User talk:Primefac

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

A little help, if you don't mind???

Hi ::@Primefac: !

You have been kind enough to respond to two of my previous inquiries to other users that I contacted about AFC and on your last advice about a week ago, you said the draft I created would likely be reviewed in just a few days but it still hasn't. I learned from your last message that there are only 200 or so reviewers for new articles so I realize it must be a monumental task to sort through all the new content created daily but still I have seen many articles that were written well after my draft was written and many of those are already approved or declined. Since I wrote my draft back in November and it is still sitting idle I was just hoping that perhaps you can give me a little help and push it forward for a faster review. I would really appreciate any assistance you can give. The draft I wrote is at the following link and it has been worked on by a few others in the Wikipedia community as well. Thank you very kindly in advance for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ian_Erix

Best Regards, Stefan 07:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruinsects (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bruinsects, I do apologize, I misread the submission time on your draft - the backlog is currently about two months, and your draft was submitted just over a month ago. Thus, it is likely to be a while before it is reviewed. Thank you for your patience. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again ::@Primefac: :) As you may remember, we have chatted a couple of times while I had been waiting for a draft article I wrote some time ago to be reviewed and you were quite helpful in offering reassurances to me that it was not forgotten about and would eventually get looked over. After 8 weeks of waiting, it was finally reviewed yesterday but unfortunately declined. I do not believe this was a fair decision at all as the reviewer, by their own admission, only looked at 5 of the 43 cited sources and declined then declined the article for lack of notability that I believe is clearly established. I see that there is a possibility to resubmit my draft after making alterations to it but since I believe it clearly meets all the notability guidelines as it is, I would like to have it reviewed again if possible. I have already written to the Wikipedian who declined it just a few moments ago but wanted to reach out to you as well to see if there is any other appropriate measure I can take now. For your reference, please find the note I wrote below to the editor who declined my draft. Any help you can provide with this would be greatly appreciated.

Hi MadeYouReadThis - Thank you for your review but it does not seem fair at all for you to decline this submission with having admittedly just reviewed 5 out of the 43 citations. I waited for nearly 2 months after submitting this draft to have it looked at for approval and it is simply not right to have it declined after all of this time for not meeting notability guidelines when the vast majority of sources were not even checked, as you yourself have stated. It is true that you state that the Vanity Fair article does not mention Erix directly, but that particular reference was specifically included only to back up the claims that were written about Pearlman in this article. Pearlman was mentioned since his professional relationship is relevant to Erix's career and references to this were also cited. In regard to Broadway World, All Music, Daily Star and Talent Monthly, in my opinion, these references do seem to clearly support the claims in the article and the notability of the subject. Nevertheless, if you for some reason feel differently, there are 38 other cited sources that also seem to clearly establish notability of the subject in my opinion as per the notability guidelines that you cited as part of WP:MUSICBIO . Erix specifically meets the Criteria for musicians by matching the following 8 out of 12 Criteria for musicians and ensembles listed in the Wikipeida guidelines for what constitutes notable musicians. I copied the 8 criteria he matches below. 1-He has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and independent of the musician himself. 2-Has had a single on a country's national music chart. 3-Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 4-Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 5-Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels. 10-Has performed music for a work of media that is notable 11-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12-Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

With the above in mind, I kindly ask that you reconsider the decline and review this article again more thoroughly if you have the time or alternately please ask another Wikipedian to take a look at the article as I have spent a lot of time trying to perfect this and follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I do believe it should be passed through based on it's merits and the fact that it does meet all the applicable thresholds. Thank you very much for your consideration. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bruinsects, funny you writing today, because about 12 hours ago I was looking at the decline on your draft and wondering if it was the right call. I see that another reviewer has marked your page as under review, and they're a solid reviewer, so I would wait for their response (which I expect to be much more fair). No guarantees as to whether it will be accepted, but it's very likely you'll receive better feedback. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey ::@Primefac: Thanks so much for your reply. I wish I was writing to you with the situation resolved but I have to say I am even more perplexed today than I was yesterday. It seems like the draft was edited significantly by the other editor you mentioned who put it under their review yesterday. He or she removed over 20 of the sources I had cited and I thought that editor was still working on the draft so I did not contribute at all in the last 24 hours as I wanted to be respectful and wait for them to finish what they were doing. However, I see now that another Wikipedian has come along and submitted the article for review and then another one declined the article yet again. The reason given, once more, plainly does not make any sense at all. I understand fully that Wikipedia must have strict guidelines and policies in place because otherwise people would write all sorts of untruths and nonsense that would go unchecked. I love the contributory nature of Wikipedia and respect the democracy of it all but that said, it seems totally unethical to have a clearly established set of criteria published on Wikipedia as a guideline for notability at WP:MUSICBIO and then have those very specific guidelines totally thrown out and ignored by multiple administrators. The subject of my draft clearly meets 8 of the 12 criteria for notable musicians and this has been established by reliable and independent sources, some of which have now been removed by the last editor who may or may not have been finished making adjustments to the draft. All and all, this has been extremely frustrating as I have been making an honest and sincere effort to contribute to Wikipedia in a proper manner and it seems as if the actual guidelines of the site itself are not being followed by admins. All I am looking for is a fair shake but my time and efforts keep getting dismissed with reasons that fly in the face of logic and reason. Any further help you can offer to resolve this would be so very appreciated. Thanks again. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac:--Common sense is increasingly becoming uncommon.IDOH alone knows why he choose to remove the under-review tag, given that I was actively cleaning-up the draft and even by the wordings of the template, 12 hours has not passed from my last edit.I was actually preparing a detailed reply as to my removal of a chunk of sources along with some additional comments on the state of the draft when I noticed IDOH's de-marking and Chetsford's subsequent review.(I don't blame C at all:)).Anyways, the draft looks like borderline stuff to my eyes.Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bruinsects:-- Your re-insertion of the bunch of near-worthless source(s) will further hamper the prospects of the draft, for no fly-by reviewer will wade through fifty non-reliable half-spammy sources to find one/two rel. source(s) and accept on the basis of those.Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@Winged Blades of Godric:, I did not reinsert sources as an affront to your efforts but as you know another editor came in and declined the draft after your revisions, before you were finished, and I didn't even know if you were going to come back to the article at that point so I thought it was best to undo then. I've just read some of your notes though and I am taking them into consideration and trying to improve the draft based on your criticisms. I do believe there are still at least a few sources you removed that are valid and prove notablity. I hope that perhaps with the shortening of the article that will become more clear and succinct and I will address it as best I can upon my revision. Thanks for your help. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood the motivation behind your re-addition of sources:) But as I said, that was unhelpful.Anyways, feel free to list the sources that you feel were wrongly removed and I will be happy to give an explanation.Happy editing! Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 11:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@Winged Blades of Godric:! Oh gosh, I can hardly see straight after all the time I spent on this. I've tried so very hard to fix this properly to the very best of my ability using your recommendations and criticisms as well as those from previous editors. I have added a few new sources that I was able to find and I did also put back a few others that I feel are still relevant and believe should be able to stand up more closely to scrutiny since the draft is shortened and much more concise. I hope you will agree and I'd like to thank you for all the time you must have spent on your last edit. After reading through the WP:MUSICBIO very closely again, I submit that the subject of this draft should meet the notability guidelines on the following merits:

1- Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

2- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

3- Has received coverage of international tour in at least one sovereign country.

4- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.

5- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film

6- Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

7- Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Kindest Regards and thanks for all your help, Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again ::@Primefac: Sorry to keep bothering you but it feels as if this review process is dragging on for an unusually long time, unnecessarily. I know you restored a deleted article from several years ago for comparison to my draft as per the request of Robert McClenon and Mr. McClenon was kind enough to create a teahouse discussion about it atthe Teahouse but it seems to just be sitting there idly now without much feedback at all. I wholeheartedly agree with other editors that previous versions of the draft and previous articles may not have been up to par but I maintain that the most current draft I wrote now does clearly show that the subject meets several of the WP MUSICBIO thresholds so I truly do not understand why this is not an easy pass? Any assistance you can provide in getting a fair and speedy decision here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Stefan. Bruinsects (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bruinsects - At this point I have to advise you to read [[WP:BLUDGEON|the essay advising against bludgeoning the process]. You appear to be forum shopping in continuing to filibuster. It isn't "taking an unusually long time". On the contrary, reviewers have been extraordinarily patient in providing you with timely comments on your draft. You say that the discussion at the Teahouse is just "sitting there idly without much feedback at all". No. You may be saying that because you don't like the feedback, which criticized the quality of the sources. By continuing to go on and on, in repeated lengthy posts (and you have been advised to be concise), you are just annoying multiple editors. The review process is not so much "dragging on" as being dragged by your persistence. I may comment more later, but you are getting many timely responses, and continuing to bludgeon the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the mess I created with the OTRS rmv confidential info caused by me, and thanks for reminding by mail. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aye, no worries, it's easy to make that mistake (I've done it a time or two myself). Primefac (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yellowman DoB

Hi Primefac. Regarding this, I've seen the OTRS ticket, but surely we still need a published source for WP:VERIFY purposes? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You do raise a valid point, and I'm not honestly sure about the "proper protocol". However, as far as I've seen the extant sources don't give accurate information, so unless there's something that does give the proper date, I'd rather hold the OTRS ticket as verification of of the DOB. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, chatted with some other admins, long story short you're right. See the article talk for more. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. See also my e-mails on OTRS. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for taking that over. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

First adminship anniversary!

Wishing Primefac a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Congrats" Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of IEEE article history

• Every* revision of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers for the last 14 years is a copyright violation? This is extremely unusual. Could you explain why you had to delete the article this way? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It was copied directly from the IEEE website, and despite the age I highly doubt the IEEE is copying their own information from us. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And on top of that, it has no encyclopedic value because it was incredibly promotional (see deleted revisions containing "we strive", "we do" etc...) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I provided a second set of eyes for Primefac on this. He is correct. This was a copyright violation since 2004. We come across old copyvios somewhat frequently, and unfortunately we have to hide the revision history once we are aware of it. William H. Keeler is one where Diannaa had to hide almost 12 years worth of history at my request (pre-admin days). It is unfortunate, but it is the standard practice on en.wiki for dealing with copyright violations, even if they are longstanding. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I had never seen so many revisions deleted before. I can't see them, that's why they are deleted. Glad we have more oversight than the Hawaii civil defense system. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

See Padmashali for another example. Nearly 11 years:)Winged Blades^Godric 11:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

harassment has started or continued ...

[1]

Hi Primefac, could block and/or squash this ASAP? Perhaps have some "Checkuser" could check it's ip, and see by the location, who the person might possibly be, to see who the sockpuppet could possibly be?

Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Blocked the account, nuked their edits/page creations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinneylove Eze

Chinneylove Eze is a Nigerian movie producer Babatunde Adeniyi (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's cool. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template protection (2)

Can you explain why you protected this? I don't know of any relevant vandalism problems. (please use {{ping}} if you respond here.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Koavf, there has been a huge increase in the amount of drive-by template vandalism, and in an effort to cut down on the amount of gigantic phalluses (phallusi?) that pop up on pages I started a discussion about semi-protecting high-transclusion templates, and the general consensus is to go for it. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the rationale for which ones are protected? This one hadn't been edited in four years. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See my reply above. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah sorry didn't fully read it before leaving here. I won't argue it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Aye, no worries, you're clearly not the only one! Primefac (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What transclusion count or other metric are you using to identify a template as "high-usage"? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

250+ transclusions. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not 200+? One of the protected templates I came across has 201 transclusions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The original list was 200+, but I trimmed it down to only 250+. If any slipped through that was unintentional. Primefac (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've only checked this template because it was near the top of the list in the protection log. The templates that immediately follow it are {{WikiProject Graffiti/class}}, {{WikiProject Hazara}} and {{WikiProject Galicia}}, with transclusion counts of 233, 233 (again) and 237 respectively. – Uanfala (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Template protection (3)

Hi, would you be able to unprotect Template:Language families, Template:Pama–Nyungan languages and Template:Tourism in Kerala? The situation is more or less the same as the Indonesian languages template from a few days ago. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And can I also add Template:Sign language navigation, Template:Languages of Nigeria and Template:Languages of China. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Appreciated! – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Histmerge request

Hi. Thanks for the histmerge for Polo Reyes. Could you see if a histmerge is also possible for Draft:Devin Clark (fighter) and Devin Clark (fighter), which was also created by a copy-paste move of an AfC draft, which resulted in the AfC submission being declined? Bennv3771 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow you work fast. Thanks again. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Why semi-protect this template?

Primefac, I was surprised to see you semi-protect Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting "to combat systematic vandalism" when it has never experienced any vandalism. Indeed, the only edits since 2010 were related to a deletion nomination. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See #Template protection (2) above. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rosen Heights - Fort Worth, Texas - community on North Side)

I've reapplied the copyvio review of Draft:Rosen Heights - Fort Worth, Texas - community on North Side). I see your point that the copied information is within quotes, and if this were a single long quote in the middle of an otherwise reasonably written article, I'd agree. But this makes up nearly the entire article, the article is a copy and past of the URL mentioned. I'm not asking that it be speedily deleted but am noting the copyright violation to the submitter.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

MadeYourReadThis, fair enough, and in reading the decline reason "the whole thing is one big quote" does fall within the |cv| decline. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Unprotect Haryana template

Please unprotect the Haryana template. I wish to make some additions, forts, stepwells, etc. I do not have wikipedia account and not willing to register also but I do make edits from time to time as you can see from my talk page. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Swiss flag in infoboxes

Hi, I noticed the Swiss flags are quite large in the infoboxes for nation at xxx games pages. Is there away to reduce the sizing? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

On another note, is it possible to add a link to closing ceremony flag bearers? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the downside of having the Swiss flag being square. I suppose we could add in a size param to the template, but then we'd have to retrofit all hundred-odd instances of the flag. Not sure if it's worth it for that.

As for flag bearers, wouldn't it be possible to just add "(Opening)" and "(Closing)" to the param, e.g. |flagbearer=Joe Bloggs (Opening)(br)Jane Doe (Closing)? Otherwise, yes, it's possible, but it seems a little unnecessary? Willing to discuss it further though. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree regarding the Swiss flag. It isn't a big problem, but its huge lol.

As for the flag bearers, that is fine (this is what was done for Sochi), but the infobox does not link to the closing flag bearers page. I think it would be best if we had two lines one for the opening and one for the closing. Most, if not all countries have different flag bearers. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realize that we started doing separate pages (I took a look at 2004 Summer and it just had the Opening). Yeah, I'll code something up. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect thank you! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 00:23:24, 22 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Comics Creator Pages

• Comics Creator Pages (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Adam Riches (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this is the first page about someone I've tried to create, so I'm still getting the hang of things...

I see that you said it was denied on the basis of primary sources, but I'm trying to understand what exactly I was supposed to do differently? I got nearly all the information from interviews, which were either through larger publications like newspapers, or comic book news websites. Wouldn't the most reliable source of information be directly from the person's own words in interviews? There are many other sites that have written things about him, like the "most villains on a cover" piece, but those speak primarily to details like the release dates of his work, and not anything about him personally.

If the article were to only list information such as that (the books he has worked on and nothing else about him personally), while it would probably make for a far less interesting article, would that have a higher likelihood of approval, since none of the information was actually spoken by the person the article is about?

Sorry for the confusion, just trying to understand where I went wrong and how to fix it, because I put a lot of work into this as my first attempt at an article. Thanks. Comics Creator Pages (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comics Creator Pages, the issue with using PRIMARY sources like interviews is that it's not independently verified. An interview is fine for verifying something like a birth date or other non-contentious material, but (to use an example from the draft) saying "Riches designed the costumes for X, Y, and Z" and only referencing his artwork is not verification; all it shows is that he designed the art (which anyone can do) and there is no indication that said artwork was actually used. I could write the plot lines for a hundred episodes of Dr Who but if they're never used on the show they're just fan fiction.

To ping on your second paragraph, we're not here to make "interesting" articles, but factually accurate ones. Sometimes that means it is "boring", but if Riches is as well-known as the current draft makes him out to be, then there should be no issue with finding sourcing in reliable, independent works. But at the end of the day, if you cannot find a non-primary source for verification, and someone might say "I don't think this is true", then the information should probably not be included on the page. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Crystalball

Hmm...Predictions and all.....Remember it?Winged Blades^Godric 14:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, entirely unsurprising. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

​On that subject, though, this seems a bit like gravedancing, no? Primefac (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That was a nice template:) never knew about it! And, yeah, that was badly-worded.What seems to be the case is that (in all probabilities) he has used throw-away accs. prior to the PE-Saga.The part. account was netted only because he re-choose to use it, very recently, after keeping it dormant for years, once his using it to cast a !vote in his own-nom-AFD was met.Winged Blades^Godric 15:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Railway in Haryana

Hi, I was wonder why my edits were revdel'd on the Railway in Haryana. All I did was added sections, and ce'd it a bit. I never even noticed the copyvio bit. scope_creep (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes copyvios don't show up on the report. I've done about 15 this morning already, but I seem to recall this one I had to manually input the URL into the copyvios tool to get a match. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I never saw it, but why was my revisions revdel'd, is it not wide of the mark? None of the stuff I did, which were section heads, were copyvio? :::I looking more for the reason. It has happened to me before, with Diannaa, removing huge chunks of articles, which I don't mind. But all did I did was approve it out of Afc, and add section heads. There shouldn't be any revdel next to my edits. scope_creep (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Because the offending text was present before you edited, and removed after you finished editing. All revisions holding copyright violations are removed. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, of course it must work that way. Reet. scope_creep (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

pings

Can anon editors ping others using {ping}, {u}, {re} or something like that? Neither WP:ECHO, nor mw:Help:Echo#Technical details are clear about it. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

pinging myself at Usernamekiran, while logged out.117.200.192.24 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I just pinged myself as an anon. Anon can ping. Echo @Usernamekiran:—usernamekiran(talk) 23:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

One cant ping their own account. :-/
I apologise for using your talkpage as testwiki. Kindly dont get mad at me. I did it for the sake of science. See you around.
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Science is always an acceptable excuse! Primefac (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

—usernamekiran(talk) 20:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Rovshan Muradov

Hi Primefac. I saw yesterday you deleted a page I had created. Could you please tell me the reason why it was speedily deleted? There were written "variety reasons". Can I still edit that? Or can I now create a new page with the same name and upload new content? Thanks.Emmmka (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Emmmka

Emmmka, the primary reason why I deleted the page was that it was copied directly from another website. Wikipedia takes WP:copyright violations very seriously, and if the violation is serious enough the entire page is deleted. You are welcome to recreate the page, but you must write it in your own words.

As you rewrite your page, please remember to write everything from a neutral point of view. Superlatives like "prestigious institution" and mission statements should rarely if ever be used. Just something to keep in mind. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

197.211.32.0/19 block

Hi Primefac. Thanks for reblocking the range. Since you aren't a CU, I think you should use something other than {{CheckUser block}} as the block reason. Also, a hard block with ACC ignore doesn't make sense. Accounts created by ACC wouldn't be able to edit without IPBE, which we don't (and most can't) grant. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The edits were a continuation of the previous CU block, so I figured that the original block reason was sufficient. I'll ask around and see what the others think. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Primefac (CC: @JJMC89:, I just got pointed on to this from ACC. Honestly, I could care less about the CU block as you modified it, not made it, my major concern is the introducing of the hardblock. There appears to be a crapload (to put it lightly) of collateral damage that will be hit by this. If there is a legitimate reason, then I understand, but I have to admit I'm curious what reason that would be. My email is open if it's private info. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, when I was making the block it felt like there was too much collateral for the OS-related issues I was finding, but I couldn't find a small enough range that would adequately cover it. I think single-IP blocks will be used on this range when it happens again. I've unblocked. Thanks for the input. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 2

I'm placing this here because I can't comment at User talk:Diannaa. I seem to be locked out there for some odd reason. I had never used that template before, and when I saw what it produced I immediately modified the offending link so it wasn't visible or would work. When I checked the results of that edit, I saw that there was still a huge template and immediately decided to just delete the whole thing. I did that, saved my work, but when I checked, you had just done it at exactly the same time. Now it's gone, and that's what I wanted. Sorry about that, and thanks for doing it. No offense intended. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I figured that happened. Sometimes people copy the template and don't remember to comment it out with either <nowiki> or {{t}}. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought I had, but then realized I had only done it with the one in the text. The actual template was still working very well, even creating its own separate section. I realize now why I can't access those edits. You did that too. Cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitteh for you!

Favrite kitteh is here to thank you for your work clearing out Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. Kthxbai ~~

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wikidata icon

Hi! Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_16#Template:Wikidata_icon, you wrote that

This template is contrary to some of the guidelines set down by Wikipedia (including WP:EGG and MOS:ICONS), and those advocating for keeping it did not address those main points when discussing the issue.

However, I directly addressed the MOS:ICONS point in a response to James Allison:

According to MOS:ICONS "Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox" is considered an appropriate use. That probably also extends to lists, by analogy. It might also have uses on talk pages and project pages, which MOS doesn't apply to.,

which nobody made any come-back to. As for WP:EGG, that is specifically about textual piped links taking a reader to "somewhere other than where they thought it would", and to somewhere that does not make sense in the context. Neither of those two was the case here. As Doc James pointed out, there is little surprise induced by the icon:

When you hover over it, it says from Wikidata. Thus not seeing it as a significant concern.

Since the number of opinions for and against the template were otherwise more or less balanced, can I put it to you that a more appropriate close would have been "No consensus", with an admonition that the template, if used at all, should only be used in the circumstances permitted by MOS:ICONS ? Jheald (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, you make some valid points. I'll amend my close. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Target change

Hey, Prime. What's wrong with my edit? I changed the target for privacy reasons. Some editors who renamed have also done the same. — Zawl 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, mostly it's an improper cross-namespace redirect (user pages should really only redirect to other user pages). You're welcome to U1 the page, which will redlink any non-custom sigs you've placed using the old account. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect log

Hi Primefac, Greetings. I saw you have closed some of the redirect discussion and wonder you could assist me. I tried to look for redirect log on "Public log" page and cant find "redirect" there. Is there a log page, I could find the redirect log based based on search on editor to view page redirect and the date or redirected. Thank you in advance of your assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I do apologize, but I have no idea what this is in reference to. That being said, there is no "log" for redirects - just page creations and tag logs (search for "redirect" to see the various filters). Primefac (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The only redirect discussion is WP:RFD and there are logs like this..link to log should be on the talkpage of the redirect..dunno whether that's what you're looking for though Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking that could be a possibility, but I haven't closed an RFD in ages. I'll wait for their reply. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac and @Galobtter:, Thank you for the reply. 2 incidents made me asked the question. (1) when working on the counter vandalism on Huggle yesterday, I found out there are a numbers of pages created, without much content and events future, and immediately redirect to a related general namespace. As a new page reviewer, I reverted the edit and tag AfD. While I was doing the reverting, it was redirect back without I notice. And since I was a redirect tag, I withdraw the AfD - see here Super Bowl LVII which will be held in the year of 2023 redirect to Super Bowl - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl LVII. (2) I also know that editor example here is User:Rickyc123 created a page without content / only a few words and redirect to a general related namespace and when other editor create the page, the Rickyc123 redirect again which involved copy and delete and the creator of the page became his for his has create such no content redirect close to hundreds of them - see his page creation log for his has previous copied and pasted draft content from other editor to make his page while the draft page being waiting for review (evident is collected and proved). We could know the page is redirect by which editor by view the contribution page but I am not sure we could know the page being redirect to other pages have a log. And also, if we dont know which editor doing the redirect, how would we find out which editor did the redirect? Could a log could find redirect to and from a page to another? All this redirect pages with much content and fails GNG and they are not on WP:RFD. I have another question as well, could a page redirect without even sits on the review log? I chain of thoughts is that because the redirect page is not a reviewed page but is a name page which sits aside where the nobility is not meet. As I dont know all the policies or process in Wikipedia and might even misunderstand some for such I seek your advise. Thank in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I'm a bit unsure as to your exact query but WP:WLH may be of some help.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if I can pick this apart.

• Huggle sometimes gives you a "vandalous" edit that is actually reverting the vandalism (yesterday an editor mistook vandalism for an actual edit and self-reverted). It happens.
• As I mentioned, there are a number of Tags that relate to redirects. Some of them tell you when a redirect is removed, some tell you when a redirect is created./
• WP:RFD is indeed the venue to request deletion of redirects. If you're using Twinkle it will automatically send it to the correct location.
• Future events that will definitely happen in the next few years such as Super Bowls, Olympics, etc, are perfectly acceptable to create as redirects (assuming it's not something silly like Super Bowl C). While mass-creation of such redirects isn't exactly desirable, it's not strictly prohibited (but that's also what RFD exists for).

Hopefully I covered the majority of what you were concerned about. If you have other/further questions feel free to ask. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefact, Thank you for the explanation. I have further questions

1. If an event would eventually happen, then a editor (say editor A) COULD create an article and immediately redirect to a general related article. What when another editor (say editor B) remove the redirect tag and created the content with all the WP:RS as the event is on the news now, and submitted the article. The attribution of that article should be editor A or B?
2. What happen if editor create an article and immediately redirect to another general related page - say this time is about footballer which "might/with potential" be drafted to be one of the club, but the nobility has yet to be meet during that time of editor A creation, could this allow to be done? Thanks in advance of the assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

More template stuff

Hey- I had a go at clearing up the header of the AfC feedback page. The link inviting users to leave feedback from Template:AfC talk currently uses: {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}, whereas the link on the feedback page itself uses {{leave feedback|format=link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation|feedbackpage=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/feedback|text=click here|plain=yes}}. What's the difference between Template:leave feedback and Template:leave feedback/link? As far as I can tell, the second code (from the feedback page) wikilinks the user's talk page in the section title and the first does not. Am I missing something or am I good to replace the first with the second? Sorry if this doesn't make much sense. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Kineso tape

Hi - you asked to reference the company re Kinesio tape - I can only find "leading US Brand" don't know if this will suffice. If not happy for you to delete again! Hellinadustcart (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bea Miller

Good morning Primefac, if today is February 1, 2018 in some parts of the world, then Spectrum will not be released in January 2018. Can you please change this back to 2018 at Bea Miller, or something other than January 2018? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. I think the addition of the month got caught up in some other stuff I was reverting; wasn't my intention to have it in there. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)