:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm not 100% sure what the locus of the issue really is, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a {{BLP others}} listed on a talk page but still be able to give a DS/alert for the BLP DS regime to someone editing that page; after all, the remedy says any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased). Primefac (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Not very active but I will like to have the flag. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I am going to ask the dumb question, but will you actually review drafts? Your name was removed from the list because you have only reviewed 8 drafts in the last 11 months, 7 of which were all on the same day. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I will, and at a higher rate. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

An administrator had already declined deletion on the same page and moved it to Draft:Razvitak; since then the references were added (and subsequently it was expanded slightly). The deletion tag was added by the same editor whose tag was removed on the version now in draft - the content was almost identical, so this is a repeat addition of a tag already declined. It seems to have been about a defunct business, and not advertising anything; the first revision, still in the draft page, was a translation (probably using Google Translate) of a Croatian Wikipedia article, which was created by another editor who is autopatrolled and has more than 70,000 edits there. I don't know if the sources are enough for our notability guidelines, but it should probably be merged with the draft or sent to AFD. 82.132.186.65 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The G11 was declined in order to draftify the page. There is a difference between declining a draft G11 and an article G11, and since the draft already existed I saw little reason to keep the article. I do, however, agree that there was some reasonable additions w.r.t. references, so I will merge the article into the draft. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

不好意思 我是在一份您編寫的文章連結找到這的，該篇文章主要講述了對於 Wikimedia foundation 員工招募的研究我感到這個主題���切的命中了 Wikimedia 在組織、管理、包含章程規定的內容抽像又模糊，我的英文能力很差，我正在準備一份報告，為了讓董事會成員能夠容易理解我想表達的缺失改善，我需要像你徵求你的同意，可否讓我使用你的文章的主要框架，因為你整理的文章順序，我在寫作的技巧就很難在限制的字數裡挑選重點陳述，我都在晚上這個時段才會開始在這找材料， 因為我知道翻譯軟體很容易“硬翻譯”不會自動跳過“male,female,neutral”這類的詞彙元素就容易出現“新創字句”這都是太依賴持有機器翻譯造成的誤解導致整個團隊氣氛壓抑！ 等待你的回复J.zht (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Even running this through Google Translate (which I know, is not the best medium), I have no idea of what you are asking me. If I have written a page or content on a page, it is freely available to use per our CC license, so as long as attribution is given you do not need my permission. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sir he/she said: I'm sorry I found this at a link to an article you wrote about the research on employee recruitment for the Wikimedia foundation. I feel that this topic hits the spot exactly with Wikimedia's content abstraction in organizing, managing, and including bylaws It's vague, my English ability is poor, I'm preparing a report, in order for the board members to easily understand the lack of improvement I want to express, I need to ask you for your consent, can you let me use the main frame of your article , because of the order of the articles you arranged, it is difficult for my writing skills to select key statements in the limited number of words. I only start looking for materials here at this time of the night, because I know that translation software is easy to "hard translation" "It will not automatically skip vocabulary elements such as "male, female, neutral", and it is easy to appear "new words". This is due to the misunderstanding caused by relying too much on machine translation, which leads to the depression of the entire team atmosphere! Waiting for your reply. Thank you — Einahr (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. Although I had originally asked for AfC reviewer rights to review redirects and categories, which you have granted, I would now like to slightly expand my AFC reviewing scope to include disambiguation pages. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I found you randomly in the bureaucrat list, I am not forum shopping. I was wondering if you could comment on the discussion I started on the Administrators Noticeboard titled "Challenging closure of Political legacies thread", which is related to the proper use of the template to close discussions, and which may be about to be archived? So far I think no administrators have shown interest and haven't commented. The editors who have contributed to the thread clearly show they agree, but I think theirs are more personal opinions because they don't show me Wikipedia guidance that back up most of their assertions or contradict mine. As a result I am confused and it would be great if someone can give me proper guidance about the issue of closing talk page discussions using the relevant template. A few editors say it's a small issue but I disagree because in talk pages is where consensus is reached to edit pages. Here is the version I last wrote on the thread [3]. Cheers!--Thinker78 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Closing" <> "collapsing". At issue is the latter, per WP:SOAP WP:FORUM and WP:OFFTOPIC.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Deputy Prime Minister of Russia to a title that rarely comes up in a Google search. Not sure why it was redirected last month. Atsme 💬 📧 13:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't redirected, it was moved. If it's not the most common usage, I'd say it's reasonable to move it back. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I get it that the redirects are what's left behind a move but aren't we being a little too trusting by granting autoconfirmed after 10 edits which gives inexperienced users the ability to move articles? We've got some serious flaws in the NPP system that are contributing to these backlogs, and unnecessary manual work - like approving redirects over moves. Why not make it so the mover right requires a higher level of experience that we can AGF and have a bot autopatrol them? Atsme 💬 📧 17:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a bot that auto-patrols redirects, but it's generally for users who know what they're doing. If you want to change the requirements for page moves, it will likely need a WP:VPR discussion (and likely an RFC). for what it's worth, I would support restricting moves to ECP or similar. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I just approved a batch of move/redirects because these new users are autoconfirmed (with mover rights) after only 10 or so edits...and here we sit with thousands of these types of redirects. Just curious...are those types of redirects getting hijacked after approval and used to create patrolled articles directly in main space? Atsme 💬 📧 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, there's a different patrol queue for redirects and articles, so if a redirect becomes an article it needs to be re-patrolled, and vice-versa. This is, as far as I am aware, specifically to combat these types of hijackings. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, my apologies for using this example but it just seemed odd that our English dictionary would accept a Japanese word over English, unless I've completely misunderstood what happened. All I know for certain is that the editor only had 37 edits at the time. Atsme 💬 📧 17:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, that is the name for it; a similar (more SFW example) would be French bread being a redirect to Baguette because the latter is the proper name for it. Do we need anime porn as a redirect? Probably not, but it's the English equivalent of "hentai" so I suppose it's worth keeping. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it vice versa though? I think there was a discussion recently where someone said it's not. I may have misunderstood then though. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, though obviously I could be wrong; that's a question for WP:NPR I guess. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you please reassign my previous rights, as i'll not be creating new account and will continue to edit from this account as i realized that i might face several problems in future ny editing through new account without disclosing the old account. Best regards,  DIVINE  18:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, but next time please make up your mind what you want to do before you ask for it to be done. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for not making clear my desire previously, and I appreciate your patience.  DIVINE  19:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl Drilnoth → AFigureOfBlue Bureaucrat changes Lee Vilenski

Interface administrator changes Nihiltres

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

Hello @Primefac, good day.

I just want to ask if, as allowed by your time, to review the draft article I'm currently working on here: Draft:List of largest galaxies. This is my planned replacement of the current list at List of galaxies#Galaxies by size, and an attempt at resolving the issues of the previous list (which was deleted in 2018).

Currently I'm trying to find any opinions, thoughts, or suggestions from anyone about this, as I need some second opinions. If you are interested, or have any thoughts about it feel free to reply to this comment or even join the main discussion at WT:AST Thank you and best of luck. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Will take a look when I get a chance. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Just got a chance, looks good (though I will note you've already done the move) but I see no major issues with the page or the recreation of the article. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Not going to contest this, but any objection to a semi so we don't play sock whack a mole and it can die a G13 death? I can't see a single non sock edit. Obviously the IPs aren't officially socks, but they're quacking especially with the page move shenanigans. Star Mississippi 20:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a good honeypot and would stop them from sneaking it in under another name... PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Protecting the page purely for the purposes of creating a situation where the page will eventually be deleted by other means is just as inappropriate. There is no harm to keeping the draft unprotected, provided that there is no significant or otherwise disruptive editing going on. And, as Prax says, it could potentially be useful for finding other socks. I do, for the record, have the page on my watchlist. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. I guess I just fail to see the point in giving socks a playground especially if there's zero chance of a draft ever becoming an article via their editing. But we've (may be misremembering the other person, so no worries if it wasn't you) disagreed on this in the past and I think I may be the minority. I'm thankfully not watching it, so ping me if either of you need anything on it. And stay cool if you're in the current heat wave. Star Mississippi 20:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Patachonica just pinging you to this conversation so we don't split it and for more context than an edit summary on why I reverted, which in hind sight I should have done manually. Apologies. Looks like Prax, Primefac have the whack a mole under control. Star Mississippi 21:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, in the Infobox country at the Olympics, the closing ceremony flagbearers links directly to the closing ceremony article. Is it possible to direct to X closing ceremony flag bearers? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Should be, I'll take a look when I get a chance. Primefac (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, for the record. I also added in a link option for the opening Parade of Nations, since most of the "list of bearers" articles seem to be redirects anyway. Primefac (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your good work! Andrevan@ 05:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. I seeing a "hidden maintenance message" notice for one of the {{cite news}} templates being used in Sōta Fujii, and I have been unable to successfully figure out how to make that message visible. I tried following the instructions at Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display, but must be doing something wrong. Do you have any idea what I'm doing wrong here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding the ability to see these hidden messages is described here, which then leads down a stupid rabbit hole of having to click a dozen different links to find out why an error message is throwing. In this particular case, it looks like Ref#84 ("Shogi record-breaker Sota Fujii...") is falling into Category:CS1 maint: others (i.e. it uses others without an author). Primefac (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Based on what you posted, I seem to have resolved the problem. Do you know what I did wrong at User:Marchjuly/common.css when I tried to set things up so that I could see that maintenance message. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't say, though if you're using Vector then you might want to add the code to User:Marchjuly/vector.css. Primefac (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll give that a try. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, add span as indicated in the instructions. It is important because the styles you are overriding are directly in the HTML, which means they are last to load. So there are two ways to override them: 1) Drop !important on things (not good practice) or 2) increase specificity, which is what the span does. Izno (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that Izno. I'll give that a try as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Primefac I hope you're doing well. I tagged the article as Wikipedia:CSD#G12 doesn't it satisfy that?. Are you also confused like me that you didn't post the copyvio warning on the creator talkpage or the editor talkpage who added the copyvio plot. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 07:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Almost. They key part of G12's text is This applies to ...copyrighted material ... where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving (emphasis added); with a cast list, a reasonable number of references, an infobox, and a non-infringing lead sentence, there was enough to merit not deleting under G12. That being said, if there were no references or infobox I probably would have deleted as G12, since a one-sentence opener about a film is easily re-written and not worth saving. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I saw the AFD -> VFD proposal at VPP. Just wanted to tell you that something in their behaviour is strongly telling me that they are a sockpuppet of CafeGurrier66 or Qhnbgjt. I've been busy recently, so can't dig deep into this, but the headstart Ilovemydoodle has had from their first edits indicate that they're certainly not new here and the obvious trolling (User:Ilovemydoodle/indef). wikt:doodle meaning 3. Also, not many new editors feel the need to claim in their userpage I am not a sockpuppet or a troll. for no good reason. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably worth a trip to SPI, then, as there are a few clerks and admins there that are more familiar with the backgrounds of those two individuals. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I will add that the editor in question has recently been active on Wikiquote, where their behavior has also been at least borderline trolling, including redacting comments of others in discussions and creating useless templates. BD2412 T 01:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have opened a SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CafeGurrier66. Let's see if anything comes out. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that Twin Valley School District was redirected. I think I can find some sources so I can build a new article from the ground up. Is it OK if I try to do so? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. Of course I will suggest that you work in the draft space or your user sandbox to flesh it out, but you do you :-) Primefac (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I created the Kishore Mahato page a few days back, like a few weeks back, then someone moved it to draft and I was working on it. Later on, Kishore debuted in an ODI and I added the reference about it and requested Lugnuts to review and accept the draft because he has more knowledge about cricketers, which can be seen here [4]. Instead of moving an article from draft space, which I was creating and working on for almost one month, he created a redirect the next day, and after a few days, he created a page himself. I'm kind of speechless now and thinking about whether he has done the right thing or wrong thing. Being an active AFC reviewer, I could have accepted the draft myself and moved it to mainspace as I knew the draft was ready to move to mainspace but it was wrong to accept my own draft and asked for help. I'm speechless after seeing such activities from a veteran user and feel bad as I was working on this article and had invested time in it. All I want to know is can someone histmerge it or not?  DIVINE  09:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

For the record, while Lugnuts might have created the redirect, it was A Simple Human that converted that redirect into an article. I'll take a look and see if there is any funny business afoot. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so while I know it's not going to be what you want to hear, but I see no evidence that A Simple Human copied your draft directly (as evidenced by comparing the two closes diffs to each other). Lugnuts likely created the redirect in anticipation of Mahato becoming notable, and ASH likely noticed it and made it into a full article. In other words, you put effort into the draft article but someone else "beat you to the punch" so to speak. Unfortunately there's nothing really to do about that. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of Draft [5] he has exactly copied the references which I used to create the article, and yeah it's like he punched me.  DIVINE  10:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The references are completely different; the only ref in common between Special:PermaLink/1099011545 and Special:PermaLink/1099410409 is the generic Cricinfo page, which anyone would use. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Then there is no issue. Gratitude, again for your assistance.  DIVINE  11:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Since playing Internationals for associate teams is no longer deemed enough (WP:NCRIC), and this person who's only just made a debut and not yet achieved anything of distinction is certain to not meet WP:GNG, the whole kerfuffle can be done with by simply reverting the article to the redirect. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In such situation, as the page hasn't been evaluated yet, it may be either reversed back to redirect or moved forward for AFD by Usedtobecool.  DIVINE  10:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit makes a criminal allegation about a BLP, I've deleted it, but I think we should hide the history too. Is that something that you'd be willing and able to help with please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_King_(activist)&oldid=1098471499 CT55555 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal (of the entire thread) is sufficient. Thanks for checking though. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears you recently renamed the "infobox hockey team" template to "infobox ice hockey team". I modified the template documentation to reflect the new name, but when I was updating an article that uses the template I got the message "Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox hockey team with unknown parameter "website"". I am wondering if you can fix the template so that the message is not generated. Whether you can fix it or not, the message itself uses the old name of the template "Infobox hockey team". Whatever is generating the message should also be updated to use the new template name, "Infobox ice hockey teams". Thank you. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a typo in the parameter checking, which I have fixed. I also updated the preview warning. Thank you for the notice. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Primefac, you reverted my {{db-g6}} request because you mentioned that it was a valid partial dab, but "Barbie (franchise)" and "Barbie" aren't the same. I'm certain that someone looking for "Barbie the franchise or universe" and not either "Barbie herself in real life or her/its history" is rather looking for the article on Barbie's friends and family. Since you've made a valid point, I've changed the redirect to that article. Also, the original page move from "Barbie (film series)" to "Barbie (franchise)" is considered by 2 Wikipedians as vague, but since it could be a valid DAB, I've dabbed the article with the {{disambig}} tags I could get. Reply to me if there are any errors/corrections with my points and actions. Thanks!! Intrisit (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough; I wasn't quite sure the best target, just that it was a valid redirect page. Thanks for the follow up. Primefac (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Why was the categories like Business venture and Political career removed? Rejoy2003 (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove any categories from that page; I removed content that was copied directly from other places, which is not allowed. Primefac (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac, I hope you are well. I was wondering if you could help me with something which requires administrator tools. Basically, I have had three previous username, two of which had user pages created when I was known as those usernames. However, when I was renamed, the user pages were not automatically moved. The reason for this was because I had them deleted per my request although recently I had them restored. I did ask the admin if it was possible and they said no, although I have learnt about hist merge which is when the page history is moved from an incorrect location to the correct one. If it would be possible, please could you merge the histories of User:Blackazz and User:Blackazz968 to User:Blanchey please? It’s a fairly small issue although for me it would be nice to have all my old user page designs in one place. If this is possible, I assume that a redirect will automatically be placed in the old location and will the logs come together too? If this is not possible then no worries, I don’t want to be a burden to you at all, I just wanted to make sure every possibility was unturned. Many Thanks, Blanchey 💬 • 📝 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I will take a look when I get the chance. Primefac (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac, that is very kind. Blanchey (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I am going to have to decline this request, for a few reasons. Histmerges are primarily so that attribution can be maintained across diffs, as per our licensing requirements; if a single author has written text, or there is no copy/paste move between pages, then attribution is not required, and thus a histmerge is not appropriate. Since you are the primary author of all three pages, and none of them involved copy/paste pagemoves, there is no text or attribution that needs to be maintained. I do note, of course, that the text of all three pages is still visible in their respective histories (i.e. someone undeleted them) so it's not like it is gone entirely. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, thank you anyway Primefac. I actually provided links to the old histories on my current user page. That seems fairly settled. Have a great day! Blanchey (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sir/ma'am for doing that for my safety

Einahr (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

At Bernard Cribbins, I'm worried I may have supplied the wrong diffs; how did we end up with 278 revisions deleted? I thought I had flagged only the few between when the copyvio edit was first made, and when it was adjusted just a few edits later. I'm worried I may be using user:Enterprisey/cv-revdel incorrectly... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You didn't, but there was some that survived until Special:PermaLink/1101105582. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, just checking my work, because trying to use that script is making me nuttier ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, apologies for the confusion! Primefac (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1080468604/1086686306 broke the archive URL. Archive URLs should never be modified as they are immutable. Somewhere I have a regex that will avoid URLs when part of an archive URL, if you want I can look for it. -- GreenC 19:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

(?<!\?url=|/|cache:)https://twitter\.com/\w+/status/\d+/?\?[^\s}<|]+ .. this will match all Twitter URLs except those that start with "/" or "?url=" ie. archive URLs -- GreenC 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I was already using your regex for avoiding archive URLs, but I'll double-check to make sure everything's squared away proper. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, I am QiuLiming1's IP sockpuppet. The reason that I watch Q28's contributions is that he is recently suspected for using sockpuppet IPs to edits in zhwiki, and he said at an edit summary of a unblock request "if its still not allowed, then I could only work in enwiki". I admit I didn't assume good faith, but I want to clarify at that time I thought that Q28 removed a edit test at a draft and requested speedy deletion at the draft, if that's the case, is that action still reasonable? 2601:647:4C00:D260:8964:FEE4:85A3:522D (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It is my understanding that a page with “(disambiguation)” in the title is only required where an ambiguous article name has a primary topic. Where there is no primary topic, a page with “(disambiguation)” to which nothing links and is itself a redirect is entirely pointless. Can you explain why such a page should not just be deleted?—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: Because WP:Redirects are cheap. In many cases, (disambiguation)-suffixed pages without any incoming links still end up gathering some single-digit pageviews in a year, all the while their existence doesn't harm the encyclopedia or prevent it from adding more productive content. Making these redirects isn't necessary at all, but we don't delete existing ones for just this reason, as it would be a needless wastage of everyone's time and may lead to an edit war that is completely unjustified. WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Not particularly compelling, no one is ever going to search for the page I was referring to, and you don't seem to be the person I was asking anyway. But fine, whatever.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no issue with folks who are knowledgeable to reply to posts on my talk page. I also don't have much to add on top of what CX Zoom has already stated. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaving the first text here after getting unblocked is just to request you to revoke my Rollback and PCR rights as I won't be contributing here same like before and if I need it in the future I will request it on PERM. Btw, someone calling you ass is not harassment in Wikipedia I reckon via AN. Best regards, DIVINE (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

DIVINE, for the record if I remove these I will be leaving a note that they cannot be restored without a PERM request; this dancing around with advanced permissions is getting tiresome. If this is really the route you want to pursue, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes please, it's better not to waste your time here. You can leave that note too. Best Regards, DIVINE (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou 🕺 DIVINE (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Please consider deleting User:Ash_Lu under CSD U5. This user is a cross wiki spam. I'm an IP so I couldn't tag the user page. 2601:647:4C00:D260:A925:EF1:15B3:6515 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you explain why it isn't G11 because of wordings such as "good singer" and "his good looks and great singing voice" and the "Information" section? I also looked at the corresponding "featured article" at Baidu Baike and the sources are all user-generated. 2601:647:4C00:D260:A925:EF1:15B3:6515 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't explain why it isn't G11, because I quite literally did nothing more than see that it was an attempt at a draft and move it to the draft space. In the future, though, you're more than welcome to tag things with CSD tags yourself instead of pinging random admins. Same goes for editing - Baidu Baike isn't protected, so you should be able to remove problematic content without issue. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, what I means is the draft is not likely notable (in order to be exist). My account are currently controlled by my parent and I couldn't tag an user page using IP. 2601:647:4C00:D260:A925:EF1:15B3:6515 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It's probably not but I was feeling generous last night. I did forget that IPs could not edit user pages, so my apologies for that. Primefac (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. How are you with java? I knew a few editors who are good with java, but all of them are inactive. There is a userscript, but the creator hasnt edited in a few months User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.js I am currently using the script on another wikipedia, and it is messing up with the archives if the talkpage is a subpage. eg, "user talk:KiranBOT/typos" is getting archived to "user talk:KiranBOT/Archive 1" (instead of "user talk:KiranBOT/typos/Archive 1"). On line 107, there is a regex for removing subpages. I am not good with regex, but is it possible to read the current page name, and the find "current page/Archive" and so on? How should we do that? Getting the archive name is in between line 88, and 117 —usernamekiran (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to archive something to the "/Archive #" of a page, keeping in any subpage information, then simply removing line 107 would do it. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I will tinker with some other stuff from the script. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Hi Primefac, due to my edits using User:CX Zoom Alt, I've become Autoconfirmed which I don't want because I want a perm-less account for testing requirements. Can you please remove that? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

AC is not a perm per se and it cannot be removed. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me, Primefac: Saxonicae Annales Quedlinburgenses is a blunder. As a title it does not exist and Latinly it is ungrammatical. How can I get that redirect page deleted? Frognall (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RFD. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can you help make the template not show gray numbers in places it shouldn't? - currently both winter and summer game years are shown. Winter games sohuld be shown only in winter sports articles and summer games in summer sports articles, example. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Possibly; it looks like the #switch statement that governs the |data4= behaviour isn't set up properly - it either does nothing or checks for every variant. If the sports are split between seasons, then it's just a case of modifying that data4 #switch statement accordingly so that things like alpine skiing trigger the "winter" checks, while things like athletics trigger the "summer" checks. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Another thought I just had is that - it might not be the best idea to grey out nonexistent values. In other words, seeing "1960" in the list - does it mean that it didn't happen that year, or that we don't have an article. My experiences with the Olympics/team appearances articles, I would see that as "oh, it didn't happen in that year", so redlinks should probably be kept (if only to encourage the page to be created). Primefac (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The gray link should mean that the sport was not contested that year (so basically if an article is not yet created, it's not very good - but less important problem than the one i mentioned). Maybe it would be easier to add parameter, something like "season=summer" and "season=winter"? Please ping me if you write something. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll see about taking a look this weekend. Knowing which sports were played in what years will help greatly. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Primefac,

I just noticed that you granted NeverTry4Me AFC rights. As part of their unblock in February this user agreed to a ban on creating pages in article space and a requirement to go through AFC, see here. As far as I can tell that ban has never been appealed, which is why all their page creations still have to go through AFC. It doesn't seem appropriate for someone who is banned from creating articles and who is forced to use AFC for their creations to hold reviewer rights, arguably accepting drafts would be a violation of their ban.

More generally this user seems to have serious WP:HATCOLLECTING issues, and frequently requests rights that they don't need, can't use or don't even seem to understand, see for examples: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm also confuse as to why they then accepted a bunch of their own creations despite this topic ban. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's... totally my fault. I always check the blog log of folks requesting access, but OxDEADBEEF beat me to the reply so I didn't do a full review the first time I saw their name (my quick-check is usually xtools and their talk page, a skim of which showed a lot of accepted drafts), and I clearly never got any farther than that. Thanks to all in this thread for setting things straight. Primefac (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I've blocked NT4M for 1 week for unblock condition violations. Becoming an AfC reviewer at all went against the spirit of the restriction, but maybe could be forgiven as a sort of entrapment by estoppel. But self-accepting went against the letter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that falls under the category of "you should have known better". Primefac (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, can you please check my recent AfC reviews? I don't want any rights here, which I don't deserve. Additionally. I don't want to be mooted. Please keep your eyes in strict vigilance on my edits on AfC reviews. This statement, I have placed with good faith and as per Wiki rules. I shall go to help channels whenever I'm confused, but won't make a decision for myself. Thank you for your belief inform me. Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, based on #NeverTry4Me and AFC rights below I have removed your name from the list; it is entirely my fault but I did not know you were on an editing restriction that severe, which is an automatic disqualifier in my book. Primefac (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wrote an article in Russian wiki and decided to translate it. I'm kinda bad with formal style and correct syntax, so I would ask you to check it. You can find my article here here.

Best regards,
WoweMain (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In a literal 20-second look over the page, it seems fine - the references are formatted properly and the infobox isn't broken. Headers seem okay though the plot probably shouldn't be 75% of the article. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch that ticket again, or anything from him! Doug Weller talk 09:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear user:Primefac, I’ve requested for the AfC flag to further help in the process, I hope I am found worthy, kindly let me know B.Korlah (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You did indeed, and less than 24 hours ago. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you B.Korlah (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look, primary difference here is simply that User:Fulltimegroove doesn't have a problematic user name....Naraht (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

They still have a COI and can be blocked from editing the page because of it. Primefac (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I *think* there is a second path that could get the information removed. If the Hilltop Newspaper (the reference for the problematic information) was to run a retraction of the Hilltop article from over 30 years ago, then I think that would make it no longer appropriate to include in the Wikipedia article. Having said that, I have only seen a retraction that far after an article once, where a newspaper basically indicated that a Lynching was justified and then retracted it years later as part of making amends with the African American community.Naraht (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, we could just actually have a discussion on the article's talk page like I've been suggesting for three days, but it must come from them and not us. If they do not want to go through the proper steps to resolve this, we are under no obligation to oblige them, especially when their rationale is an unsourced generic statement of "it's wrong".

And in response to your suggestion, again, it is not our responsibility to reach out to a publisher to retract something that might actually be true just because someone says it's wrong. I'm all for assuming good faith etc but we should not be making (or un-making) the news, just using it. Primefac (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for missing your response. I'm not saying that either of these paths *should* be done, merely that they exist. And I have actually called the National Office for a Greek Letter Organization (which Groove Phi Groove is but isn't, sort of) to explain Wikipedia and ownership. I just don't think I'd get anywhere with Groove Phi Groove, I mean I've basically argued with the National President here. We'll see what happens with the 30 days runs out.Naraht (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Good day @Primefac,

After 10 years of being part of Wikipedia, I'm going to retire in December this year. Isn't surprise right? I can't take it anymore. I experienced the belittling of my other co editors on my ability as an editor/contributor. I've been insulted too much every time I edit the content I've created and what makes it worse is that they delete my content even though it's very important for the readers.

However, I am grateful and you have given me the opportunity to be a part of this website. I hope you give me one last chance to create or edit content before I retire for good. I hope you will remember me not only as an editor/contributor but as a good friend and most of all, a loving family member. Thank you very much! RenRen070193 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I wish you well in your future endeavours. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac before anyone else, can I ask you a favor? RenRen070193 (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be rude to not even let you ask the question. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac I know that it's rude but I'm going to make a draft for a new template on my sandbox RenRen070193 (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I was saying it would be rude for me to not let you ask a question. It's not rude to draft a new template in your sandbox (and in fact, it's often encouraged). Primefac (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac Ok thanks for your pieces of advice. Well, good luck for my draft in my sandbox. RenRen070193 (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 121#Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (January 2022) I'm not sure that we need another RFC as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC users complained about them. Given we already have WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE I don't think another RFC is needed or appropriate. As you can see at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes#Progress there are around 10,474 parishes in England and around 381 (3.6%) are missing. The only other countries with functioning 4th order divisions that have missing articles on the English Wikipedia that I can find (though I haven't checked many) are Wales and Portugal. Why should the 381 parishes be treated differently to the other 10093 or most other such places around the world? Why do I need to obtain consensus to treat them the same as most other places in the world?

What is the potential risk of removing the restrictions in full or part? As far as I can see the biggest concern is me creating large numbers of NN short articles but what evidence is there of that in 2022? Wouldn't something like 2 parish articles a week (on top of the 1 article a month on anything) and allow this to be reviewed every 2 weeks or something and allow a complete appeal in 6 months. Or perhaps just start with several parishes a day and allow appeal in 6 months. If the articles I create are unacceptable they can be moved to draftspace and/or the number of articles I can create reduced. Its perfectly reasonable for me to produce 5 or so good articles a day but not 100 so if it was only a few a day that should follow the consensus at the RFC that they shouldn't be mass created with little content.

Perhaps the restrictions could be removed completely with an indefinite suspended like the previous one I had on the geographical NC discussion ban.

Is is possible please to give me 1 chance to at least create more of the parish articles or even better just remove all my restrictions. What evidence is there that there is a significant risk of problems in 2022? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I will give this more consideration in the coming days when I have more opportunity to read and parse it (and am not about to head to bed), but if you recall I was mostly in favour of relaxing or removing your restriction entirely; an RFC might help but I do not see it as necessarily binding or required for a successful appeal. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

On second read, I actually do not have much more to say here than what I did originally. To answer some of your questions, I believe the main concern is the potential to waste other editors' time with unnecessary AFDs. Keep in mind we just had an Arbitration case wherein one editor was banned and all of their creations are being scrutinised. I am in no way trying to compare you to that user, or imply that your creations should be mass-deleted, just using it as an indication of the editing climate in which we currently reside. Primefac (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree back in 2010 that was a concern and may be a concern if I was to create large numbers of articles on potentially NN topics. I very much doubt that would be a concern for creating the 378 (around 3.6%) of the 10,474 4th order divisions in England. If in the new year I'm able to create 2 a day it will take me around 6 months at which point I could appeal again and we could see if I can move onto something else or if I should just retire from any large scale page creation. If I'm able to create 1 a day it would take me a year. 378 is much less than the 94,346 Lugnuts created and the number of missing parishes is falling, 2 were created today and another yesterday. You and several others agreed I had done a good job at writing reasonable articles within the restrictions so why not try allowing larger page creation. The restriction could include that per WP:DRAFTIFY they can be moved to draftspace up to 90 days after and I would be prohibited from moving them back. What risk is there? If I have 1 chance then at best we will have 378 new good articles on topics that are desperately needed, at worst we will only have 378 articles that may need to be looked at. Do you have any other suggestions as to any other restrictions that may be helpful with ensuring this will pass? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I will be honest, I do not know why you are posting here. As I have mentioned, I mostly agree with your statements, so writing paragraphs to convince me to agree with something I already am in support of seems like a wasted effort, never mind the fact that your restriction is only appealable to ArbCom as a whole (and not just a single member).

I guess my question is this: what are you hoping to accomplish with this series of posts? Primefac (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

That in the new year you might propose a motion that allows me to create a certain number of parishes in addition to my 1 article a month on anything assuming you're re elected in the new year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean this with all due respect, but I am not going to propose lifting of your restrictions; that is your responsibility. Assuming I am still on the committee come January I will of course give any proposal you make the appropriate consideration it deserves. On that note, though: brevity is the soul of wit; by now we are expecting an appeal, so make it short and concise; no need to re-litigate the entire case. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I figured I should let you know the anonymous user who added that image you removed to the Teshub article is persistently adding original research to articles, I do not think you will be able to reason with them. They do not use article talk pages, also. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Some mobile users might not realise they have been reverted or that they have talk page messages. Sometimes it takes a trip to ANI and a short block to get them to notice. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this specific person can find them, they just choose not to. They also have fringe views which they try to promote in articles, so expect to find out Teshub is actually Sicilian and/or actually Ninurta soon. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough. Trips to ANI work for those types of editor too. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you swept me up in your removal of several hundred AfC reviewers 11 days ago. Not unfair, I may well not have reviewed any AfC in the past 6 months, but I have reviewed a few before, and I'd like to review at least one again. Could you please restore me? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Can do. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Primefac: you removed an exchange concerning: Wikipedia English Language Policy, because you assumed an intention to insult on my part. In removing the exchange, you also removed the initial remark that started the exchange, and which was factual, not personal. So be so kind as to restore this remark, under the heading you left standing.Retal (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

First, I did not remove anything; I closed the discussion and hatted it because it is not worth reading. Second, I assumed no intention to insult until you insinuated Praxidicae was rabid (and yes, we both know that was your intention). Third, there is no "factual" remark in a question, a loaded statement, and an opinion (in that order). There is no "Wikipedia English Language Policy", which you as an editor of over 15 years should rightly know. Of course, you may not know that MOS:IDENTITY is based on our content policies, among them WP:V, but now you do. It is not "partisan" to use the pronouns preferred by an individual, it's general human decency and (more importantly, from a Wikipedia standpoint) what our current consensus tells us to do.

So I guess in summary, I do not plan on un-hatting your thread. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

May I send you an email (wiki related, not for a natter)? – ².O.^Boxing 22:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Gonna be awkward if you say no because I figured out how to do it. And please, ignore how I signed the email. I forgot where I was. – ².O.^Boxing 23:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hah! Didn't even notice the sig (and I've even found myself doing that before). I always welcome emails. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)