Jump to content

User talk:Primefac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Je suis Coffee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malekfarugh (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 24 June 2021 (→Ali Mozaffari page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Question

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

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

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For those playing at home, please note that Corbont has recently been indeffed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Drmies might have WP:ANI 2.0, should I call this WP:ARC 2.0? Primefac (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also never a good idea to believe in isms. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]. However, could please explain to me your reasoning for reverting it? I would appreciate it. Thanks. JBchrch talk 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor understood. I always forget that route FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not super-urgent, I can also be emailed. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, both. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

A kitten for you!

You like cats, so here is one :3

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

SlimVirgin Talk Page

Did you WP:SUPPRESS a portion of User talk:SlimVirgin on June 12 [2]? This must be a mistake. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that it was a mistake? Primefac (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not a problem. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The edit summaries definitely contain a bit more editorializing than is ideal, but I'm not seeing anything that really jumps out at me. The RD'd summary accused someone of being involved, which is enough of a BLP violation to merit hiding. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mozaffari page

Dear Primefac, Regarding the page for Ali 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)[reply]

Sounds good! Please feel free to resubmit if you think the previous concerns have been addressed. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Primefac, I just resubmitted the page. Please review that. Thanks.--Malekfarugh (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bebo Kobo (2)

Hi there -- you've protected this article indefinitely -- can I ask that you downgrade it to semi-protection, or put an expiration date in place? Indefinite full protection seems excessive: there's a brand-new editor removing information without good justification, that's the only problem here. As a Hebrew speaker, I'm happy to vouch for the sources in question -- they verify the content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as there is a consensus, either for including or excluding the information in question, I will drop protection. Given that it has been a few days and there has been almost zero movement on the discussion front, I'm not inclined to set a specific timeframe for dropping the protection (as it forces me to be more vigilant of the discussion and remove it when necessary). Additionally, unless I am mistaken there were ExCon users that were warring, so dropping the protection to Semi would not do any good.
Either way, I am watching the article's talk page, and am happy to evaluate any edit requests that are made. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think one issue is that you protected it indef, rather than a week or two. That is usually reserved for articles where escalating protection didn't work. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a slow-burning edit war, with the last half-dozen blanking edits going back six months; this is the primary reason why I went with an indef over any shorter of a timeframe; the disruption would likely just start back up again after it expired, and I wanted there to be a firm consensus before that happened.
Regarding full protection, I took another look at the editors involved and cannot find the blanking editor that was ECP; I now suspect that I had clicked the wrong contributions link. Some of the registered users are close to being autoconfirmed, but in the meantime I will drop the protection. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing the closure result of this TfD entry

Hi, I believe the no consensus result of the above TfD entry is inconsistent with the content of the discussion. The nominator proposed two methods to stop transcluding the template. There was a clear majority in favor of stopping the transclusion: 3 and a bit (me, GKFX, Izno and likely 67.70.27.180) to 1 (Pppery) and Nabla was not voting. Although the specific method to apply had no consensus (because Izno preferred a delete), I think we could call it a "win" for the transclusion stop, especially because GKFX countered well Pppery's arguments and because the number of articles is not very relevant as it can easily flop between sides. Furthermore, Pppery did not reply to defend his arguments or raise new ones in what seemed to be a concession. What was your reasoning behind the closure? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&oldid=1030232145"