User talk:Primefac

Removal of Marcia Pally from LGBT people living in New York City

This decision seems a little odd considering that Pally was one of the most prominent lesbian journalists and activists in NYC throughout the 1980s, among other things, arts editor and dance critc for The New York Native, columnist for The Advocate, contributor to Christopher Street, winner of a Gay Journalists Association Award, co-host of Vito Russo's "Our Time", an original board member and acting chair of GLAAD, the subject of a portrait in Robert Giard’s “Particular Voices: Portraits of Gay and Lesbian Writers”, and participated as herself in the making of the film "Vito" in 2011 (see IMDb).Dreifoos (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If you can find a source other than one that's throwing her under the bus that discusses her sexuality, then by all means add it back in. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I followed your advice to Dreifoos and my edit was immediately undone. It also seems there is also an editor named Missvain who is systematically removing references to the subject from WP - even her being a member of the original board of GLAAD on the WP page about GLAAD - erasing objective history of the organization. Apparently the subject is more controversial than I knew. I don't think I want to put myself in all of this, so I'm am stepping back. I leave the sorting of it out to you. AlexaVamos

Ditto. This reminds me of the recent fight about describing Isaac Bashevis Singer as a Jewish-American author, which seems was ultimately resolved despite a long disinformation campaign to describe him as a Polish author. I would conjecture that missvain is another sockpuppet of the same person who has been advocating for the removal of Pally's WP entry (probably the subject herself) and is whitewashing.Dreifoos (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? I highly suggest you read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcia Pally, which was closed as "delete". When that happens, links to the page are removed to avoid redlinks. There is no campaign or conspiracy; I was asked by Pally and her associates to nominate the page for deletion. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry

Thank you for handling the situation on those RfAs. I want you to know it was never my intention to start a controversy there. Honestly I feel it is a relevant and non-controversial question. I really feel that RfA is a microcosm for the type of scrutiny and stress an admin will be dealing with on a near daily basis doing their job.

I am sorry about my part in the disruption. I had no idea that a discussion from the RfA policy talk page would follow over into an actual RfA, and the accusations of bad faith against me are upsetting as they are not true. I tried my best to diffuse the situation by not reverting, and by giving a clear and simple answer and refusing to participate further.

In the future if I want to ask that question I will use the user talk page of the candidate. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. RFAs are... an interesting beast. For what it's worth, I do not see any bad faith in your asked question; everyone has their own metrics for determining if a candidate is suitable for the mop. Good call on not edit warring, though! Primefac (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Really? You didn't find that not simply irrelevant, as so many questions at RfA are, but actually coercive and pointy? I'm surprised. I'm fine that striking it wasn't the answer, as at least three other editors think so, but this editor is currently arguing that RfA "is not that bad" and they're asking this question of current candidates ostensibly as part of their metric? I find that coercive and pointy, and frankly I'm having a hard time thinking of any good faith reason to ask it. —valereee (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

An irrelevant question is not one that needs to be stricken or removed. One does not have to go very far back in the RFA histories to find truly silly questions being asked of the candidates. Additionally, we have people who oppose based on what some feel are ludicrous or inordinately specific reasons (and you really don't need to go far back to find those). And, as mentioned elsewhere, candidates are welcome to answer a question, or not, as they see fit. Thus, if we assume the question was asked in good faith, we only have a potentially irrelevant question which might not get answered and whose answer will likely only change the opinion of one (maybe two) editors. What's the harm? Primefac (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ay, and I've never removed any of those other irrelevant questions. I've only commented on the silliness of them. But this one was not simply irrelevant, it was also pointy and coercive. I'm not arguing about the in/appropriateness of striking it, and with others objecting to that, I had zero objection to have it restored. But honestly, a coercive and pointy question -- and from an admin! I probably just lost my temper. —valereee (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I guess this is a reasonable section to ask this in. I don't want to reopen an RFA talk page section closed by a crat, or post below it, or open a new thread about the same thing. And I don't want to make a bigger-than-necessary deal of this. Primefac, FWIW I agree with the short version summary that this was an irrelevant but good faith question, and I agree with what you say right above this. But then you removed the question completely, because Vami asked you to? I don't understand how a candidate can request that a question be removed. If they don't answer it, that's fine. In this case, their refusal to answer it would have increased my opinion of them. But unless HiBC acquiesced somewhere I haven't seen, I don't understand the justification for removing it altogether, and I don't understand the lack of an uproar about it. Without making you beat a dead horse, could you expand slightly on how this was removable over the questioner's objection? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm open to discussing the matter here. At the time, with multiple threads going on in multiple places and emotions running high, I felt that removing it entirely would be the easiest way to solve the problem and the dispute. In hind sight, I do recognize that it flies pretty much in the face of everything else I said regarding a candidate's actual options; I don't think we've ever had a candidate remove questions from their RFA, so doing so on their behalf would likely be something completely novel. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Understood. At this point, I'm not sure what to think; I don't think I'm officially nagging you to reinstate it yet. I'm just surprised, more than anything else. I guess my main concern is not this particular instance, but the precedent it sets, which I realize is kind of a slippery-slope argument. If it seems likely that this was a one-off, I'm not going to pester you about it too much. Perhaps the one possible fair thing to do would be to tell @HighinBC: that if he still wants to ask the question, he can, without fear of being reverted, but if he no longer wishes to, we let sleeping dogs lie? I don't know. TBH, a part of me thinks it might be best to restore the question, basically for the reasons you list at 13:44 on the 6th, and to make this kind of removal at the candidate's request less likely next time. I don't know, I think maybe I'll just defer to your judgement now that I've made my objection known. Thanks for the reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Re-ping for caps. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Floquenbeam:, long time no see. Thanks for the ping and your opinion on the matter. I will keep this brief as I don't want to stir this tempest in a teapot. I was surprised at the removal, I did not know candidates could do that. I did not acquiesce to it but also don't mind at all.

To me this is a simple question about the candidate's reaction to scrutiny and stress. The question was always optional. No candidate is required to answer it. I think this is much ado about nothing. The user already answered me on their talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a question removed at the request of the candidate, and there might have been more blowback if the discussion hadn't been closed as well. I can see the reasoning for it as things were getting rather heated, but I wouldn't want it to set any kind of precedent. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I was still mulling this over, leaning towards re-adding, but the recent closure has made it a moot point. I most definitely do not intend this to be any sort of precedent-setter, and should be viewed as an outlier from normal practice. I have no issue if there comes of this a discussion about whether candidates can or should ask crats to remove questions, though. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Refugee Olympic Team

Not sure how too, but the Refugee Olympic Team's 3 letter code now is EOR [1]. Do you mind changing it? Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done, though I do note the page hasn't been created yet. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd imagine it will be created very soon, with a lot of information coming out today. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

True, I suppose the code splashes a big error if not in, while a missing page is just a redlink! Primefac (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is hat collecting apply for AWB? Dr Salvus 22:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so; AWB is less of a true "PERM" and more of an aid for doing repetitive tasks. The main reason it's restricted is to make sure there's some accountability for the ability to make dozens of edits per minute. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've understood. At this point I ask you to give me the possibility to use the AWB. I won't use the software for "increase edit count". Dr Salvus 23:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to make a request at WP:PERM/AWB. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Dr Salvus 05:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Despite, I wish to have the software, I withdrawn my application since I'm afraid to return in the WP:ANI. I was there in March. ANI's a place like the hell. I'm afraid that another adimistrator will read and refuse the application and to return to ANI. Dr Salvus 13:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Abusive use of the Wikipedia framework

I understand that there is great abuse of misuse of the Wikipedia framework for left-wing ecological and ideological propagandism by Projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment and many of their members. How do I expose this to the community and stop the abuse of the members, who are acting as "social justices" here in this project, and as single-purpose accounts, massively creating articles on the same subjects with slight title variations and spreading the same text in dozens of articles, using partial sources and creators of unprovable climate theories attested by partial "experts" and biased information? Corbont (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, as I said last time, please get together sufficient evidence to demonstrate your claims and either file a case request or send ArbCom an email so that we can look into the matter. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

They're obviously NOTHERE, are they not? Getting all the way to ArbCom in less than two months from their first edit... Wait, they have nearly no edit since their spree back on the 29th of April. I've applied the DFTT treatment, if you'll excuse me (sorry, I've temporarily put the Arbcom case request page on my watchlist) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What is your great personal concern with the subject, are these people funding Wikipedia by any chance? I see a garbage dump written in all the articles about Brazil, about agriculture and cattle raising of all countries, about deforestation, conservation, about right-wing politicians, etc. If I try to edit such an article, is it clear that they will revert me as these articles have become "private property of left-wing users"? I don't even try, because the organized mafia here is already very big and cross-wiki, isn't it? Corbont (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

For those playing at home, please note that Corbont has recently been indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Drmies might have WP:ANI 2.0, should I call this WP:ARC 2.0? Primefac (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Haha, you better not shaft me with that redirect. While I'm here, let me break a lance for How Did I Find Myself Here?, a great favorite with all Greenpeace-inflected bubble-living Communist college students. Corbont, it's "propaganda", not "propagandism". Please don't be libertarian with the English language. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Also never a good idea to believe in isms. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Singapore at the 2018 Winter Olympics

Hi Primefac, I'm not hung up on the short desc I wrote at Singapore at the 2018 Winter Olympics [2]. However, could please explain to me your reasoning for reverting it? I would appreciate it. Thanks. JBchrch talk 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

For context, mine was WP:SDNONE, which specifically lists Alpine skiing at the 1960 Winter Olympics – Men's downhill as an example of where a shortdesc is unnecessary. JBchrch talk 11:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was previously unaware that {{shortdesc|none}} would give no shortdesc (I assumed that it would just give "none" as the shortdesc). I've self-reverted. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Revdel please

See https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Child_abuse&type=revision&diff=1028221855&oldid=1028111754 Further action at your discretion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent:  Done. In future, please report via Wikipedia:IRC#Channels_for_specific_tasks #wikipedia-en-revdel or email, don't post publicly. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor understood. I always forget that route Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's not super-urgent, I can also be emailed. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks, both. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Voice actors

Hello! Can you add a parameter for voice actors?. They only used that in animated movies and so forth. Check what you can do about that?. They can also use voices in Stop-motion movies. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.103.4 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have zero idea which template you're referring to, and the few that I can think of either already have one or there is consensus against it. If you want to see voice actors added to a particular template, you should start a discussion on that template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Unblock Request

I made the mistake of logging into a redundant account that I forgot I had the credentials saved on my Google Chrome, and now my IP address is blocked. Is it possible to remove the block on my IP address? Yamazaki442 (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you can still edit while logged in, so I'm not sure the issue here. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. My IP was locked, but it appears it is no longer so. Thank you for your help in clarifying this matter. Good day.Yamazaki442 08:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My userpage

Please give back the edits on my userpage, it's not that revealing, and if you want, I can re-add it without my year of birth. Thanks, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

DinosaurTrexXX33, that's pretty much the only thing I removed. Primefac (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You like cats, so here is one :3

Su si eik wjywa6 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Talk Page

Did you WP:SUPPRESS a portion of User talk:SlimVirgin on June 12 [3]? This must be a mistake. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do you feel that it was a mistake? Primefac (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think it was a mistake, it will make me thank in prose for an edit that I would just have clicked thanks to - which may be a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, your edit summary mentions "elink vio". There were 70+ comments from registered users. What did they do wrong? (Can you tailor the elink vio edit to resolve the particular problem edit – then the innocent users will have their posts visible.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed an elink violation that was introduced in Special:PermaLink/1022738847, which means everything between those two diffs needs to be hidden, because it exists in every version of the page between those points. I did not remove or alter anything other than the external link, so the posts made by other users are still on the page (as evidenced by the fact that the time stamps of the hidden diffs still match the timestamps shown on the page). Primefac (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(watching, + ec:) I noticed a similar thing for some psalms: text was inserted (in good faith) which was later regarded as a copyright violation. As it was present in all edits between insertion and removal, all these edits were suppressed, example Psalm 100, inserted 30 June 1918, removed 16 September 2019, 37 edits later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The history list shows the time stamps. But the actual commrnyd by the editors on the talk page are not visible. (Seems this is a technical problem. Perhaps your user privileges let you see the edits, but ordinary user edits (like my own) are not visible.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I would argue they are still present. For example, this edit was made at 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC) by Jbmurray, and if we look at the version that exists right now there is a comment made by Jbmurray timestamped at 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC). Primefac (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. I can only report on what users see. And they cannot read the actual comments. An example is here. 16:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit of an idiom, fwiw. As to the specific edits themselves, sure, but if there are specific concerns about a specific edit those diffs can be provided. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we were going around two different mull-berry bushes. When using Chrome my search button did not give me results. So I switched over to Safari and found the edits. And now Chrome does so. Perhaps Chrome decided to be more cooperative because I was threatening to permanently switch browsers. Thanks Thanks Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Abhilasha Will

It's ok friend, also would like to make my mistakes correct, I admire your grate advice, and I hope you help me with ever. Thanks lot brother — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilasha Will (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:GAN § General question

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:GAN § General question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Hi Primefac. Would you mind looking at this when you've got some time? Maybe it's not really an issue at all, but it seems like something's not right. Perhaps there's simple fix to tweak the way the GA review page is being transculded onto the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not really at all familiar with the inner workings of the GA process (specifically, the transclusions etc). I personally think it's a little dumb to have a GAR on a subpage but then transclude it onto the talk directly, as it leads to the issues you mention. There are likely a few ways that this could be mitigated, such as having an <onlyinclude> section that has some sort of table or checklist to indicate where and how the discussion is progressing, but I would not even consider implementing such a change without discussion and consensus on how to proceed.

For what it's worth, I disagree somewhat with the idea that "nothing is broken" because we shouldn't be clogging a talk page with dozens of unnecessary subsections, but I don't know if it's enough of an issue to merit an overhaul of the GA/GAR process. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. It seem odd to me as well to have such a huge review with editable subsection on the article talk page; it reminded me of times when I've seen someone trying to make an edit request basically copying and pasting their version of the entire article onto the talk page. I asked about this at WT:GAN and then here just on the chance there might be a quick and easily fix. The editor who actually did the GA review seems to have fixed things by moving replace the content with a link in {{Article history}} at the top of the page, which at least as "removed" it from the talk page. If that's the best that can be done, then that's good by me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Verify

Hello please I believe this article has met all requirements, kindly verify and make it live. Thanks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam

Rubiesar (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, but I don't tend to do reviews-on-request. I highly suggest placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article to request a review. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Bebo Kobo

Further to your protecting the Bebo Kobo article, I was going to start a discussion about whether or not to include the disputed content at Talk:Bebo Kobo and WP:BLPN. I have now done so. Edwardx (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio, request RevDel

I've removed a copyrighted table from a new article, Johnny Swaim. Would you take a look, please, and RevDel? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've actually undone your change, because the table itself, while technically "copied directly", is just a table of statistics; there really isn't any other way to present that information and the stats themselves cannot be copyrighted. More information about this is at WP:NONCREATIVE. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful to know. Copyright is a complicated topic! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision deletion?

Hello, Primefac,

I saw you did a revision delete at Keddie murders but I'm concerned that there are other edit summaries there that might violate BLP guidelines. There is a very active editor making comments on this 40 year old murder case, witnesses & suspects and throwing out a lot of accusations. But as I don't do a lot of Rev. Del., I thought I'd ask you if you could look over the page whenever you had a minute and advise. The editor has received a talk page warning. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ali Mozaffari page

Dear Primefac, Regarding the page for [Mozaffari] more independent sources (BBC Persian Service, SBS, New Eastern Europe, Radio Farda, etc) have been added to the text. Thanks for your attention. --Malekfarugh (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)