User talk:Primefac/Archive 14

Block of Easythingtodo1
Regarding your block of for 24 hours: please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Editorofthepage1 and consider extending the block. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts
Do mind giving your take on this situation? User_talk:Sulfurboy Sulfurboy (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Combined edit war, copyright violation, personal attack situation
Hello Primefac you deleted copyright violating revisions on Chantelle Lee. The copyright violation was added by, but you redacted it. They restored the violating content with this edit where they also had an edit summary personally attacking me and accusing me of vandalism. I have explained on their page that vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, as well as giving them a copyright notice and a softly worded edit warning notice. They in this edit said that they recovered deleted/vandalised history, showing that not only that they don't understand what vandalism is but that they thought it would be appropriate to restore deleted material. The page has been tagged with a revdel, but that along with a copyright notice didn't stop them before.

I think that the editor probably means well, but I am not sure what is the best course of actions with all these problems rolled into one user. Any advice?

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , some people don't fully understand "vandalism" in the Wikipedia-sense, the same as many do not distinguish between Wikipedia "notability" and real-world "notability". If someone worked on something and it was summarily deleted, they're expected to be annoyed. If they didn't read (or understand) why those reversions were made, they could potentially consider it "vandalism". I notice that the editor in question has resumed editing the page, and has not yet re-added any more copyrighted materials, so at some point they seem to have figured things out.
 * So yes, the editor means well, I think they know what they're doing now, and unless it becomes a habitual problem (i.e. I'd suggest still watching the page for a bit) I don't think there's really much to do at this point. Thanks for the question, though! Primefac (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

removal unsourced material
You have removed unsourced material, could you please ignore the tags left behind by a certain user. This editor has zero standing in the chemistry community, is only known for plastering pages with unsourced tags and doing none of the work. The chemistry community wants to ignore this person. We welcome editors who fact-check and we welcome editors who contribute cites. If you tag content you should explain why you think the content is incorrect V8rik (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, which page are you discussing? Primefac (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Chemical compound V8rik (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be that. The content has sat unsourced for a couple of years now. I have no issue if someone wants to restore the content, but per WP:V I am perfectly justified in removing it, since it appears to me that no one is interested or able to source those sections. Even if it's true, I would rather have a shorter, well-sourced page than a longer and potentially-wrong page. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * we disagree, you could also have opted for the opposite action: arrive at the conclusion that no-one in the last 2 years has been buying into the "expert needed" tag and remove the tag not the content. I will leave it at that, thanks for your reply. V8rik (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops...
A giant one at that. I explained at the TP. Atsme 📞📧 15:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wondering
Is there any way to check the creator-account of any deleted article? Winged Blades Godric 10:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, by pinging an admin ;-) Primefac (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I ought to have mentioned:-without admin intervention :) I wonder, why there's no thing like WP:Creation Log, given that, anybody can easily aquire a list of deleted articles of any particular contributor. Winged Blades Godric 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Maybe it's easier to keep a record of pages created by a user than it is to keep a record of every page created (given how many get deleted on a regular basis).
 * The Wish List has been posted... somewhere. Maybe ask for one? Primefac (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It just means one more log entry. Those add up quickly. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * --Sorry, failed to get the crux of your point.Are too many log-entries problematic? Such a log would be probably immensely helpful for non-admins at COIN/SPI etc. Winged Blades Godric 17:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it'd also save Admins time as they won't have to respond to such requests. I see regularly - not that frequent, but enough, that it seems like it'd be quite useful. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be a problem along a few dimensions. It makes the databases used to hold Wikipedia’s content more complicated. It’s one more thing to oversight/revdel when articles with privacy concerns, etc are created. It’s just got some problems associated with it that could be avoided by just asking an admin to take a look at deleted contributions. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The WMF has plenty of server space, and plenty of money as well, but they are also a business (in terms of an org that has financial incentives, etc.) If you take all WMF wikis, create this log for every page that has been created (regardless of deletion or not), it would quickly add up in terms of server space. They could afford to do it, but like any business, they are going to try to minimize costs. Something that isn't purely needed but would be a big drain on resources isn't something they are likely to implement. Its also a feature most Wikipedia users would never use (remember, anyone with more than 5 edits a month is considered active.) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm...--Fair point.But, at least it would be probably much more used and useful than the thanks log, TimedMediaHandler log, User-merge log, Education Program course log etc. Winged Blades Godric 17:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but it'd also have a lot more things on it, and thus take up a lot more server space. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Revdel request
Hi Primefac, would you mind taking a look at the two recent IP edits of Charlotte Catholic High School. The later one definitely needs to be removed. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hoodlum(word)
Wikipedia is confusing. I own frederickbee.com. I tried to edit my entry but another person, Deb, decided to delete my entry. I want to put in my entry without people getting involved. 2602:30A:2EB8:D2B0:E846:C0A:B3F:928E (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the first iteration of the page was deleted by me because it was directly copied from another website. The second iteration was by because it largely duplicated our article Hoodlum. I highly suggest that if you want to write a page that you use the Article wizard to start a Draft, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. Provided that it is not blatantly promotional or copied directly from another source, your work is much less likely to be speedy deleted. Let me know if you have any other questions. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

February 9 revealed request using your script
I forgot that the template talks about copy vios. I asked for revdel because I believe the user add himself and based on his age that would make him only 13, which is pretty young. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)  02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suspect we don't have any other revdel templates due to the Streisand effect, but I'm always willing to take an email about such matters. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion under other circumstances. You can send a message to any administrator in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests either at their talk page or by email, especially if privacy is a concern. Yes. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 04:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand? L3X1 (distænt write)  05:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, now I'm a bit confused as well. Either way, the edit in question is been suppressed. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was quoting from our revdel policy lol. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 12:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I know; my confusion was stemming from their confusion. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now everyone is confused . Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 13:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Revdel Request
Hi, Primefac,

Can you look at this massive copyright violation in this revision and do the needful? Thanks. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of new page: Girye Ultra Mega Power Project
I see that you put up this page for Speedy deletion for infringement of copyright, but the data that was uploaded on the original reference pages was my own contribution and the same was put up on this site for public use as it could not be used from those pages. Let me know what can be done about this, so that I can create the page again with fresh information, the one that is not on other pages. Thank you. Abhishek Pujari (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome to recreate the page (I recommend using the Article wizard to create a Draft instead), but you need to write everything in your own words; different ones that you used to describe things previously. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Will carry out the necessary corrections and save it as draft. Thanks again. :) Abhishek Pujari (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Draft:Deepak Singh
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Draft:Deepak Singh&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. # 1997 kB  05:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Harold L. Paz: request for second opinion
Hello. I have been working with an editor to have this article accepted through AfC. I think it is good enough, but wanted to check you thought it was OK. If you think it is, let me know and I shall accept it and get in touch with the editor. BTW, I know you asked me to let you know when I had done 20: I am pretty sure I haven't (I have been pretty busy lately, and have not had the time to be dealing with AfC follow-ups), but it has been a while. I have not encountered any problems. Thanks, – Sb 2001  00:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say it's good to go. As a note, biographies don't necessarily need to have things like "early life" or "personal life" sections. As long as the existing content is well-sourced and neutrally written it's fine. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Unfortunately, the large amounts of copyright violations could be an issue. I'll look into that. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sabrina Ho
Please see User talk:Sparta for my earlier request to an admin if that helps to explain the situation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean User talk:Spartaz I assume?. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 12:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do mean that. I missed the z. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * fwiw, When I restored the article on SH, I made an incorrect assumption of good faith that the editor I restored it for was not a sock.  My error there, and I hope it did not confuse things.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, the socking wasn't terribly obvious from a one-page perspective. Took seeing multiple pages in a short timeframe to pick it up. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template question
Hi Primefac. I've got a couple of quick questions about Template:Largest cities of Malaysia and figured you'd be a good person to ask. Is it common to have so many images in a template such as this? I've seen templates with maybe one main image, but not really anything like this before. Is it necessary to provide citations for content in a template? It seems like the citations would be better off in the individual articles listed in the templates, but not sure about the template itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really common. It looks like they were added mostly to pad out the width. Probably a discussion is merited for including (or removing) them. As for references, yes, templates often contain references, especially for stuff like this, so that the information can be verified. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clariying both points. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Template not working
Hi. I have created this NPR invite. Even though it hasnt been edited in like six months, it has stopped working all of a sudden. I mean, it is not substituting target/basepage name. You can see it here: User talk:Nil Einne. I tried to fix it, but I couldnt find anything wrong. Would you please tell me what is it? — usernamekiran (talk)  17:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're going to create a subst template, you need to subst the template. A transclusion will not perform the subst function. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * lol. I had included that myself in the man page of template. I forgot. Sorry to bother you. Thanks. :) — usernamekiran (talk)  03:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, always happy to help! Primefac (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio
Hey Primefac, thanks for investigating the copyvio situation on Cumann Rince Náisiúnta a little more closely than I did and apologies for the incorrect speedy tag. However, I note that a significant portion of the page remains copyvio according to Earwig. I am not sure if any further action needs to be taken but I hope you'll be able to rectify it. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , it is I that must apologize. I re-checked the page and it was in little bits and pieces but definitely all-copyvio. I have no idea how I missed that the first time 'round (and it's now deleted). Thanks for following up on it! Primefac (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC) and for what it's worth, I will take a not-quite-deletable page that is tagged for deletion over a deletable page that isn't! Primefac (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Riri Williams
So did you read the comic before deciding to delete the cited section on Riri Williams? or should I post the entire script of the comic for you right here? Read the first three pages of the cited comic book and then tell me if the material in question was "clearly untrue" or not. Until you read it, stop deleting content without first reading the cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roncon1 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

AFC Page for OPNSense
Primefac (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Hi Primefac You have moved the AFC page for further comments. Thanks for that. Since the original dispute was regarding the FUD from where the accounts sole contributions were to keep all reference to OPNSense from Wikipedia whenever it has been mentioned in any pages. I would like to bring to your attention that this non-competitive activity has been going on for quite some time (2 years). There has been a recent Arbitration judgement by World Intellectual Property Organization against this practice (outside of Wikipedia) which I feel may be relevant when you are reviewing this to show that there has been a pattern to this type of activity from the competing company. WIPO decides in favour of OPNsense

Deciso Group B.V. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jamie Thompson, Rubicon Communications dba Netgate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagennos (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you bring that up considering that OPNsense mentions in their blog post how they were kept out of Wikipedia. But that's not entirely true considering the blog post author and their main developer  have been inserting OPNsense propaganda all over Wikipedia. That includes editing the pfSense page which is as Hagennos says a competing project. If that isn't COI and pure abuse, I don't know what is. It's clear that they're now attempting to portray themselves as good guys, despite they have been abusing Wikipedia since their first days. It's in fact how I noticed them. Speaking of updates, it appears another user from OPNsense was called in, he tried to report me and two other editors on this COI page. You can see how bad that went for him. Interesting timing, when Hagennos gets his OPNsense draft rejected a new account starts doing the same job following the same patterns.--Mr.hmm (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Lausanne
Did you mean to fully protect this article indefinitely?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

SPAs & Socks
I always take my socks off before I step into the spa...but on a serious note...is it appropriate at an AfD to draw the closer's attention to suspected socks when it's a new account with only 11+/- edits, or it's a low contribution account that shows signs of being a SPA? I think the first one I linked may be Kingshowman. The name sure fits some of the other socks. Oh, Lorty - just now had to revert a premature close of that same AfD. Atsme 📞📧 04:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The short answer is "yes, please". If a controversial AFD is receiving inputs from many SPAs and/or socks, it can be hard to lose track of who said what and why. By drawing attention to the SPAs and striking the sock votes we're essentially "re-balancing" the scales. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I never got the chance - that AfD was closed as KEEP before any other editors had a chance to iVote, no surprise. The election is Dec 12th, and the article takes on all the appearances of being politically motivated - it's hard to determine which side because both sides don't want the guy. *lol* I've never seen anything like it in my years as an editor. I'm saddened to see how the AfD was abused...yes, abused...and why things happened the way they did but there's not a damn thing I can do about it. I now have a sense for why it's so hard to keep content creators at WP, and why there are so few FAs when there should be far more. Is it happy hour, yet? Hell yes it is. Cheers! 🍺 Atsme 📞📧 19:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Primefac/revdel
Hi,

I was wondering why your script requires a URL value, when the template does not. When I try to use an empty string, it just boots me out unceremoniously and without explanation (that said, I appear to have managed to beat your script here, and use an empty string as the URL value ). I know it's recommended to have a URL value, but it's not absolutely required. Do you think you should add a message when the user tries to use an empty string, or maybe let users do so? Adam9007 (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the prompts only offer the option of "OK" and "Cancel", and to avoid making someone click through every single option if all they want to do is cancel, pressing "Cancel" at either of the first two prompts will exit out of the process. Unfortunately this means that a "null" entry (i.e. no URL) will also exit out, but you've obviously figured it out. As a note, while the template does not require a URL, it's best to add one in the off chance that the copyvios report isn't turning up anything. However, I'll switch the order of the prompts so that the "range" question comes up first, allowing for a blank URL to be entered without exiting. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But I still managed to insert an empty url to the template with your script . I tried it a different way here, but it didn't work how I hoped and I had to clean up after myself (can you see the character by the way?) I made an edit to the template that removes the word "of" if the URL value is empty, and that's how I know this was indeed empty. Adam9007 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... the change you just made indicates that the URL is required (or was, before you changed it). Any time a parameter shows up like that means it needs to be included. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? It was perfectly possible to have an empty URL before my edit. It just instead said, which makes no grammatical sense. Adam9007 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We're talking about two different things here. If you ever see a template where a parameter is specifically given (see paid), that means it will show up if no value for said parameter is given. For revdel, the old version showed, which means that if no URL is given it will show . However, if you put in a "null" or blank value, such as then it's no longer an absent parameter and will thus not show up. I think the better way to handle the situation would be to throw an error message if URL is null, whitespace, or otherwise not explicitly given. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If is empty, that is still a valid string value. An empty string value does not show. I know: I had used empty URL values before my edit, and the template said exactly what I just quoted: no "" or an error or anything. Adam9007 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC) I think I completely misread your comment . But I don't think it's a good idea to throw an error if the url is empty, as the template documentation points out that providing one is not always possible. Adam9007 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, I've had a think and your change is a good one. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, this would look strange to most people, as URL is not actually empty (I thought it would be, but no). Adam9007 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you add a unicode space? Because unicode isn't technically "blank". If you had done {{revdel|url= |start1...}} it would have shown up without the "of", because parameters that are only spaces/whitespace are ignored. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I used a character that, in unicode, appears to be completely blank (and I mean blank, not space: it is not selectable directly you wouldn't know it was there unless you did know). I did not know that spaces did not count as characters for the purposes of the template, and that is not how I used an empty string here). Besides, spaces aren't weird . I saw and deleted the character using the same technique I discovered here, in which we were dealing with a similar edit that frankly had us completely baffled at first! And I didn't think I would be the one to figure it out! (I don't think I used the same character as the one dealt with there) This gives me an idea: could something be added to the filter to prevent this sort of thing? Adam9007 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Help resources
I was answering your question, but we ec'd.

I suppose the short answer is that it's sometimes better to point students at on-wiki help resources, but it's usually easier for me to point them our Q&A resource. The idea of that site is to collect answers for student and instructor questions across the board - more of it is about using the Wiki Ed dashboard than about editing Wikipedia, but it's some of each. If I point students there, they may look for answers the next time, instead of asking me. It's easier for me to find things there than it is to search on-wiki help. On-wiki help also has a tendency to be very detailed, and it can be daunting to newbies.

In this specific case, the VE help page is very good, and I should really point students to it. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Never realised you were a fellow MSU grad. Should look at people's user pages more often! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, no worries, and sorry for calling out on something you clearly know more about. I was just skimming through things and found what looked to be Stack-Exchange-type page and didn't even notice that it was "ours". Primefac (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Is a range block feasible?
2604:2000:DDC7:1700:F0D2:4E4D:3108:4EF1 and he/she is participating at VP in policy decisions. It's pretty obvious it's the same sock. Atsme 📞📧 02:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the range on MastCell's page, then likely not, because that's a huge range. I'd suggest contacting a CU for the best way(s) to deal with the situation (other than playing whack-a-mole). Primefac (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Gabriel Garzón-Montano
I just noticed that you have approved AfC for Gabriel Garzón-Montano. Though you might have noticed, this article was previously deleted after AfD at Articles for deletion/Gabriel Garzón-Montano. I felt that the article was created by paid editors. This seems the case again because User:Grantgemici and User:Cs7809, who are creator and major contributors of the article, seem to have no contributions beyond this page. Coderzombie (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , SPAs are fine, COIs and paid editing are okay (provided they declare). Have you tried asking the users in question what sort of connection they have to the subject? If they reply in the affirmative that they have a COI or were paid, then you're sorted. If they deny it and you don't believe them, then WP:COIN is the place to go. As long as they're not sockpuppets, I'm not particularly fussed with who writes an articles, as long as they're following the rules. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Brandon Mull
Hello Primefac. The 5 latest edits done supposedly by a daughter on the Brandon Mull page violate WP:BLPNAME (even if it may be fake). Please change the revisions' visibility. Thank you. Ermahgerd9 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . Primefac (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually meant WP:RevisionDelete the content and edit summaries or is that unnecessary for this kind of personal info? Thanks anyway! Ermahgerd9 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I didn't notice the edit summary; I have suppressed it. The information itself is likely to be public knowledge (in some form or another) so I do not think that it is necessary to suppress (or even revdel) the names of the children. Thank you for the followup, though. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#Death
If you are still in the mood for closing RFCs ... Template talk:Marriage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, but I have a soft spot for templates. I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Revdel request
Could you do the honours please? (51.171.157.57 edit) Thanks, Nzd (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Thanks for your revdel there. I noticed a small issue however: the revdel was done on the removal as well as my tagging, rather than the addition and the removal of the copyrighted content (so revision 812550382 is still visible). Is it possible that the revision IDs I put in the template were off-by-one? — Paleo Neonate  – 03:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, I just didn't select the right revision. . Primefac (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 (in)compatiblity
Hi. I am about this your deletion. I understand why copyleft CC-BY-SA-4.0 --> copyleft CC-BY-SA-3.0 licenses are incompatible fow WP purpose. Could you provide more information non-copyleft CC-BY-4.0 (without -SA) --> copyleft CC-BY-SA-3.0 incompatibility? Alex Spade (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, more information about how/why 4.0 isn't compatible for text can be found at WP:COMPLIC. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Licenses compatible with Wikipedia - CC BY, all versions and ports, up to and including 4.0. Alex Spade (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that was my mistake for nominating. I had "memorized" the unfortunate fact that the 4.0 version wasn't compatible with Wikipedia which is a 3.0 version, but as the link shows it is the SA aspect is a problem not the BY, so this particular source which is CC BY 4.0 not see CC BY SA 4.0 is okay-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Same here. Thanks for bringing this up, and apologies for the error. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Help with BitShares article
Hello Primefac,

You have edited out pretty big chunks of my article yesterday, claiming the copyright violation. Could you please show me the specific articles this copyvio bot has pointed you to? I know some of the materials were copy-pasted (I thought it's fine as long as I reference it to the source) but there also could be false positives like this one: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cryptoctopus/inspiration-to-advertise-and-market-bitshares-decentralized-exchange-dex I have never even seen this steemit post, let alone copied anything from it.

Or maybe give me a link where I can use this copyvio by myself to check for violations while I edit the article - save everyone the touble

Thanks in advance, ERavid (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it seems there's currently a bit of a mess with the article vs. the draft, as this user continually is trying to move his sandbox into article space. Didn't dig too deep into it, just an aside. Although his generous donation of a company logo under Creative Commons is awfully nice :P Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  07:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am doing the sandbox to article space thing because it takes forever to get a review in the AfC. How long do you think it would take me to complete this article if for every single mistake I've solved in it I would have to wait two month for a response? I didn't know if it's a bug or a feature.
 * The logo doesn't have a copyright, plus, to be on the safe side, I have asked Stan Larimer (the most probable co-owner of everything bitshares-related) if I can use it and he told me that I could (I can provide a link to the conversation). I couldn't find anything that fits the case in the available options in Creative Commons, so I marked it as mine.
 * I'm not trying to "scam my way into wikipedia", show me the right way and I'll fix everything. ERavid (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, I found the copyvio myself - back to work for me then! ERavid (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's see about unpacking this. First, the copyvios report is here. Second, the copyvios came from a range of sources such as this, this, and this. Third, it is not fine to simply copy/paste sources, because that is a copyright violation. If you are quoting something, it needs to be in quotes, but per WP:LONGQUOTE you cannot just build an article out of quotes. Fourth, the Steemit article was written before any content on Wikipedia, which means that it is the source of the information, and could have possibly been found on a different page which you then copy/pasted.
 * The easiest way to avoid having the text deleted for copyright violations is simply to write everything in your own words. What I find good is to read through a source, write down the salient points (in bullets/shorthand/etc) and then write the text on Wikipedia. It also helps to leave a little time between the second and third steps, to avoid accidentally plagiarizing by accident. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured the "write in your own words" thing out by reading other entries on your talk page. I'll post edits in the coming days, is it acceptable that I'll tell you about the edits here so you can check them out or should I just submit them and wait until you notice? (sorry if I seem impatient/arrogant, it already took me more than a month and the previous reviewer I worked with just stopped answering me, so I'm a little on edge :) ) ERavid (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, how do I use the copyvio on offline text? Like, if I want to check for violations before submitting, can I put a Word doc into it?ERavid (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot, since the tool is specifically designed to work on Wikipedia pages. However, there are numerous online copyright checkers that can check two inputted sources. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I've edited the article, checked it with copyvio and it seems alright, could you please take a look? ERavid (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hey, quick question: if I want to add a translation to this article, say, in Russian, can i keep the English references? Or should they all be in Russian also? ERavid (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You can add whichever references work best for the page. If you're translating directly from the Russian Wikipedia, you should add Translated page to the talk page of the article. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC
Hello, Why you removed me from AfC Reviewers list. See my all of other Reviewed drafts and I request you to add me again in list. When Shyamal made mistake then Why He tell that I have not experience. It is disappointing. HINDWIKI •  CHAT  23:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , here is my concern. I do not ever expect any of the AFC reviewers to be right 100% of the time; that's just illogical. However, I do like to see accuracy in the 80-90% range. Discounting the clearly-easy declines (ones with no sources), you're sitting at about 70%: you've had a decline overturned, two acceptances returned to the draft space, and a fourth page is currently being PRODed after you accepted it.
 * Clearly you are interested in helping out, and that's fantastic. I certainly don't want to lose a valuable editor. I have a proposal for you - I can put you back on the AFCH list but you must:
 * leave more detailed comments as to why you feel the decline is appropriate. See some of my recent declines for examples. Your decline at Draft:Pedro Fernando (artist) was a good one, too.
 * check with me before accepting any drafts. In other words, if you think it's acceptable, mark it as "under review" and either ping me on the page or drop me a note here. Mostly I just want to make sure that you're not missing anything obvious.
 * If that sounds acceptable, I'll be more than happy to re-add you to the list. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC) offer rescinded. See below
 * There were not reliable referenced in the last declined articles, so I declined them. I like and follow the policies of Wikipedia and respect to them. I saw you accepted and declined reasons and now I will accepts and decline them within property reasons. I request you to re-add in the list. Thank you HINDWIKI •  CHAT  03:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

So I was just using google translate to take a look at HINDWIKI's hi wiki talk page and I see a lot of messages about CSDs for copyright violations and a recent AfD where he defended his own article by saying "Gajendra Mohan is a Hindi poet and writer" - others are saying he is non notable as it is not shown by the sources (which seems correct to me). I don't know if he shouldn't be added - but if he is, keep in mind to check for copyright violations ( earwigs tool is helpful), and being a hindi writer and poet is not enough for notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and Thanks I understood WP:Notability and WP:Copyright. Now please re add in the list and if I make a mistake, then you can remove me but I am sure that I could not make mistake in future. In case Gajendra Mohan is a Hindi poet and writer and provided a ref of KavitaKosh (a reliable sources) and page is a stub. HINDWIKI •  CHAT  13:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the one source is hindisamay which does not seem to be the right link (it does not mention him)? Anyhow, one source is usually not enough for notability. Remember we need coverage from multiple sources. Not only that, KavitaKosh appears to be a wiki or some sort of collaboratively edited thing by volunteers - does not seem like a reliable source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay but In Hindi Wikipedia, there are Dainik Bhaskar is a reliable source but not on en wiki. Why? HINDWIKI •  CHAT  13:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ? Not sure what your point is or what you're replying to/talking about. And Dainik Bhaskar should be an RS on enwiki (unless I've missed some discussion..). (foreign language sources are allowed) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, leave this matter. I know what is reliable and what is not. But please I want to help out in reviewing AfC, add me to list please!! HINDWIKI •  CHAT  13:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment--Reading through the entire thread and reviewing Hind's contributions(having redirected Samay Shah and draftifying Tanvi Dogra in the process), I concur about the revocation of AFCHS from them..Drop the stick and move on.Participate in AfDs et al and re-apply in about 3 months. Winged Blades Godric 16:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I failed to understand your templated decline-response at Draft:Federico Castro Debernardi.And, your pure unadulterated vote at Articles for deletion/Deepak Kashyap as the very next edit after a relister explicitly advised against such practices! Winged Blades Godric 17:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * , this conversation has proven to be very enlightening. As much as I hate to do so, I am rescinding my offer temporarily. You are welcome to formally re-apply in a few months when you have gained some more experience on the English Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External Development Summit sources updated
Hi Primefac - your feedback was well received re the External Development Summit page. Prime sources have been removed, and reliable independent sources added. Please review when you have a moment. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Wren (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Primefac - I'm following up on this one. Please let me know if you are able to review my latest submission. Note that I've taken your feedback into account with this version. Thank you Chris Wren (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've taken my suggestions into account. I prefer to let other reviewers do the second review to avoid bias, so unfortunately I will likely not be doing the review on this page. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Country alias
On your amendment to the archiving you stated we don't need four threads while your edit explicitly keeps four threads. Is there a standard I should be adhering to when setting up archiving? I have no strong feelings either way on this one, whether it's a standard or just your preference, but if there is a standard I'd like to adhere to it in future. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC) ...or even if it's not a standard, and just the line of least resistance. Cabayi (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... whoops. Definitely didn't meant to say anything near that. I meant that we shouldn't be keeping only one thread.
 * I do not think there is any particular standard for pages, but I have found that most pages tend to keep 3-4 discussions on the talk page at any given time, if only to show that there is discussion there. This is probably important as well if the archive date is (relatively speaking) short (e.g. 90 days) because the main point of archiving is more for keeping talk pages shorter than actually "closing" discussions by removal. Sorry for the confusion. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. That's an argument I can buy into. 4 it shall be from here on for any archiving I add. Cabayi (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

RevDel request
Hello. I am requesting that two revisions on Talk:Marshmello be deleted: 814108023 and 814108153. I suspect the user making a request is attempting to create a BLP policy violation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk •&#32;contribs) 23:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, nothing revdel-able there. Reference 4 gives just as much (if not more) information than that rather poorly-worded edit request. Thanks for checking though. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Another RevDel request
Hello. On Andrew Hollander, I noticed from the first revision dated 18 August 2016 till the edit before my reversion contained a severe copyvios from http://www.andrewhollandermusic.com/ (see Copyvios report). Thanks for looking into this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk •&#32;contribs) 21:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * jd22292 See Template:Copyvio-revdel, which is designed to handle these kinds of requests, and my have a faster response time if the individual you are contacting happens to be offline at the time.  G M G  talk   22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, but it's ✅ now. There was actually about four years worth of copyvios (167 revisions total). Primefac (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

15:45:47, 8 December 2017 review of submission by Poonkulanji

 * , do you have a question? Primefac (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Google
Thank you for answering my question on my biography page about why my page has not yet been picked up by Google's (or anyone elses's) search machine. You ask me to be patient. Fine. But I do wonder how long it takes for someone to review my new page. And, actually, I thought it was already reviewed months ago and okayed. It is now over three months on Wikipedia (English). Do you have any idea how much longer I need to wait? Thanks. HollyRahlens (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With a backlog of over 12000 pages it could take a while, but most reviewers go from the back of the "queue" so since it's a bit older it's likely to be reviewed soon. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

AFC script
Hi, when I accepted Vanessa O'Hanlon using the Helper script, the script while cleaning up the submission, also reverted all of my prev. edits to the draft.Any idea as to the peculiarity/bug? Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you mark the page under review, edit the draft in another window, and use the original window for accepting the draft? The only thing I can think of is that the script doesn't handle edit conflicts (at all) so if you had an "old" version of the page loaded when you clicked "accept" it would take that version and overwrite your changes. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't the case.Clear-cut mono-tab/window editing. Winged Blades Godric 16:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea. The script might have been using a cached version of the page, though I don't think I've ever seen that happen before. Unless it keeps happening, I'd chalk it up as a glitch. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Same at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 Kanchrapara.Yet again:) Winged Blades Godric 05:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the AFC banner on the talk page, you will see that the draft it says it was created from was the one from where you marked it as "under review", so it is likely doing that in order to prevent subsequent edits from being made by the drafter (or anyone else). If you plan on making changes to the article, your best bet is to accept it and then clean it up rather than what you are doing now. I believe this is what is causing it (aka it's caching it):
 * Hope this helps. Nihlus  05:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Winged Blades Godric  05:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That could be extremely problematic given how many pages I've marked as review, made significant changes to, and then accepted.... pinging for thoughts on this. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That could be extremely problematic given how many pages I've marked as review, made significant changes to, and then accepted.... pinging for thoughts on this. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure that's the case. This page has a similar editing history, but the talk page notice says that it was accepted from the version right before the move. In other words, I don't think it's the script that's pulling the wrong version (because that would be silly). It might be something wrong on Godric's end. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The code was updated since that example. Do you have a more recent one? Nihlus  13:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that would do it. I do not, and I think that's a terrible change to make that should be reverted (no offense Enterprisey). We cannot expect a reviewer to mark a page as under review, ignore anything that pops up during that review, and try to remember to fix it after the review. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that the changes were handling blank submissions, but it could have had an inadvertent effect on the other submissions. The revID seems to be what is driving it, but I am not familiar with the code so can't really explain much beyond that. Nihlus  14:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not immediately clear that the change to the code I made should have any impact on under-review submissions; I'll try to reproduce this on testwiki and get back to everyone this weekend. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to see this error when I was testing, but I pushed a new version anyway where I disabled caching - if anyone still finds this error, let me know. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I Liq Chuan Page
Hi, I'm Seeing if I can help with the proposed I Liq Chuan page; I notice its both an organization and a martial art. The two seem very closely related, the organization was also the founding of the martial art. Wondering if you have any advice on whether the page should be for both given how hard they are to distinguish, or if we should make two pages, one for the organization and one for the martial art? Iislucas (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the martial art would be better to write about, but it's very possible to write about both on the same page. For example, a page about the martial art could easily have a section or two about the organization that runs it. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Joe Roe
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg JzG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news
 * Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
 * A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous
 * Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Primefac: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ― Buster7  &#9742;   19:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Greetings
 Dear   I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and, a very Happy New Year. Thanks for all your help and contributions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#D7000B; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em;" class="plainlinks"> Happy Holidays!   Hello Primefac! Hope you have a great Christmas, New Year, or whatever you celebrate! RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 19:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Revdel
I would use the template, except there's a bunch of 'em by the same - IP. Similar additions, all copyvios of this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Primefac (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

15:27:23, 11 December 2017 review of submission by Bledarsema
I found new references as requested by you. "Institute Media Social Media" (PDF). "Bibliothek der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung - Albanian Media" (PDF). I added those references in the Draft: Revista Anabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bledarsema (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There's a discussion regarding you on AN/I here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Airbiquity
I was pointed to Airbiquity by an editor disgruntled that an article they had modelled on it was speedied by me. There are clearly major problems such as non-RS sources (press releases, interviews etc), promotional tone (little about the company, lots about its products, awards but no criticism), obvious undeclared COI. However, I saw that you had edited the article and didn't want to tread on the toes of another admin in dealing with the dubious sourcing, promotional tone and content, and likely undeclared paid editing by at least. Any views on how best to proceed? <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  17:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, feel free to step anywhere you want. I wasn't an admin at that point, and (based on the talk page) I accepted it mostly because it was "good enough". Funny how I expected non-COI editors to work on the page more...
 * I've removed the big list of products and done some other trimming. I'd say WP:OTHERSTUFF is a decent reason to give, though the "clear copyvio" is also pretty obvious. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll give it another look too <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  07:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have done a thorough job, I've just nibbled around the edges a bit more. I don't think it can be speedied, and it would survive AFD, so I've settled for making a COI request plus muttered threats about multiple accounts, since at least three company accounts preceded Wscottfrank <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  07:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC Request
Hello Primefac, How are you? You suggested me to request again after get more experience in WP:AfC and now I have got more and more experience about it. I readed it's guidelines and policies many times and now fully understood AfC reviewing. I saw also many declined and accepted draft, which reviewed by experienced editors like you for example. I requesting you to re-adding me in the list and I promised that I never disappoint you and your believes. Thanks HindWikiConnect  00:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please response the discussion. HindWikiConnect  13:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

OAR move request
I just reopened it, because it's been only 3 days, and you opened it in the first place. It does look like we could go for a SNOW close, but that would have to come from someone else, imo. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, self-reverted. Sorry. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And I changed my mind,, so it's back open again. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This page is obviously bad for our sanity. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bianca Brandolini d’Adda
Could you please take a look at the comments left on the talk page here. It seems that could really be a BLP violation. Not sure if that can be applied to talk pages as well. Thanks for your help today. Lacypaperclip (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Revdel'd. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * please keep the references and do not delete references for a detailed look at this article and individuals the talk page is made for disscussing reerences and issues
 * 79.54.104.53 (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . It would be super-helpful if you responded in full and complete sentences, because I am having a very difficult time trying to figure out what you're saying. I won't be deleting any references in that article, though, so don't worry about that. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP violations have been reposted to the talk page. Lacypaperclip (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know... Primefac (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

THE TAG IS A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE TAG FOR THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION its a tag used on about 2000 articles on wikipedia average duration o the tag is one to two years, please do not remove the tag it helps readers to approach the subject with diligence and improve the article. 79.54.104.53 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to have a tag on an article. I have zero issues with maintenance tags. I do take issue with a maintenance tag saying "this has no inline citations" when there are about 20 of them. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

this tag i appropriate most of the references are contradictory and based on popular street news not suitable nor notable to the standards required here for an encyclopedia. as said this is added to about 2000 articles on wikipedia for questions, here do not remove until the issue is verified. The inline citation is one of the issues inline citation are not from reliable sources, also says This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. (December 2017) This includes a list of references, related reading or external links, do not remove the tag, the more you persist at blocking or removing the tag the more Wikipedia will investigate the issue95.232.109.193 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Scott Merrill Siegler page
Hello. Thank you for your recent help with the page on Scott Merrill Siegler. Please forgive me for being dumb as a post when it comes to knowing how to post, but am I correct in assuming that we are still waiting to learn whether the re-submission has been accepted?Byron Laursen (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the draft is still awaiting review. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverse copying
You deleted Draft:Boston Scott as a copyright violation of YouTube. To me that looks as if the YouTube page took its content from Wikipedia; you can recognize not just the section headings (including one I added) but also the footnotes, and our draft's history shows how it grew over time. Do you have any objections if I undelete the draft? Huon (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , it certainly looks like a reverse copyvio. Clearly the two cases are connected, though, since Drafts aren't indexed; someone must be working on both of them at the same time. Very odd indeed. Thanks for catching that. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete, not redirect MLL Seasons
is right about a lot of stuff, but this is a deletion, by consensus and common sense, not a redirect to the template that the content was merged to. There are now two Major League Lacrosse templates on these pages. 2016 Major League Lacrosse season Can you please delete the template instead? - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 02:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I had forgotten to remove the duplicate instances, but this has been rectified. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 13:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

AN close
Here, point of order but the discussion was over their page heading, rather than their sig (a signature that big would be ANI territory!!!) Take care,  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 14:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Updated. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

changing username
Hello. This was my first post and i chose a name almost identical to the subject of my entry. I think I recently corrected this and am now scottrollins. I hope that this change has went through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiegallo (talk • contribs) 00:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for doing that. Your rename request hasn't yet been processed but it should be done in the next day or two. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:49:50, 14 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Skdwived
Hi Primefac, the subject of this page can be suitable for WikiProject Brands, just to confirm as per the current references, if the subject does not seem to have much significant coverage in secondary sources, will it still be eligible to be merged in any industry specific existing article, now that it cannot have an article of its own at this time.

Skdwived (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
For actually reading the full story in re a particular draft, instead of canvassing against someone, and stirring up drama where it did not exist :) . I spent 30 minutes dealing with this today: 30 minutes that I will not get back.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you! Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hey, I just wanted to check in with you if maybe alerting other editors about a new user category I created counts as "canvassing"? Thanks, - 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 05:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , kind of depends on the situation. If you're saying "hey, I created this new category, please help me populate it," then no, it's not canvassing. It's really only dealing with deletions or other "controversial" issues where one has to be careful who they're contacting. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing the Incident
May I ask why you closed the incident report I made very early? According to, the wikipedia help desk and others, Admins should be using judgement when it comes to CSD and G13 deletions. Even you said " It is up to the deleting admin to determine whether the page should be kept or deleted." So then why did you close the incident report so quickly, as it was clear that the admin in question was/is deleting g13 articles without judgement and simply taking the "6 month" criteria as the only one to take into account. According to the Help desk and other users here, Admins are supposed to be checking the validity of CSD noms for things other than time left. Could you make your position clear here? Do deleting admins need to check g13 nominations for alternatives to deletion or can/should they delete them without looking as long as they are untouched after 6 months? If quality control is not a rule, would you support making it a requirement for deleting admins? Egaoblai (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , is there any actual current problem about a specific article or draft? DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All I want to do is understand what the rules are. No one seems to be able to agree.Egaoblai (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , WP does not work by rigid rules--all of our policies and guidelines require interpretation and judgement. We rely on the care and integrity of the people here, and assume good faith. Of course, we check them also, but the way of checking is to challenge individual judgments.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right but still let's say agreements rather than rules then..We wouldn't want people vandalizing (consciously or unconsciously) the wiki for example and we might come to agreements about how to prevent that. My current concern stmes from seeing a perfectly good drafr which wss rejected at AFC, slowly get shunted to CSD g13. Now I'm not saying that it was maliciously rejected or anything, people make mistakes after all, but the current system, with it's vague rules, means that if admins are merely hitting the delete button with no oversight, then those mistakes never get corrected, and good or promising drafts get deleted and we lose potential good contributors. Perhaps this is an issue for a polioy proposal, but I'm just trying to understand what the guidelines are at the moment.Egaoblai (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I read the G13 policy, it does not currently account for any subjective (quality/potential) evaluation, of the sort we do in A7 et al.Thus, technically, even a GA-standard article, that for some reason has been lingering for over 6 momths in draft space, could be G13-ed. While, I would agree that is not the optimum way to do things and many sysops does weigh additional factors, before hitting the  delete button, IMO,  we can't do much about it.  Winged Blades Godric 12:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)  Winged Blades Godric 12:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * , to answer your first question - I closed the ANI early because you specifically targeted for what could be interpreted as "admin abuse". As they had done nothing wrong, and the underlying issue is not something that should be discussed at ANI, I closed it. I believe the rest of your concerns have been answered quite thoroughly, but I am happy to answer any others you may have. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * yes U|Winged Blades of Godric has given what seems a definitive answer at last, so I now se why you closed the ANI.Egaoblai (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I regard the current practice of most admins with respect to anything as something which I as an individual admin am bound to respect, and if for some special reason I deviate from it, I will explicitly word it as IAR just as much as if it were written. I similarly regard the attempt of another admin to act erratically with respect to current practice as an abuse, just as much as deliberately ignoring a written guideline. Admins are expected to use good judgment, not rely upon tricks with the wording. But I shall propose a modification of the G13 wording to match the current practice DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Climate Change 1RR template
Hi. You deleted a Climate Change 1RR template in October. Does that mean 1RR doesn't apply, and a Climate Change 1RR template ("Per the probation sanctions logged here, this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.") should be removed from Talk:Watts Up With That?? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that is correct, yes, since the General Sanctions on climate change appear to have been last enacted in 2010. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pending AfC submissions
Is this working, as expected? None of the links at the collapsible section Pending by age at Category:Pending AfC submissions seems to work for me! Winged Blades Godric 14:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They look like they're working fine to me. What are you seeing (or not seeing, as the case may be)? Primefac (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See this screenshot. Winged Blades Godric 15:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that is very odd indeed. I see the full cat tree on my comp, as well as all of the templates inside it. The cats themselves haven't been edited for a year or two. Glitch in the system? Try purging the cache? Primefac (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Click previous page perhaps? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tried all these already.Doesn't help! Winged Blades Godric 15:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so not to ask the stupid question, but you can still access things like Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago, yes? Primefac (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah! That is perfectly accesible. Winged Blades Godric 16:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked in and they think it might be because of scripts you've got installed. They suggested logging out to see if it still doesn't show. If that does it, then there's something buggy with one of 'em. The other possibility is that you're not actually going to the generic category but sorting it by  .  Primefac (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the links work for me either- I get exactly the same result as the screenshot with the same draft- Draft:MagForce AG- popping up regardless of what I click. It doesn't matter to me- I use Category:AfC pending submissions by age instead. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so clicking previous page loads of results but not sorted by age or in the timeframe wanted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the same in incognito mode and in two other mobile-devices.By the way, Template:AfC category navbar was a good idea! Winged Blades Godric 16:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On a lighter note, does the coffee-cup icon on your t/p link to Coffee's t/p intentionally? Winged Blades Godric 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It does. He left Wikipedia under unfortunate circumstances and it was a show of support. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Table problem
Hi Primefac. I was just wondering whether you might help me find a solution to these issues I am having with a table. I think I might need an updated graphics card, as my computer does not render table lines accurately (see here). Also, the anchors are not consistent with each other. There are two lines below the Command bar anchor here and just one further up here. Quite odd and irritating, really. I have asked the Village pump and Microsoft about this, with the former blaming the browser and the latter Wikipedia. It may well be my computer that is a fault.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeez, you're having all sorts of issues with how Wikipedia is displayed lately! Unfortunately I have no idea why you'd be having these issues. Maybe try a phab ticket? Primefac (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"Valentina (software)" removal
It was brought to my attention that "Valentina (software)" article was removed by you from Wikipedia due to "Unambiguous copyright infringement". Well, I'm the author of the original article at Libre Graphics World that a Wikipedia user reused for the Wikipedia article, and I publish all my stuff under terms of CC BY SA 3.0 Unported. That's mentioned in the footer of every page at LGW, as well as at the bottom of the About page. I have no foggiest idea how quoting my CC-licensed text and linking to the original (thus attributing me as the author) is a copyright infringement. Could you please explain? Thanks. Prokoudine (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , my apologies, when I checked the page I saw the "© 2017 Libre Graphics World" and didn't read any further. I've restored the page. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks, I removed the offending symbol from the beginning of the footer to avoid possible issues in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokoudine (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Amerigo Iannacone
Sorry about my flailing on this. Some days are more clear-headed than others. ~Kvng (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, no worries, happens to all of us. The post above this one is questioning my own abilities to read text for copyright notices :-p Primefac (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hah I did something like that too, except the admin who looked at the revdel spotted it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump (proposals)
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (proposals). Winged Blades Godric 10:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Hindu Saints
Hello,

The change I made on page "List_of_Hindu_gurus_and_saints" has been reverted. I removed the entry for "Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh". He has been put behind bar and is not the saint or spiritual guru. You can refer page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurmeet_Ram_Rahim_Singh"

May I know the reason to persist with his name in the list?

Nealhooper (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , the article on Singh says that he is a guru, and the List of Hindu gurus and saints says that it [includes] gurus, saints, monks, yogis and spiritual masters (emphasis added). Thus, I see no reason not to include him in the list. If there's something that says he is no longer a guru then there's nothing wrong with removing his name from the list. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As such, he is still a guru (just disgraced). Winged Blades Godric 17:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Purging
Re: your edit to the template; how can one purge the cache of a wiki page? Gimubrc (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is to make a null edit to the page; just "edit" and then "save" without making any changes. See WP:Purge for more info. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your redirect to "Live From Here"
I think it may be cause why article cannot be accessed directly. I do not understand why this was done.1archie99 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC) 1archie99 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

new AFC propsal
Hello Primefac, I have come up with an idea with how we can be more friendly and positive with new AFC contributors. It is quite simple really. When I see a new AFC draft written by an editor who is new and still has a red link talk page, I take the the time to welcome them. Then I go to the bottom of the history of their draft and thank them for creating the draft. At least this way the first contact with an AFC participant editor will not be negative as in a draft decline. What do you think? Maybe we could come up with a better welcome template geared exactly to AFC, explaining how we want to help them get the drafts they created published! Maybe this could make for a more positive experiences for all the AFC participants. Please let me know if this might help the AFC atmosphere in general. Thanks for your time. Lacypaperclip (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think that's a great idea. I think the best way to implement that sort of change would be to draft up a template (or at the very least, the wording) in a sandbox, and then post at the AFC page for further input/tweaking before making it a "live" template. I look forward to the results! Primefac (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Reconsider indefinite block of 197.210.0.0/16?
Is an indefinite block on 64K IP addresses justified in this case? Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/197.210.0.0/16 I only see a few isolated incidents. Is there a lot more that I am not seeing? Was some temporary block tried at some point?

Context: I am collaborating with someone via a github issue and I was surprised to learn that the Help:Editing policy, "... anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately for all readers. You do not need to register to do this." actually has exceptions. Perhaps I / we should note the Blocking_policy there. DanConnolly (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC
Hi. I'm rather tied up at  the moment. Could you please take a moment  to  review the work  of user:Ernestchuajiasheng. Cheers, and happy holidays and all  the best  for  2018. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , out of about 20 pages I checked there were maybe one or two questionable declines (with one exception, see below), but on the whole they seem to be doing all right.
 * They declined Draft:Brenda A. Allen as "not notable" when it should have been "ilc" and/or "advert", because I think she passes the PROF test, but there is way too little in the way of proper sourcing (and a bit too much of a promotional tone) to turn it loose without significant trimming/fixing. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should have been declined as a copyvio. The entire Career section, which makes up most of the article, is a direct copy of her college web page http://www.lincoln.edu/faculty-and-staff/directory/brenda-allen-phd . The rest of it is presumably a copyvio from related pages on the site and her CV.   Earwig's copyright detector gives 90%, and that's without searcing her cv.    This is not " a bit too much of a promotional tone" but a straight press release.  The first thing to look for in a promotional page is copyvio. In fact, the first thing to look for for any bio of the head of anything is copyvio, because about 2/3 of the submitted ones are.
 * There are other hints, even without looking for the source page. Any academic bio that start with the previously held job instead of going in chronological order is a press release and almost certain copyvio.    Any bio contributed without linking the obvious things  such as the university name is either a copyvio by someone unfamiliar with WP, or a very naive attempt at an article (just as one with an excess of links is usually someone with coi, generally a paid editor)
 * So it would seem all the editor's other afcs must be rechecked for copyvio  DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow... I'm... honestly surprised I forgot to check cv on that. I will leave them a note on their talk page to check for copyvios in the future. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Question
Will you take a look at this move from a redirect, please? I stumbled across Northern Han Chinese at NPP, and it appears to have been a reverted redirect that was moved from Biefangren to Northern Han Chinese. Not sure if the rights were ever granted...and well, their TP appears...shall I say...“busy”? Could be nothing at all, but just in case I thought it might be worth a look. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , not quite sure what I'm looking at. The user reverted the creation of a redirect (three years after the fact, but that's not overly relevant) and moved it to what they apparently felt was a better title. They didn't need (nor do they have) any permissions to make such a decision. If the page is not worth keeping, then an AFD might be necessary to revert it in a more permanent manner to a redirect. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at the editor's move log and it seemed really busy. I thought page mover was a user right granted only by admins, but if it's ok for any editor to move pages, then you answered that part of my question. I'll review the article again and see if an AfD is the best option. Thank you! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * more specifically, any editor may move pages. The page mover right permits allows users to move pages without leaving behind a redirect and to quickly move subpages when moving parent pages. (To move a page over an existing page, such as moving an accepted draft in place of  an existing redirect, requires the admin right.)   DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Page movers can do a round robin move which has the same effect.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   17:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister
Sockpuppet investigations/Trampton will be likely of immense interest to you.And, any idea as to the after-effects in AFC?!

Also, wishing you and your loved ones a heavily belated Merry Christmas and wishes for a pleasant and prosperous 208.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 06:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There will likely be very little in the way of disruption at AFC. I was already looking at the numbers yesterday and his contributions have been relatively minor. With the influx of long-term high-edit editors in the last 36 hours I'm not concerned in the least.
 * And a Happy New Year to you! Primefac (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy new year, Primefac- and thanks for everything you've done this year as well. Now quick question- since the AfC graph tool seems to be a bit borked, are you getting review counts off quarry or something- just for motivation, you know? jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the counts straight from the cats themselves. The tool counts the pages (and subpages) of Category:Pending AfC submissions, whereas all of the enwiki templates are adding together the page counts of all the by-day subcats. I'm not sure why the counts differ by about 200 pages (because there aren't that many non-draft pages in those cats) but the overall trends are still accurate (ish). Primefac (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Large category request
I believe I've rid the first 25,000 pages in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL of most of the unnecessary access-dates when a permanent identifier is present (my last preparse of the first 25k pages only yielded ~3% as easily fixable, and undoubtedly others have creeped in since). But I'm unable to retrieve the remaining ~20k, which I recall requires administrative permissions. Using AWB I'm able to retrieve from ...Ready for It? to ~Mercer Mall. Can you help by retrieving the bottom 21k (so that there is some overlap)? If so, feel free to either drop it in my userspace or yours as a subpage, or email, or ping someone who can if you're unable. Thanks in advance & happy holidays :)  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll get to this as soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been taken care of! TY still :)  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Sorry for being busy! Primefac (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Ejembi John Onah
Thanks for your contribution: I respect the fact that you wrote linkedin cannot be used. I read wiki policy on self publishing as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, " Acceptable: The website for a company to support claims about itself or its employees”. Since Germany as a result of law do not publish names of recipient of prestigious awards, can I use the website http://fonai.org/uploads/Ejembi_Onah_Resume.pdf of the subject being an expert in his field as a reference source as in wiki policy? Your usual prompt attention will be appreciated.

Ejembi12 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. The issue here is that there is just no independent evidence of such an award being presented. If what you say is true, you could claim to have won any number of awards from German companies; since they don't publish their award winners there would be no way for us to verify that information.
 * The use of primary sources to verify claims should only be used for minor things like "how many people work here" or "where is their headquarters", not "a list of prestigious awards won". If it's a prestigious award, even if the award-givers do not report it someone will have. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much; I will remove that and adjust accordingly from the article; once more thanks for your usual prompt attention. Ejembi12 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)