Jump to content

User talk:Primefac/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Explanation of List of anime distributed in the United States move to draftspace

Hello,

I apologize for the inadequate explanation given in the CSD on the draftified version of this article, which it appeared, based on your edit summary, that you were confused about. I'd like to attempt to briefly explain this now, and try to seek counsel on appropriate action moving forward.

A short while back, I copied the content of the original page to my userspace (and later draftspace) with the intention of reworking the article there, being of the opinion that it was not suitable for the mainspace in its current state. At some point later, I began a deletion discussion about the original article, which you can find here. While the discussion was closed with a consensus to take the article away from mainspace and rework it in draftspace, it was brought up during the discussion that a WP:HISTMERGE was required per WP:RUU (something I was not aware of, being still relatively new to the site and not fully aware of the attribution policy), and a note to the eventual closer of the discussion was left specifying this to be the case.

The closer of the discussion, User:Vanamonde93, initially misread the situation and closed the AfD as "merge" until another user left a notice on their talk page clarifying the situation. Vanamonde acknowledged the situation, but declined to perform the histmerge, not wishing to involve themselves in a case this complicated, and amended their closing comment to say that, and I quote:

"The copy-paste draft at Draft:History of anime in the United States may be used for this after a history merge has been completed; alternatively, the parent article could be moved into draftspace if a history merge isn't feasible."

Thinking this might be simpler on the administrative end, I opted to do so, and hopefully supplant the original cut-and-paste draft, thus preserving the history of the original page and solving any attribution issues. I wanted to move the draft to my desired title for the new article, however, and to do so needed that title in draftspace to be freed up, which was my motive for requesting a G6 speedy deletion. It seems that in taking this initiative, however, I have performed improperly and should wait for administrator assistance before proceeding any further.

Had I been aware of the attribution policy, I would have done this entire process the complete other way around, but I guess that's my mistake. I thus apologize for the error, and the confusion.

If you'd like to advise on resolving the situation, or refer me to another admin who might be willing to assist, I'd be grateful for the assistance. However, if my involvement isn't needed to resolve the issue, I'll simply wait until it is, and take no further actions regarding the article or the draft until then.

Apologies once again.

Edit: I tagged the initial draft article with a histmerge request tag containing a better explanation, which I probably should have done in the first place after the AfD was closed. I'll leave everything alone from here on until either that's done or someone asks me to do something else. Hopefully this'll sort itself out and everything will be fine. Also, sorry, I made the explanation here way too long. Sorry again for making a silly mistake like this. Joyce-stick (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added a terse summary of the AfD and some guidance to the histmerge template on the draft. In case the history merge doesn't work out or if for some other reason it is preferable to move List of anime distributed in the United States to draftspace (supplanting Draft:History of anime in the United States) and have it replaced with a fresh redirect, I would suggest that the talkpage be left alone because a) the new article is about a different subject, so preexisting discussion is not relevant, and b) it provides a paper trail similar to other AfDs that are closed as "redirect". (PS: @Joyce-stick no need to beat yourself up, this has been a bit of an unusual case.) — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
There is somewhat of an easier fix here, actually; since you were the only content author of the draft page, a histmerge is not necessary because all of the work was done by one person (i.e. no attribution is necessary). I note that in the history you did originally request a G7 deletion, which is valid and I have enacted.
In other words, there is little point in trying to untangle the parallel histories when there is only one author. I have restored your version, with apologies for missing the AFD in the history (which I should have noticed earlier). Primefac (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. I take it that moving the still-existing article into draft space should be fine, then, per the consensus of the AfD? I figure it should be, but I just want to make absolutely sure that there's no more catches so that I don't make any more errors. Joyce-stick (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Why does the article need to be moved to the draft space? The primary result of the AFD was to rework the article, which you have done; all of the "move to draft" and "histmerge" stuff was because there was confusion about which page was supposed to be where, etc, which has now been sorted. I think a page move might be in order so that the title matches the content, and I note that History of anime in the United States doesn't yet exist so you should be able to handle that yourself. Primefac (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you'll excuse my butting in: Joyce-stick, the basic conclusion of the AfD was that a standalone list shouldn't exist in mainspace. Draftspace is the logical place to rework an article, but given that you've already done that, a draftification doesn't strike me as necessary; just rename the article, and continue working on it at the new title. The move history is messy enough as it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
If you say so, then I guess draftifying it isn't really necessary. In that case, I'll do exactly as you suggest and move the article to the new title to work on it from its current state, and tag the still remaining issues for the benefit of any potential collaborators. Thank you both for your help here. Joyce-stick (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

Hello, Primefac,

Barnstars don't seem like enough to say thank you for helping me out tonight. I was having trouble with closing a bundled nomination at AFD with XFDCloser, this has happened to me repeatedly, and I thought I'd try batch delete on this page and I SWORE that I unchecked all of the pages that weren't articles that had been nominated for deletion. But obviously, I didn't scroll down far enough and I deleted not only every page that was linked to the AFD discussion but all of their talk pages and all of their redirects. What a mess. Isn't there a page for major blunders done by admins? Right now, the only page I can't see to restore (or that you haven't) is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iran which has over 3,000 revisions. I could try to do this manually but if you knew of a steward who could help, that would be great.

Secondly, how on Earth did you restore these pages so quickly? I was doing each page restoration individually and you seem to have a much faster way of handling these errors. I don't anticipate doing this a second time but I'd like to know if case I run into this again. Is it something with Twinkle or another tool that can be used from the Deletion log page?

Thanks again for coming to my rescue! I am a humbled admin who will never do this twice. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

And I see by the blue link that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iran is back so many thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Always happy to help. As far as my "speed", I just went to your deletion log and opened every relevant "(view/undelete)" link in new tabs - undeleting without selecting any diffs undeletes everything, so a copy/pasted summary was all I needed to quickly undelete the pages. As far as Delsort Iran, I actually (as you will no doubt see) had to do that in chunks so as to not kill the server kittens. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

About Auctuarium Prosperi Havniense

Pardon me one more time, Primefac, then I give up understanding those criteria forever (I am not able to understand them). But is it really necessary to keep the misspelled redirect to a talk page that was and is empty? Frognall (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Auctuarium Prosperi Havniense, prior to being moved, was not empty. Auctuarium Prosperi Havniense exists as a redirect. Therefore, the former cannot be deleted as G8 because the latter exists. Whether something is necessary does not even enter the equation. G8 has a very specific purpose and set of rules, and the talk page does not meet any of them. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Primefac. Do not fear, I give up. --Frognall (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Friskies editing nightmares

Hello. Recently, i have made a second attempt to contribute to the article with an outcomes that leave me somewhat puzzled.

Is there any chance that you could provide some comments or maybe even advise on the following "Undo" matters:

  1. How an objective reality can be a WP:OR through credible source and "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research"? What are the deviations in this exact part, if we'd theorize of "mixture" decomposition attempt?
  2. "potentially deliberate misinterpretation of source" - in which part may we suspect the misinterpretation could take place? Could be, admittedly, but can't figure where to look for it further at the moment.
  3. Could it also be the case, that something is going on not with verifiability, but with credibility properties of the subject of the article?

There are only facts, these are all backed already yet media is late to the feast. There are only facts, these are all backed already yet media is late to the feast. Though, Verifiability may have a rather complex flexible definition from glance, considering other policies and regulations in context. Contacting the representatives of the brand however, by publicly available contacts, might seem perfectly fitting under "verifiable" meaning in rerum natura, unless could be found by this place as not suitable way to do so for a general audience. 46.72.192.95 (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We spent what, an hour chatting with you on IRC the other day? While I do applaud your initiative in finding something to put in the article as far as sources go, you're still very much missing the point we were trying to make the other day, so I will attempt to break it down in excruciating detail.
Let's start with the reference itself. On the whole, not a bad piece, but can be summarised in one sentence: "Kazakhstan does not have Purina/Friskies because of supply chain issues that Nestle cannot specifically identify." There is some more about advertising in Russia (or lack thereof) but otherwise everything falls under that one statement or as a clarification to it. Everything else in the paragraph you added, therefore – which incidentally is everything after the first sentence – is not supported by the reference and can be considered Original Research. There is nothing in the provided article about promises on corresponding consulting services or food habits or ethical concerns - this is all your interpretation, which goes back to the OR issue, including the phone calls that you had with Nestle that you mentioned on IRC.
Of course, what is even worse is when you write Despite the desperate situation on regional markets, the Nestlé Purina Petcare silently refuses to issue any press releases in this regards, which is a deliberate misrepresentation of the content in the source; it specifically says Nestlé confirmed temporary difficulties with the shipment of feed and gives a quote from the PR manager of Eurasia. So at best it is a misrepresentation, but really it's patently false.
We said this on IRC, and I will repeat it again for the record: if there is no source, there is no verification, and we cannot include it. This is one of our core policies.
Now, the real kicker here, having read through an actual article explaining the issue, is that I genuinely do not think this information needs to be included in Friskies. The article says that there is a shortage and Nestle doesn't know why. I do! The world has had supply-chain issues for the last two years, because of let's see... a global pandemic? Someone not getting the things they need because of unknown supplier issues is almost a run-of-the-mill story at this point, so it is putting undue weight on a nothingburger of an incident to include it in an encyclopedia article.
Hopefully this clarifies a few things, but please let me know if I can expand on or provide any other further information. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough response, i sincerely appreciate it.
A lot has been written by you, i will try to categorize it somehow, which is rather hard. The attitude of interpreting the WP:OR as a generalized attempt to influence the perception of something verifiable in a way of being unverifiable still puzzles me. I may only propose and encourage our mutual tries for being consistent.
The Russian Federation is referenced through Russia, which is referenced through a same market region as Kazakhstan (and a number of other countries) as per embedded URL right at the Nestlé Russia & Eurasia / Caucasus Regions sub-header.
This is a blatant yet interesting censorship strategy, to attempt to picture a perfectly verifiable reality as someone's sick misinterpretation. Nestle confirmed it all and basically anyone can grab a phone and ask them, eliminating the ground for further doubts in absence of related press releases. As per innuendo attempt of The article says that there is a shortage and Nestle doesn't know why. I do! - the "knowledge of yours" would be unverifiable indeed, by any means, and any sane individual can undoubtedly conclude on presence of core difference. The brand in subject has different responses on reasons for shortages, depending on country and publicly available phone numbers one would use to query. If the brand doesn't know the reasons, as article says, the brand might be losing credibility as a brand - raising an unspeakable question on consumers' trust, which could be self-evident logically and as per open market principles people tend to believe in. Or not, however... If this is a trademark related / market representing brand page, it is logical that information on brand availability has something to do with the page of the brand, simply because brand already deserves a page to be published.
Now, the real kicker here. It can be rather hilarious to witness the attempts to apply censorship in a form of "I genuinely do not think this information needs to be included in Friskies". This is a very illustrative matter of expression, just think about it extrapolating it with the fact of worldwide collaborative work on the wikipedia which s being "seemingly proposed" around here. There are a lot more articles and subjects supposedly deserving far higher level attention, but Wikipedia is not a source of truth - it is a source of verifiable data and nothing unverifiable was provided at this edit, just deal with it. But i sincerely appreciate the response as per FM 100-6: "The degree of information superiority that allows the possessor to use information systems and capabilities to achieve an operational advantage in a conflict or to control the situation in operations short of war, while denying those capabilities to the adversary."
P.S. If you recall the IRC dialog, the mental exercise was proposed along its lines, which nobody including you even attempted or tried to comment; since you are bringing up the IRC, it would be good to provide a reference with logs, otherwise it has a natural signs of a mixture of WP:OR and delusional misinterpretation of reality aimed against me personally in an attempt to make something out of thin air around here for third party unaware readers. 46.72.192.95 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I wrote a lot in my last reply, but I'll be short in this one: you keep saying "verified" and "verifiable", but my primary response to your initial query is that the content you added is not verifiable. After that, any and all arguments you make about censorship and innuendo are irrelevant. Primefac (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
No, your primary response is right in there, it is, citing: "... mixture of WP:OR and potentially deliberate misinterpretation of source". The reason you provide different excuses is absence of any. You and such as you are exactly irrelevant, because words have meanings - fighting with words meanings is a rather futile (yet evidently not an impossible) and next time you'll attempt doing so, consider reply edits possibility using Comic Sans. 46.73.30.208 (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
To quote from the top of WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. "Attributable" is a link to WP:V, which is that "verifiability" thing I've been harping on about. In other words, saying "no OR" is the same thing as saying "we need verification". Please don't try to play wordsmith with me when I know the policies on these topics very well. Being petulant is just about as bad as using comic sans, for what it's worth, so I guess we're both tilting at windmills. Primefac (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
And as i've said, there is nothing unverifiable. Here is response to your "wordsmith" allegations - it is time and time is an unbeatable constant that settles any debates eventually (one way or another): https://www.google.com/search?q=nestle+purina+%22friskies%22+russia+2022
Timeline for the contributed information: data in part of availability became publicly verifiable in less than a week, eventually, even by your questionable standards, yet still with intact state since July for https://web.archive.org/web/20220611091500/https://www.nestle.ru/media/pressreleases (applies to purina.ru as well), no back calls to direct related queries by official and public contacts from them and their representatives in US and Russia.
That certainly adds up to the cost and value of your knowledge of some rules on wordsmith mastery and application of such in a wild, thus comic sans here is a must font option. Looks pale, under pile of self-esteem and poorly backed pretentious entitlement, my condolences and apologies if anything of that all was unexpected for your majesty. I promise to be simple quiet on your "encyclopedia of censorship" from now on and there is no reason left i'd be looking for a response to this one. 46.72.216.188 (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Google Search is not a reliable source. Using the website to somehow prove that "purina has gone media silent" is exactly OR and against NPOV. 0xDeadbeef 12:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For your help and guidance with the page move! Joyce-stick (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Primefac (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:User current age

@Primefac: Hi bro! Please help me for {{User current age/months}} and {{User current age/years}}. There is an error in both templates like "Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".". I am from Uzbek Wikipedia and we copied your codes to our wiki and created a new template. But, our version doesn't work, I mean this template shows only, for example, if today is August 22, then the template does not work if the person was born on the 23rd. Please, could you fix it ?. I believe when you repair your templates and the error will be vanished, we will fix ours like yours. Thank you bro! Optima D (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe there is anything broken here - on the template page itself, there is an "error" because it is trying to send {{{month}}} to an #ifexpr, which is not allowed. During normal operation, a value will be passed to {{{month}}} and it will then show the correct value. Do you see any errors with {{user current age}} itself? If not, I would maybe try wrapping the subpage code in <includeonly>...</includeonly> so that it does not display on the page. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Deepali Pansare

I did try to move it to draft space only to find another different version in draft, I'd though the two should be merged together in draft space. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is content that should be merged from one page to the other, by all means do so (giving proper attribution), but a histmerge is specifically when there is a copy/paste with no attribution. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Let me know !

Is it possible for me to instruct my friends and colleagues on Wikipedia editing? Regarding SPI, I'm worried. Given that some of them are interested, how can I set them up with accounts and teach them the fundamentals of editing Wikipedia? It was just something I wanted to know. Best Regards, DIVINE (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me. If you want to go to your friends and say "hey, try out Wikipedia, it's the cool thing to do!" and then show them the basics of editing, I see no issue with that; we're always looking for folks to get interested in editing Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
So what if they register their account and start basic editing? Will I be on the radar of same IP or not? If there'll be multiple peoples like 5-6 register in the same time with same location or IP which might be possible at the same time? Or should I contact any account creator to create a new account for them? DIVINE (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
See WP:SHARE and WP:BROTHER. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm asking while creating the account. Everytime all persons won't be on same IP address. And while teaching them sometimes being together it helps without any edit warring or promotional stuffs. DIVINE (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
They should be creating their accounts, or requesting them via ACC. I don't know what that has to do with edit warring though; hopefully that would be "lesson 1" that you tell them. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou Prime, got it. So, firstly what I'm gonna do is teach them and show little bit about wikipedia by myself than later on will tell them to request to create account Via ACC and if needed will tell them to follow WP:SHARE. Regards, DIVINE (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Email security

Hi Primefac, not wishing to disturb you unnecessarily, but I saw some 'interesting' activity after conducting a log analysis following an email exchange many months ago. It may be appropriate for you to run some security checks on your email account to ensure there is no inappropriate access there. Chumpih t 22:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm genuinely not sure what you are trying to say (though I recognise there are some potentially some BEANS implications that keep you from posting). Could you please send me an email with more details? If you are concerned that my account has been compromised, you can also email oversight, which is I believe within the bounds of acceptability since it deals with private information; if you go the latter route, please make sure you mention the email is directed at me specifically so another agent doesn't try to handle it (and/or block me). Primefac (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

When you get a minute

Look at the log for this article, and then jump over to here to see time wasted, and your copyvio removal to this revert and take a look at this, this, and this, and how those creations are patrolled by the same editor within a day, which may not be a biggy. AGF relative to fixing behavior was a miscalculation. CIR is an issue. Atsme 💬 📧 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So if I'm reading this correctly, they were blocked, unblocked with the assumption of mentoring, and have now performed so poorly that they have been un-mentored and you (the mentor) are suggesting a re-block? Primefac (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Unless you have a better option...it is relentless, tendentious editing and an obvious case of DHT. I've not seen it quite to this magnitude before, aside from one other editor I tried to mentor because he was proficient in Arthurian legend, but simply was unable to adjust to community norms. Of course, each case is different and I still believe that mentoring new editors can be productive, but they have to be willing subjects. In this case, we are not dealing with a new editor; the behavior has been on going since 2020, and there is no indication the behavior will change. Atsme 💬 📧 10:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Blocked. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User ignoring Cut-and-paste warnings

Hi Primefac, I hate to be a bother, but I could use some advice. If a user is repeatedly copy and pasting their articles that was moved to draft space, back to the main space, is that something I should report to WP:INCIDENTS, or just apply histmerge tags to?

Not counting the articles already merged, I'm dealing with a user who's done this quite a few times in August alone. Not counting the pages that have already been histmerged (of which there are several), some of the pages include;

Any advice would be appreciated, as I'd hate to waste your time with bad histmerge requests. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Meant to reply to this earlier, too late now, will reply in the morning. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
If the pages should be deleted and/or kept in the draft space until they are acceptable, then I would suggest going to ANI and getting an article-space ban and/or a requirement that all new pages they make must go through AFC. However, I notice that none of the pages you've linked here have been deleted (or even nominated?), so if the end-result of their editing is an acceptable page, I suppose simply not moving the pages back to draft might solve the issue. Primefac (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I guess I'm bothered by them having articles moved to draft space, submitting them, them being declined, then them deciding to paste them into article space anyways. While I feel like some of those topics should be nominated at XfD, I don't feel comfortable enough yet to make those nominations, or to bring this to ANI based on the fact that others haven't nominated any of those articles yet. For what it's worth, those versions of the article in main space are improved from when I moved them draft space. Thank you for the response, I appreciate the feedback and guidance. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to start a discussion with them. So far I see no indication that they have ever edited their user talk, but also I notice that the only messages left have been templates. Maybe try a personal note asking that they maybe start in the draft space and make sure it's fully ready before moving the page? Primefac (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It Is No Secret

Thanks for moving It's No Secret to It Is No Secret, along with the histmerge. I was considering doing that myself, but hadn't decided on whether or not to do an RM first. BilCat (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Aye, no worries. I would have left it at the dab'd title but I genuinely couldn't find any sources or indication that it ever was shortened. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

OS/revdel via email

Fairly often I report things that I know are only revdelable since there is no other method to report something without further publicising. I saw a moment after I sent the email it was already being taken care of, so thanks for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish:! WP:REVDELREQUEST covers how you can request with more specifics, but emailing an individual admin or requesting in the #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel are ways to share revdel (but not OS) worthy diffs discretely without risking a Streisand effect. In the case of OS worthy I'd review this, but in short you could email the OS team or send "!oversight PM" in that IRC channel and wait for an oversighter to PM you and send them the diff that way. (talk page stalker) TheSandDoctor Talk 15:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
What I was saying is I normally just email OS, rather than have to log onto IRC and go through that, or try and find an admin who I think is active and checking their email. I posted this message because I got the "we can't suppress this due to policy" form reply, and I wanted to explain that I knew it wasn't OS-worthy, but I was aiming for a revdel. I've done this several times in the past, although I normally note in the email that it doesn't need OS, just revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry SFR, I generally send that reply when it's not even RD'able (which in my opinion AND Prax's it wasn't), otherwise I'll indicate that it's been RD'd. I did notice it was hidden later, but it's not really worth it to reverse. You are more than welcome to send RD requests to the OS queue - we have a "this has been RD'd" boilerplate as well! Primefac (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I've gotten that quite a few times. Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hi there,

You responded to my email Inquiry where I was trying to add my credit to the cast list of Hellraiser (2022 film), and the issue that I was having with the user Maxbmogs, because of him single-handedly deciding that “nobody cared”. Well now it seems that he’s gone a step ahead and deleted my credit on a completely separate film Extinction (2018 film) for no apparent reason except out of malice. The film is out, I’m credited, did a role as character Luke… hmm :/

I do see on his user page that he’s been warned of warring with other users. I really have no interest with warring with anyone, I’m just trying to have Wikipedia reflect correct information. I’ve been listed in other films correctly.

Please let me know what I can do?

Thanks, Nik NikolaLA9 (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC) wikilinks to pages added, feel free to revert this if you do not want them. Primefac (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there are two issues at play here. The first is that your role in these films does not appear to be credited anywhere except in aggregate sites like IMDb (which cannot be used as a reference in and of itself). The second issue is that you do not have your own Wikipedia article. Either one of these issues would be surmountable by themselves, but combined it means that we have a "non-notable" (per Wikipedia's definition) name without a reference on a page, which is generally not permitted (exceptions do apply, of course).
If you can find a reference that includes your name, then there should be no issue with re-adding your name to whichever cast lists you have been removed from. For whatever reason the user in question doesn't seem to respond to their user talk messages, but I do note that you have attempted to contact them, which is a good first step should any sort of dispute resolution get started - you're at least trying to communicate.
If after finding sources and if discussion fails, there are other routes to take, but start there and see where you get first. Primefac (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi there,
First of all thank you for your response. It’s nice to have someone explain things :) Also, I have no interest in adding content that is not true or cannot be verified. This is why I reached out to the user to begin with.
When it comes to those films, I’m credited in the closing credits, and have contracts with the studios that state my role, compensation, shoot dates, etc.. I also have call sheets from the set… and needless to say there’s the film itself, which I’m clearly in.
How would you suggest I go about showing the credit? Post a screenshot of the credits/contract as a link somewhere? We are doing press for Hellraiser and that I why I’d like to be added to the page, as I will be participating in press events.
Thanks again for responding and understanding.
Nik
NikolaLA9 (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, none of those things that you mentioned are suitable for use; while there is no explicit prohibition on using a film as a reference, it is discouraged and essentially disallowed. Your contract(s) are not published material that can be used, nor are call sheets. Ideally we would need mention in a reliable source, even if it's just a mention of your name (such as how the Metacritic page for Extinction lists you, so I have added it back in to that article). Basically, unless there's a link that someone can point to, your name cannot be added. That being said, even if there is a link there is a small possibility that consensus will determine you should not be on the list, but that is something that requires a talk page discussion to explicitly disallow. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks again. That makes sense. So when the film comes out I should point to press articles that reference my name as the starting point.
And not to take up any more of your time, but you do suggest that I write an article page on my career?
Thanks!
NikolaLA9 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Btw there’s a lot of articles on the web that reference me as part of the cast on Hellraiser. I just googled it with my name. This one has the entire cast listed for instance:
https://www.thetechoutlook.com/internet/entertainment/hulus-hellraiser-2022-is-going-to-make-its-premiere-on-october-7-2022-know-more/ NikolaLA9 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome to start a draft page, but just from a quick Google search I don't know if it would be acceptable as an article - you do not appear to yet meet WP:NACTOR, nor does there seem to be enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Autobiographies are some of the hardest articles to write, so I would advise waiting until you are notable enough to the point where someone else writes about you. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

drafts by 216.x.y.z

I noticed you promoted Mihajlo Bokoric from draft space with categorization and no other cleanups. Please note that User_talk:216.8.174.152#March_2022_2 applies here - this user has been doing pretty shoddy work for a while now, and we need to not let their stuff into main space without careful inspection. In this case there was nothing very nutty about this one, but it still had some glaring errors in the title and the birthplace, so please apply more rigor when you notice these in the future. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Primefac (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about been judged by G12 deletions on my talk page

Dear @user:Primefac, it’s me again, just want to be cleared.

I noticed when I requested for AfC, you specifically said you were concerned about the G12 deletions on my page, however all of this were while I was a newbie on Wikipedia. So here’s my concern, how do I leave this G12 deletion stain, cause for almost 2yrs, I’ve barely had a deleted article, ever since I now understand how it works, but this concern still follows my page, just want to hear from you.

Regards, B.Korlah (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I will give it a second look the next time I go through the requests. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response @user:Primefac, please at your time, kindly give it a second look and let me know what you think. Thank you. B.Korlah (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear @user:Primefac, I got a notification that you added me to active reviewers on AfCH, but I do not have it, could you please confirm? B.Korlah (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Might be a cache issue. See Wikipedia:Purge. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Consider removing semi-protection from Phi Mu Alpha?

With the election of the new NEC, I would think the page will naturally become more stable. I definitely don't see a need to have it indefinitely semi'd. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 06:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Likely so. To be honest, I forgot there was semi-protection on it in the first place. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I was just looking at Draft:Bates Log House and it has a large quote from the historic places nomination form. At first I thought as this is from as US gov site it was probably PD but as it's unclear who wrote the actual nomination so maybe the gov do not own the copyright. Thoughts? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's attributed, and it's a "quote" (rather than someone passing off a paragraph as their own writing), so I think the primary question becomes whether such a large paragraph is necessary. From a cv standpoint, though, it can probably stay. Primefac (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree I don't like such large quotes, especially compared to the rest of the article it dominates. KylieTastic (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of page under copyvivo rational

Hello, you responded to CSD G12 on article International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism so fast that I had no chance to contest the nom, so I would like to know, please, what do you think how much of its text was exactly copyvivo in this case? I contest that just a line consisting of up to ten words at the most should have, maybe, been replaced with better paraphrasing, which really makes me think there was some laziness in nominators review, maybe you too missed the opportunity to maybe try and warn me so that we can salvage stub article on interesting subject and with some potential to grow. Even though article was of such a small size, other option existed, for instance, if just a small portion of text was problematic, could a warning have been enough, so that I could simply change the part of the text that you, nominator or anyone else think is problematic? ౪ Santa ౪99° 13:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not what I think, it's how much I know was copied directly, which was all but the first sentence and about seven words that were interspersed or added to the text. If the only thing left is a single sentence, it's easy enough to start over (and encourages doing it correctly). If you need any of the non-infringing content such as the references, let me know and I'll recover them for you. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, let's see if you can help - here's this text and would you be kind to tell if it suits:
International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism is a commemoration and a remembrance day, and it is observed on 9 November. On that day 1938, the Kristallnacht pogrom was perpetrated. It was a prelude for the European Jewry annihilation under the Nazi regime. On the night of 9 November, Storm Troopers, also known as "SA", together with a mob of civilians in German cities and towns, destroyed more than 8000 homes and shops belonging to German Jews, synagogues were set on fire, and while many were unlawfully arrested and detained, others were injured and/or killed. Today 9 November is considered to be the symbolic beginning of the Holocaust, and is commemorated as the International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism.
--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
That does not appear to be a copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:The Calgary Prostitute Murders

You did not remove the prostitution allegations from this, as the very title alleges that the victims were prostitutes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

They've also been dead for 30 years. You are welcome to change the title, but if that's what it's known as in the press, then that's what we should probably call it. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

2020 Winter Youth Olympics

Hi

For these NOC's (Albania, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Haiti, Hong Kong, Kosovo, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Turkmenistan and Trinidad and Tobago) they all made their Winter Youth Olympics in 2020, but their infoboxes show 2012 and 2016 in red. Is there away of greying out for these 12? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've got an update to make to the page and I'll add these in. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

MCC tour of Australia in 1962–63

That was incredibly quick. I thought I must have done something wrong and started organising a search party! Anyway, I don't believe there can be any doubt about the copyvio so the sooner the better. Well done and thank you very much. BoJó | talk UTC 07:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You gave a rather thorough and reasonable explanation on the talk page, which I appreciated. Primefac (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
No problem. Glad I could be of help. All the best. BoJó | talk UTC 07:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Note on TMI

Hey! I noticed that once you had removed the rest of the TMI from a user's talk page, you left a note. Is there a template that will do this for you or is it something you have to type by hand each time you do so? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a template. There a few different variations that OSers use but that one's the easiest for me to remember. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah alright sounds good. I was looking for a warning for a user adding TMI but couldn't find one. BUt since I'm not an OSer I won't worry about it. Thanks! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I suppose you could always use {{Uw-blog}}. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
IN that case ya I probably could. Although usually it wouldn't make sense given the stuff that's removed isn't always promotional. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
True. In fairness, though, if it were just you removing non-OSable content, I'd just leave a quick note about why you did it; the selfinfo template is useful for OSers because it contains a lot of helpful links, which you might not necessarily need for smaller issues. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Alright sounds good. Thanks Primefac! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

AWB request

Hi, I've requested permission for using AWB at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser for three days now but it seems nobody is there to respond. Did I have done anything wrong with my request? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Three days is not terribly long. I myself only check perm requests there about once a week if not less frequently. Please be patient until someone reviews your request. Primefac (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Nickelodeon (South Korean TV channel)

Hi, I think Talk:Nickelodeon (South Korean TV channel) might need to be undeleted. An IP editor redirected the article for a botched attempt at a C&P move, and I think they may have done the same with the talk page. Can you please check? Thanks, Storchy (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought I saw a redirect deleted in there. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

BLP violations

You appear to have restored a version from an editor with a conflict of interest WP:COI claiming a BLP violation at Jo Boaler. Could you please come to the talk page and clarify what the BLP violations where and how best to address those. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Following up, as this seems to have slipped. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to this diff, in which I remove entirely disparaging remarks about Boaler that have nothing to do with the framework or are particularly note-worthy with regard to her life; it's just mud-slinging from various entities about a disagreement predicated on a misunderstanding. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you characterize the second paragraph very well. However, the first paragraph is all well sourced, and worth including given that she's been working on this for several years now. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit

Can you revert this please? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_youngest_killers&action=history 2601:206:301:4A90:59E7:E3A9:45F2:62D2 (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert what? Primefac (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you delete a redirect?

Whelp, after learning that Queen Elizabeth II has died, I had to make new redirects to pages where it hasn't made a "King" into a redirect of the British Monarch in most countries. However, while I was doing one, I accidently made this but with a comma: King of St. Lucia,... oops ^^; Is it possible if you can delete this ASAP? IDK if I got the nomination right. Since this was done in complete error. 20chances (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure whether "ASAP" was necessary here, but it also looks like someone beat me to the punch anyway. Primefac (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Ahh. At least it was solved. Whelp, at least mistakes happen, even at a time like this. 20chances (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Tiana Wilson

Please make a Wikipedia page for Tiana Wilson (from youtube). You have her name under the Kid Influencer article. Preciouscupcake (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not really an area I have much interest in editing; you are welcome to ask that the page be made by posting at WP:RA. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about rights renewals

I would like to ask, do temporarily-granted rights have to expire before reapplying for the rights? Disclaimer, I am not applying for my pagemover rights to be renewed right now (I will let them naturally expire) until some time next month (or so) for various reasons. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've seen it done both ways; I suspect some folks don't realise the perm has expired before they re-apply, but others are more proactive and can demonstrate before the rights expire that it is a useful thing to have. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that CSD G6

I was looking on AfD and saw the page result was delete and it was not a NAC but there was a blue link to the page, so I G6'd. I should've looked at the article history. My bad trout Self-trout. TartarTorte 18:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You declined one CSD but there is another CSD tag still on the page. I was in the middle of expanding the page that was AFDed, when it got CSDed once. I recreated a much expanded version, which I think is a valid DAB, but it got tagged with CSD again. I think a deletion proposal should now be at AFD. MB 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I was more concerned with the G6 than the G14 - not being totally familiar with the latter criteria I wanted to deal with some other issues before potentially circling back around to it (or more likely letting someone else deal with it). Primefac (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, the rationale for G14 is clearly relevant in this case, irrespective of what MB believes to be the case. MB, maybe you ought to actually read about what a DAB page actually is, as the current incarnation is not a DAB page. Consider, besides the current primary topic, which other articles are listed on the page necessary for the existence of a dab article (but lets not spam Primefac's talk page with this). Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Recreate or start new page?

Hi. I need to recreate this page with some editing and new sources. Should I start a new page with the same title or can this content be recovered?

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

EDIT174 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

EDIT174, just edit Draft:Jeremy Murphy. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. EDIT174 (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How would you go about making the RfC?

There surely has to be some way to ask whether or not there is a way to clarify consensus. If not we're not not only allowed to count for consensus, but we're also prohibited from asking about asking about support for consensus. Can you do me a favor and explain how to make the RfC in a proper way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespearthrower (talk • contribs) 06:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is an incredibly well-defined matter on Wikipedia, and does not need an RFC to "clarify" it. If you are confused about the various types of consensus that are needed to perform various types of editing, then you should ask for that clarification at either the Village Pump or the Teahouse.
The other thing I'll note is that your question just simply did not require an RFC. "How should we determine consensus here" is a question, not a "come one come all!" declaration that requires 30 days of discussion. Primefac (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1085259140 whose lta please? dont go after adress but content 93.137.77.246 (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I cannot go after a single address because the IP is constantly changing, hence why I protected the pages directly. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

Hi! It seems you requested a speedy deletion of the page A Short Walk to Pluto! I am a wikipedia beginner and would like to restore the material from the article and remake it to fit credibly under section A7.

Can you provide me to retrieve the deleted material?

Thank you, Carol :) PizzaPopz (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the page to Draft:A Short Walk to Pluto. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it :) PizzaPopz (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Histmerge request

Just checked back on my histmerge request for Jaiden Animations and noticed you declined the request because you didn't see "any evidence that older versions of the page (regardless of your work on them) were used in the creation of the current version." However, the edit history of the current version of the page begins on June 10, 2019. In the earliest revision currently available and on the current version of the page, there are references with Retrieved dates from December 2018 and early 2019, which is when I worked on a draft of the page.

I used my sandbox which you can see here to start a pre-draft of it, before later moving it to a draft. For full history, here's the first earliest edit I could find which was on December 15, 2018 and here's the last edit of my sandbox I could find which was on December 29, 2018. Multiple references on that Dec 29 version feature references that are still present on the current article, complete with access dates. I don't know the technical ins and outs of Wikipedia super well, so I'm not sure why the page history of Draft:Jaiden Animations doesn't show this but I figured that the history merge process could help with that? Soulbust (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You do seem to be correct, I missed some of the earlier revisions that are pretty clearly copy/pasted (how and when is beyond me, the page has been moved and deleted so many times it's hard to keep track), so I restored the diffs from your versions and histmerged them in. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, there's been a lot of deletion and recreation with that page for sure. But thank you, I appreciate your help with the histmerge. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Large revision deletion

Hi Primefac,

At [1] you revision deleted a lot of edits over what (in my opinion) is a small amount of copyvio. Several of the intermediate edits were substantial. I respect your decision, but in line with Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Large-scale_use I've never seen so many edits be redacted before. Ovinus (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't go digging through my logs then (or Diannaa's, for that matter). While we don't regularly have to hide 200+ revisions (it really is a bit of a rarity) we've each done 1000+ diff RD1s before. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Horrifying. Thanks for the info/context. I've had several revdel requests declined for containing too many diffs; should I err on the side of requesting? Ovinus (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Always request. I'm not sure who is declining, and I cannot make any statements about the appropriateness of those declines, but from my perspective it is always better to decline a request than miss something important. Primefac (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't want to bother you further, but if it at all concerns you: Special:Diff/1099898132 is 2500 bytes of copyvio, about 40 revisions old; Special:Diff/1099893450 is about 5000 bytes of copyvio, about 200 revisions. (these were declined) Ovinus (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Return of Flag

Hi @User:Primefac, How are you doing? It’s me again - Thanks for the other time, I will now want to return the AfC flag I requested for earlier, as much as I tried my best to review various AfC and drop reviews where needed, I’ve now decided to return the flag owing to the fact that @User:Gabriel601 has resorted to making me feel less of myself because I didn’t accept his article at the time cause it needed more work, however, I feel I just need to take a break from AfC. Thank you very much B.Korlah (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You don’t need to take a break or return the flag because I corrected you with references on Notability guidelines on Geographic regions which is clearly stated. I am sorry if I made you feel bad which I also said earlier have got no issues with you. I look forward to your continuous impact on Wikipedia with Good Faith. This also has nothing to do with accepting my article, just stating fact from the wiki law guarding editing. If you need to return the flag that should be you feel theirs something you feel you ain’t doing right but still that doesn’t call for a removal because you can still improve. Do have a great day ahead, cheers.--Gabrielt@lk 18:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:Gabriel601, you telling me you wonder how I got the rights in the face place cause of some issues on my profile is very demeaning and doesn’t show a friendly policy space that is intended, a user declined your article on basis of the references not showing that the article meets the notability guide, the best you can do is to resubmit and let another person review it simply, not taking to my talk page to call me out and ask how I got the rights in the first place, it is very demeaning, but I take no offense and that is why I didn’t even respond to you but decided to reach out to @User:Primefac to just take the flag (for now). Thanks. B.Korlah (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep up the good work friend. I’m really not good in health. Feeling a little bit sick & I’m sorry if I made you feel bad. No need for your flag removal because of this concern. --Gabrielt@lk 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish bureaucrat chat

Hi Primefac, I have started a bureaucrat discussion for ScottishFinnishRadish's RfA. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish/Bureaucrat chat. Thanks in advance. Acalamari 01:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia block quote

FROM WIKIPEDIA: A block quotation (also known as a long quotation or extract) is a quotation in a written document that is set off from the main text as a paragraph, or block of text, and typically distinguished visually using indentation and a different typeface or smaller size font. This is in contrast to setting it off with quotation marks in a run-in quote. Block quotations are used for long quotations. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends using a block quotation when extracted text is 100 words or more, or approximately six to eight lines in a typical manuscript.[1]

The problem is not with blockquotes — the problem might be length of blockquotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suslindisambiguator (talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you are not taking the time or effort to write things in your own words, and thus are just copying big chunks of text without need or reason. A block quote should be quoting someone, not just slapping text someone has already written about a subject because you cannot be bothered to do so yourself. Primefac (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Quotations and Dialogue (Chapter 13)". The Chicago Manual of Style Online (17th ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 2017. pp. 13.22–13.24. ISBN 978-0-226-28705-8. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

What is the difference between quoting an expert in my articles and quoting an expert in the following "Satire" section? How many Wikipedia editors have reviewed your deletions of my blockquotes? In my opinion, Primefac's deletions of my blockquotes are related to style issues far more than copyright issues. I see no copyright problems with the blockquotes I have added in the past 6 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Satire Suslindisambiguator (talk)

Thank you for the complex histmerge

….. on height above mean sea level. I didn’t realize it was going to be that complicated, and it turned out very nicely. Thanks for fixing it! — hike395 (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry it took me a week to find the time to sort it out! I don't think it would have been as difficult if there hadn't been the parallel histories and the merge halfway through. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Question

Um... why? - wolf 20:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The archives were fixed by simply renaming the pages; they did not need to be deleted. Primefac (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I asked for the deletion to make way for a page move, (#5 to #2, which would be easier than moving 130kb over manually), and #3, #4 & #5 would be need to be deleted anyway. But all that aside, you could've simply asked me about it, instead of undoing everything. It was some simple, straight-forward re-organizing. It was needed... still is. - wolf 06:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Five pages were blanked and nominated for deletion, none of which needed to be deleted (or blanked). Stopping to discuss the merits of a speedy deletion tag is somewhat antithetical to the point of a "speedy" tag; I declined the nomination and restored the content. I do not necessarily consider it disruptive, but sometimes clicking the "rollback" button is the far easier method of handling multiple diffs needing to be undone. I do not see why the archives need reorganising; other than being poorly named/numbered initially, those issues appear to have been sorted. Primefac (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't changing the any of the content, just moving it to the first page, in the same chronological order, until the page was at 100kb (instead of 7kb). At that point I was going to move 100 of the 130kb from #5 to #2, and the remaining 30kb to #3, which would then become the current archiving page. It was basically a mess that I was putting some order to, as 100kb is a somewhat standard size for archives. Deleting #2 was for the move, #3 for the name error, and #4 & #5 becuase they were no longer needed.

This was not harming the project in any way, just improving it. I've come across some archives where the pages only had single sections, with less 1kb per page, and some where the order has been messed up, (eg: by date). If I have some time to kill, I fix them. I've never had an admin take issue with that, or undo all the work I did or refuse to delete the unneeded pages I tagged. So, now that you know the details, can I finish? - wolf 11:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I never said (and hopefully never implied) that there was any sort of harm involved in this. The edits leading up to my reverts were done incorrectly (no attribution given, no explanation for why anything was moved anywhere, incorrect CSD rationale, etc), which is why I declined the CSDs. I think there are better ways to spend one's time than making sure every archive everywhere is >100mb and laid out perfectly, but I also generally have better things to do. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, well I'm going to finish there since I already put in the effort. While I haven't had a problem with it before, if I come across another set of messed up archives and decide to fix them, I'll make sure to attribute, explain and clarify in the csd's, inline with your concerns here. Thanks, and have a nice day - wolf 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

2023 Pan American Games

Hi, I had a couple of questions/requests: Is it possible to Competitors part of the Nation infoboxes to fit on one line? As of right now it looks a bit clunky [2]. Secondly, 19 of the nation pages have been created, so is it time now for the 2023 year to be linked to the infoboxes? Thank you in advance. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the first part - if we force the infobox to be wide enough, it will be very wide. I've updated the module for 2023 though. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. If it will cause the infobox too be wide, we can leave it. IS there away of seeing how it will look? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
You could test out the changes in the sandbox and then either preview a live page or use the template's testcases page. Primefac (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Dar al-Arqam

Please check Again, Dar al-Arqam copied from Wikipedia. Link: Al-Arqam ibn Abi al-Arqam#The House of Al-Arqam.–MinisterOfReligion (Talk) 15:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I am not sure how I missed that many edit summaries indicating the various reverse-copyvios. Primefac (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access adjustment, please?

On this blocked editor's talk page Thank you Adakiko (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that one coming. I had very small odds on it not, which is why I didn't pull TPA, but I've done so now. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Kept popping up on Huggle. Silly. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila Jenkins

Thank you for the procedural nomination for deletion. I wonder if you are following the discussion? I hope so. There is a thought that this might be closed procedurally based upon the inability to id the requestor coupled with the veiled legal threat at the head. As nominator your thoughts woudkl be appreciated, perhaps there, or in a venue of your choice.

We appear to have a kind of attack page (or not) and a kind of legal threat about it. This appears to be outside the scope of a normal AfD 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Short answer is yes, it's on my watchlist; I haven't checked Wikipedia since mid-afternoon yesterday so I'm not fully caught up (but will be in the next hour or two). Primefac (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. That has cleared a lot of things up. It's good to stand back from things 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

CUOS

Hi Primefac. Can you tell me what "private information" I shared here? My intention was to share my opinion of the candidate. – Joe (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You started a sentence with "I don't want to cast aspersions" and then proceeded to say how you were not allowed to give any evidence for the preceding paragraph of text. If you have evidence that supports your statements (in particular the "careless who..." comment) it should be sent to the arbs, since this phase is designed to assist us in making a decision (and is not being used for any sort of community consensus-building process). As I said, I have no issues with you re-adding your opinions, just maybe with broader strokes. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I do remember how the process works. But help me out here, what exact text is "private information"? What should I remove? I stated my opinion (as we are invited to do) and explained why I could not be more specific about my reasons for having that opinion. I have discussed the incidences of harassment I'm basing this on with arbs at some length before so I don't think anything else needs to be sent to you guys. – Joe (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
You implied that they have shared non-public information with other users, which is rather concerning from an Arb perspective if we're talking about someone who could potentially be getting access to more personal information about editors (which is why I asked for that info to be sent to us). I do recognise that you cannot link on-wiki to those discussions due to our policies as they stand, but since you cannot do so it then borders on casting aspersions. I do recognise that there is a bit of a catch-22 in there, but I am not quite sure the best way to resolve it yet. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that and I have no reason to believe that they have. I'd be happy to clarify my comment accordingly. And if the problem is aspersions, surely you can recognise we have a problem if people are free to use positive interactions off-wiki as a reason to give someone advanced permissions, but mention of negative interactions is forbidden?
But... I really have to add, the harassment I received there, which in my view the candidate was complicit in, and which rose to jokes about my death, deeply affected me and had me considering leaving the project for the first time in my 17 years here. I have tried to bring it up a few times, each time only when relevant to the discussion at hand, each time trying to stay within the (absurd) policy on Discord logs, and each time I've been chastised by oversighters (oh how happy I am to have handed in those bits) for even raising it. I have tried to talk about it with arbs, and the committee has not only done nothing, but supported the advancement of those involved. Meanwhile, those who were involved are free to cast aspersions about me in Signpost articles, and their 'friends' are given free reign to talk about what a nice chap they are on Discord in RfAs and CUOS and wherever. I can't express how dejected and disappointed I feel that you've once again decided that it is more important to maintain this farce of pretending that people don't talk about Wikipedia and Wikipedians on a public, openly Wikipedia-associated chat platform we can all read right this second, than to allow me to discuss my experience there where it is relevant, and where it matters. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
No, you're right; there really isn't any good way to say what you've said without saying it in the way you've said it. I was operating under the "remove it first" ideology following an email I received about your post, but have restored it now. My apologies for the hassle. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine

Hi, this subject (under a different title) was created on July 24, but an editor created another one on August 11, who apparently did not know about the already created. I ask for a history merge to be made to correct this. Thanks Sakiv (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not see that there was any sort of copy/paste page move, which likely indicates that the user creating the second page simply did not realise the first page existed. Therefore, there is no attribution to preserve and no need for a histmerge. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Is this an argument to delete a page's history just because the editor didn't bother looking for it.--Sakiv (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
There isn't any deletion needed anywhere. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

AfC reviewer Why? I Ask

Hi Primefac -- I came across a review of an academic (Stephen Eichhorn) by Why? I Ask that paid no heed to WP:PROF, and fed this back to them on their talk page, asking them to review WP:PROF before reviewing academics again, to be met with an immediate, no-comment reversion. I'm minded to remove the AfC-reviewing privilege, at least until they respond in some fashion, but as you've only just conferred it, I'm deferring to your judgment. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Normally it is assumed that the removal of notices on one's talk page indicates that they have seen the message and have no response to it. However, our criteria state that a reviewer should have a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews. Removing a notice with no response or even indication that they have understood the concern fails that metric in my eyes. If you feel that this is problematic enough to simply remove their access altogether, I will support that decision (though maybe a warning might be a good next step?). Primefac (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
In my experience it has invariably meant that they paid no heed to it, and didn't want other editors to see it. But perhaps I'm just having a bad day. I certainly think a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews. is not in evidence, and also knowledge of relevant notability guidelines. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Go for it. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I've slept on it, and gone with a fairly explicit warning. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I'm wondering about the "own work" claim for File:Steve Eichhorn.jpg being used in the main infobox of that article. The description states it's from 2012, but was taken in 2015. The Exif data also states 2015, but the same photo (or a crop of it) can be seen in this 2019 Twitter post; so, it seems as if Commons isn't the first time this has been published. Maybe it's a bit of overkill, but VRT verification might be necessary here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that -- could the date in the legend just be an error? Seems the most parsimonious possibility. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The same uploader has just had one deleted as copvio from new draft bio's (Draft:Lawrence Hoo) own website.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hundreds of IPA templates that appear to do the same basic thing

If you have a minute, would you mind taking a look at my comments at Template talk:IPA? See my note that begins with "The size of the word...." Am I missing something that would prevent these 300+ IPA-xx templates from being merged into a single template? I don't have the skills to do it, and I am not asking you to take on a project, but your thoughts would be welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is "probably not", in that you are not missing something; when I can randomly check a half-dozen templates that are only different by which language is hard-coded into it, they can (and probably should) be replaced by a single module, turning (for example) something like {{IPA-fr|o}} into {{IPA|fr|o}} without much difficulty or hassle. Primefac (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
That was my thinking as well. Thanks for the input. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for helping out at CCI! Your help is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! Not sure I really deserve this, just trying to help out with a situation I sorta created ;-) Primefac (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Blessings upon you ...

for your revdels at Lokanath Swami. Somewhat startling that such fell through the cracks. Ravenswing 14:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

While I dislike the necessity of my job, I'm always happy to be able to do it when needed. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Aminé

While I totally agree with you on the title of this article, I'll note that there are two failed RMs and it shouldn't have been bold moved. 162 etc. (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Whoops. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

I would like to be removed from WP:AFC/P for reasons I've specified on my user page. Thank you. Mori Calliope fan talk 03:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom EC

Hi Primefac, I see you were on the ArbCom election commission 3 years ago, and are still active. The nominations for this year's EC close in 2 days, and so far we have one nomination, and they've never been on the EC before. Would you consider joining them on the nomination page? IMHO, the EC should have at least one person who has done it before, so we don't lose institutional memory, and can pass it down to newbies who join this year. Hope you have ther time and the inclination. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Floq, I have not yet decided whether I am going to run for a second term on ArbCom, but joining ElectCom would invalidate me from running (which I suppose would make the decision for me?). I see that in the time since you posted here Cyberpower has thrown their hat in the ring, and Tony seems to have indicated a willingness if necessary (jeez, everyone's rather wishy-washy, just saw Vanamonde's reply as well!). So I guess if it's looking really dire I'll do it, but you'll owe me a seat in the next round of ACE if I decide to run again! Primefac (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I am, of course, an idiot. Wasn't trying to talk you off another term on the committee, I just completely forgot. Worse, I'd even taken you off my little canvassing list, and then when I looked at it before sending it the next day, I thought "oh! I forgot Primefac". Anyway, I'm much less concerned now that Cyberpower and maybe another old-timer are considering it, and of the two, I'd prefer you on the committee anyway, TBH. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
:-) Primefac (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Tunisia football team

Primefac,

I'm having an issue with a Tunisian (Arabic user محمد أمين الطرابلسي) who keeps editing his country's football team's article. The article was always written poorly (it looked like a non-native English speaker to me). It had way too much unnecessary content in the history section. I trimmed and copyedited all of it in August. For other countries' national football teams, the history section is just an overview. I asked him to stop edit warring multiple times. He listened after refusing to at first, although he reinstated the incorrect grammar junk again, so I removed it two weeks later, just today. The World Cup is coming up and I want as many football articles as possible to look good. I hope this user can be blocked so I don't have to deal with his poorly-written content.

Thanks, Nearly but not perfect (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I know this is probably not the answer you're looking for, but this looks more like a potential issue for WP:ANI than anything I can handle unilaterally. I do see that you have been in contact with them in the past, but it might be time to go to the article's talk page to get other opinions on the matter. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I did the ANI. Thank you! Nearly but not perfect (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Plans for the improvement of new articles

Hi Primefac. I pinged you recently on some preliminary discussions I'm having with the WMF. If the outcome is what we are aiming for, it will address the workload of AfC and the sad user-retention situation described above by User:Mori Calliope fan. If you would be interested in joining future Zoom discussions, please let me know. (FYI: @MB and Novem Linguae:). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I did see the ping, just haven't gotten around to fully reading or responding yet. I will try to get to that today (or tomorrow, had a huge histmerge drop on my lap). Primefac (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, just finished reading through anything. If you think I can be of help or insight into any processes going forward, and I'm available, I can jump in on calls as necessary. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let you know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

PinePhone Pro

You deleted this several weeks ago to make way for a draft acceptance that has not happened. Would you mind either completing the acceptance or restoring the page? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your help about donating text!

Thank you

May1787 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your assistance, it's appreciated. Turini2 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Any time. Primefac (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

AfC

Hi. Could you please reinstate my access to the helper script. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles for creation

Hi. The WT:AFCP is inactive? Because I submitted a request on talk page a few days ago but I haven't received any response. Can you please help me in reviewing my request? Your kind response will be appreciated. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please be patient; I get to the list when I get to it, and I was away this last weekend so I'm still catching up with on-Wiki business. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the response. I appreciate it. Fifthapril (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for taking the time to revdel the copyvio, instead of deleting the whole article on Draft:Peter Holder (organist). Above and beyond. I'll look at what was removed and, presuming it is encyclopedic, restore the information correctly then promote it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Aye, no worries, I was leaning towards deletion at first but there did seem to be enough to keep (plus, it's a draft, so who cares if it's just the bones). Primefac (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk page merge/histmerge for context preservation

I see a talk page at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Dorothy of Oz (film) that has some talk content and an Old AfD template. The article has been moved twice between and it's new talk page is at Talk:Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return and the original talk page now remains orphaned. What do you suggest? Merge and redirect or histmerge? Context: I see that an extremely vast majority of incubator redirects were deleted as cross-namespace redirects. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The following also belong to similar conditions, they had some content (include Old AfD template) in their Incubator talk page, with the subject Incubator page already deleted as cross-namespace redirect. These are:
—CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look as soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I ended up moving these to Archives of the various talk pages, since they're technically archives of old discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Strange case of self-promotion

Hello,

I was reading some articles and I found something strang and would like to share with you. This user: "Pasiluukka" used his name as user name and created several articles. All the articles are his papers which is a very clear case of self-promotion. For example, I suggest you to see "Similarity-based-TOPSIS" article. First: he used his paper which is a self-promotion. Second: that paper which proposed "Similarity-based-TOPSIS" was received less than 8 citations which is not notable. Third: This is small extension of "TOPSIS" article and there is no need to create a page for any small extension. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia a lot but I suggest you to check all pages which were created by this user. It seems that all of them need to be deleted. Thank you for your attention. Vegan2022 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Vegan2022, this sounds like an issue that WP:COIN would be more able to handle. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. I've got a question about WP:ACDS. How does ACDS applied to newly created articles in the mainspace? Can they be boldly created or do they need to go through AfC? I recently came across People’s Anti-Fascist Front via WP:MCQ#Adding logo for People’s Anti-Fascist Front. It seems as if the article was created in good faith, but it was created directly in the namespace. I did some very minor cleanup and added some banners to the article's talk page, but the article itself was never given a thorough assessment. I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan#People’s Anti-Fascist Front, but I haven't gotten a response yet. It seems that this article would certainly fall under some sort of DS given the subject matter, but I'm not sure if a formal discussion is needed for that. I'm not familiar with the subject matter at all, and I'm not very familiar with how claims in such article tend to be reliably sourced. There are, however, five cites to YouTube videos which may need to be reviewed per WP:YOUTUBE. The group is described as a "secret military organization" and I get that even such groups do use social media to get their message out to others; however, I'm not sure how that meets WP:COPYLINK for videos released on YouTube. It would seem to be much better to find secondary reliable sources reporting on the same content and use those for citations instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Pages that fall under a DS regime are automatically under that regime, pretty much from the minute they are created. Any editor may place notices such as {{Ds/talk notice}} on the talk page of affected pages, and uninvolved administrators may place additional sanctions as necessary. {{ds/alert}} is used to let editors know about any DS topics in which they find themselves editing. As far as linking to YouTube videos, if the group itself is releasing videos then there is not a COPYLINK issue (since they *are* the copyright holders). Primefac (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying things. I added {{ds/alert|topic=ipa}} to the top of the article's talk page. I'm not sure though what to do about {{ds/alert}}. Does it get added to the user talk page of everyone who's edited the article so far, even minor edits, or does it only get added to the user talk page of the creator? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
You can add it to any editor's talk page, provided they have not already received a DS notice on that topic in the last year. Whether you do it for the page creator or everyone who has edited the page is up to you. I would guess that the minor edits are just grammar/gnoming, so you probably don't need to notify everyone that has edited ;-) Primefac (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Revdel on Talk:NAFO

Hi Primefac. I don't think information that has been published in reliable sources such as Politico, CSIS, and Byline Times, and in my understanding the subject in question himself(?), needs to be revdel'd. Could you consider undoing your edit of my comment? Thanks :) Endwise (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not realise that it was only the last name that had been hidden for privacy reasons. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_41&oldid=1119748783"