User talk:PrimaPrime

OSM trivia 2
So I was trying to remove title from that infobox (using Show preview), so as to avoid the need for edits like this. I believe that's one of the infobox templates where omission of title automatically uses the article title as the infobox title.

I couldn't get this to work. Everything I tried completely broke the rendering, apparently due to some weird quirky coding interaction with. Syntactically, is required to be coded as part of the title value or something? I don't see anything implying that in the template doc.

Can you perchance provide any insight about this? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It should work if you nest inside module, although then the map will default to the bottom of the infobox. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think that's going to be viable. So I gather that the infobox title can't be defaulted with the map at the top. Like I said, weird and quirky. Oh well. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris
This is to inform you that I have opened a dispute resolution concerning the Kamala Harris Talk page "Attendance" item. You have commented there. I believe that the "2019" section of the article should reflect the well-documented fact that Senator Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kamala_Harris Jab73 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

October 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Lost Cause of the Confederacy, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing? Commentary and personal analysis? I tightened up the lede section, preserving the exact same sourcing and POV as before (I would know, I wrote a good amount of it a couple of years ago). PrimaPrime (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I jumped the gun. I'm always in favor of tighter writing. However, your new version removed some interesting summaries of article text discussing Reconstruction and the sense of noble and chivalrous sentiments claimed by the South. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

September 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lost Cause of the Confederacy, you may be blocked from editing. ''If you can show the source says “supposed” I’ll retract this. Use the article talk page, not this page.'' Doug Weller  talk 07:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No RS would dispute that the South seceded and fired the first shot. The cited source at pages 18 and 96 notes the false claims by Confederate partisans of "Northern aggression". Thus the term should be qualified as euphemistic or propagandistic in nature. Hardly disruptive.
 * Thank you for the unrelated DS reminders though, I've only been on Wikipedia for 8 years and sometimes I forget why this site has terrible editor retention. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I found several sources that clearly spell out the framing of the Civil War by revisionists as at least partially justified because of "supposed northern aggression". The wording made sense to me, and I felt it was important enough to add that to ensure readers don't mistake that facet of the "Lost Cause" narrative for historical fact. I added two of the sources; I could've added more but I felt like that would've been overkill. I hope this helps resolve the issue. Wes sideman (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 07:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 07:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1RR: 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Hi, it seems you've violated 1RR with these two reverts: 1 and 2. I would encourage you to self-RV and seek consensus on the talk page. Per this arbitration decision, I am bringing this to your attention before escalating further. Thanks! WillowCity (talk)  02:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had mentally counted that second diff as my one revert while waiting for anyone else to weigh in on the talk page section. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciated! It's a bit of a silly rule since you can just put it back in in 24 hours anyway (in theory, although I think this is frowned upon), but rules are rules as they say. I'll weigh in on the talk page if no one else responds. WillowCity  (talk)  03:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Frowned upon" indeed, which is why we should just move to a "know it when you see it" standard for edit warring, but hey, they never said the rules themselves have to assume good faith :) PrimaPrime (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)