User talk:Primefac/Archive 31

Certification table cleanup, PrimeBOT Task 30
Hi Primefac. I hope I'm finding you well in these troubling times. Below is what I believe is a task suitble for PrimeBOT Task 30. This was discussed briefly at Template talk:Certification Table Entry and I see no reason why there would not be unanimous agreement to do it. Ideally, this would have been solved by a bot that is run once a week or so, but since this would need much effort, I would like to do a manual run and fix it once, and I thought PrimeBOT Task 30 covers this issue.

The issue I am trying to solve is mismatching between the usage of two templates, Certification Table Entry and Certification Table Bottom. The former leaves footnote markers by marking figures as either sales, shipments or streaming. The second one is for leaving the footnote itself at the table bottom. For example:

As you can see, mismatch is possible, and in fact is quite common, since I created the template in 2011 or so, and consumption patterns have changed considerably. In order to cleanup cases of mismatch I created six automatically-populated categories, and I saved the results. I then did simple content comparison (diff) between them and saved the results in six files. I sampled each of the six files and found no errors. There are two caveats I can think of. One is when there is more than one instance of Certification Table Bottom in the page, which is quite rare. The second is when there is no Certification Table Bottom at all, which I also saw done once or twice. Both cases need to be fixed manually. I hope this is indeed a task suitable for PrimeBOT Task 30, please let me know. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a quick reply to say that I've seen this, and will try to get a good look at it in the next day or so in order to give an informed opinion. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a gentle reminder. If you are too busy for this it is also perfectly fine, just let me know so I can find another way to do this (maybe on my own bot). Best regards and thanks in advance. --Muhandes (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hectic week. I'll try to get some test runs in this weekend, make sure the edits give the desired result. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, and no hurry either. --Muhandes (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll spare the technical details and just say that I think I merged two of the above lists together accidentally; I'd say I'm probably between a quarter- and halfway-done with the runs. Would you mind terribly re-populating the lists so that I can avoid potentially editing the pages I've already done (and fix any possible errors I might have made)? Primefac (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will repopulate the lists some time tomorrow and let you know when I'm done. Thanks for your efforts. --Muhandes (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I'll just do it now instead of going to have dinner, food is for the weak. Following are the new lists.


 * --Muhandes (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to consider this task ✅, as least as far as the bot run goes. There were a hundred or two pages skipped, but from the ones that I checked that was because the template(s) were being hardcoded (accidental subst?) onto the pages, so there wasn't actually a template to "fix". At the very least, this should get the numbers down to the point where manual corrections can be more easily made. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This definitely looks ✅ and we can take it from here. Your work is much appreciated. --Muhandes (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Astronomy related Draft:Mass-asymptotic speed relation
Hi, just posting here about an AfC Draft:Mass-asymptotic speed relation that you might be interested to review. Thank you — Amkgp  💬  20:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey!
How's it going? Nice job on the Bot, BTW. Question, though: I notice it is moving short descriptions under other templates. The documentation for short descriptions states they should be at the extreme top of the edit box and everything else below. Has that been changed somewhere? I've been doing SDs for a couple of years now, and that change seems to be acting in cross-purposes with those guidelines. What are your thoughts on that? Regards, GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 23:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is something that AWB does as part of its genfixes, and nothing that I necessarily have any control over. There have been discussions but nothing actionable has yet come out of them. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can download a newer revision (unreleased but compiled to executable). See WT:AWB. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Probationary member for AfC
I see now I'm a probationary member for AfC. I don't see a 'Submit' button in any draft article or is that because I'm probationary? Please reply here, thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really sure I follow; have you read through WP:AFCH and the reviewing instructions? Primefac (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did but I don't see a 'Submit' button or other buttons in draft articles eg Draft:5 Military Intelligence Battalion? Or are probationary not allowed to submit drafts to mainspace? BlueD954 (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That draft has already been submitted, so you shouldn't be seeing an option to submit it; only Accept, Decline, or Comment. It's only on unsourced drafts where you would see the Comment or Submit buttons. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok but in other drafts I don't see buttons. BlueD954 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you seeing the tool link in the "More" dropdown menu? Primefac (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like take Draft:Causality (Environmental Science) Where do I find that '"More" dropdown menu?' Is it in the Reviewer tools? BlueD954 (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Top of the page, next to the View history tab and the TW options (if you've got it enabled). Primefac (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Park View Medical College
I don't want to just revert your deletion, but I do not see that the material in this page which you marked as copyvio is present in the source cited. Of course, it may be present in some related more up to date  site  DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , check this report, which is the body of the article (and yes, I'll be reverting and RD'ing after you've seen this). All but one sentence were copied, so it's very much a G12 in my mind. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for checking though! Primefac (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I (sometimes) ask first.  DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

re: Deletion of Inhyeon wanghu jeon
You did not ping me back in, so I never realized you replied (please ECHO me back if you reply here, or leave me a talkback in the future, if you could). Anyway, I am afraid I don't understand your question. What is 'a physical book'? The deleted article, yes, was an article about an actual novel. I don't see what it has to do with the issue discussed, i.e. my argument that it was incorrectly labelled as a copyvio? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I generally assume that people asking me questions will be either watching or pop back in to see a reply, but I'll do my best to remember next time to ping if necessary. By "physical book" I mean, simply, that it's a real book that it exists. The website/URL itself was not a copyright violation, but the report from the user who G12'd it implied that the content of the book itself was being copied onto the article, which is why I deleted it as a G12; the URL simply gave a link to the source material (even if the content was contained on the website itself). Primefac (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the ping! Since I do many things on wiki, I often forget about some of the messages I sent, so without a ping/talkback things can get delayed. Anyway, thanks for the ping again. As for the article, can we restore it? I didn't see any copyvio in it, and I don't think it has any extensive quotations. So unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't think this is a copyvio issue? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As much as I dislike decentralized discussion, I'll ping (who nominated the article) as they can likely do a better job of explaining why they nominated it. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, restore also the talk page, since this talk page is surely the best place to discuss the issue. Pldx1 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

민병국 올림니다 행복하세요 민병국 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Um... thanks? Primefac (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Valentinian dynasty
Exactly where and by who was the decision to delete Template:Valentinian dynasty made? As the creator, and the editor who has been maintaining this template I was appalled to see the notice that a decision had been made. I have been participating in the discussion ever since someone proposed deletion. In my humble opinion it would be madness to do so, without it it is almost impossible to make sense of the page Valentinianic dynasty for which it was originally constructed, and which is being actively upgraded with a view to promotion. For the life of me, I can't see any consensus for deleting it. Could this be an error? --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I'm a little at a loss as to how to reply to this post, because you seem to have answered all of your questions. You participated in the discussion with at least six other editors, five of which advocated for either deleting or converting it to a navbox (i.e. the "who" and "why"). I simply read through the discussion and determined the consensus was to convert it to a navbox, something which I did based on years of experience at TFD. I've now re-read the discussion again and do not believe I made an error in my close. If you still think I have made an error, you are welcome to bring the matter to WP:DRV. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Possible reformatted template: Template:Valentinian dynasty/sandbox. Needs proofing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is what is a consensus. It was relisted for further discussion - which has not happened. Obviously I am defending it, and I am not impressed by the arguments for deletion, particularly since I modified it in the light of comments. Furthermore it does not seem logical to delete this template and have identical templates on the other roman dynasties. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  22:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I am grateful for the suggestion placed in the sandbox, my argument throughout is that horizontal and vertical templates simply do not have the same function or utility. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  22:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice I listed it on WP:PRV --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  23:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad reviews/reviewers
I've been patrolling User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon and submitting promising drafts that never received a review. I've been getting some unexpected results from reviewers. I've been winging my way through these with talk page discussions, resubmitting and resubmitting and accepting on my own behalf. Do we have a process for dealing with bad reviews or bad reviewers? Do you consider this one of your responsibilities? ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no formal process for bad reviews or bad reviewers; every time I've tried to set up a formal process there has been substantial pushback, mainly of the "we'll deal with it when it happens" variety. If discussing it on their talk page is not working, and you are seeing the same issues from them repeatedly, then start a threat at WT:AFC with your concerns, and that you have attempted to work with them to no avail. They'll either be admonished, put on probation, or removed from the project. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Talk page discussions are working 50% of the time and it hasn't gotten hostile. I don't see the same issues repeatedly from the same reviewer because I'm only submitting a few drafts per week. But the overall impression I get from our most discerning reviewers is that drafts need to be up to C-class before they are acceptable. Declines are doled out for lack of footnotes or formatting issues or for not being sourced to BLP standards on non-biographical articles. ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm always willing to roll back garbage declines. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. ~Kvng (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , There does seem to be an issue with AfC reviewers having too high of standards, its something I have had troubles with, and think that AfC needs a culture shift in terms of reviewing. There is no incentive to accept drafts, and in fact many reviewers get yelled at for accepting bad drafts, but rarely are folks held accountable for declining drafts. I think reviewers need to be much more willing to accept marginal drafts and have them go to a deletion discussion, but am unsure of how to achieve that cultural change. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We've been trying for the better part of five years. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think there is a solution? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've discussed with a few other reviewers before off-wiki, and the easiest thing would be to have a radical simplification of the reviewing instructions. Rather than have folks trying to look at every article and try to guarantee it would be successful, just have them check for speedies (G12, G11, and the like), that there are RS with significant coverage, and that it's neutrally written. If those three boxes are checked as being acceptable, the draft should be accepted. If we really want to "lower" our standards (still to acceptable levels, of course), the reviewers need to stop nitpicking into the intricacies of WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE to see if the person meets all of the esoteric criteria. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the most egregious problem I see are reviewers who think they are doing a WP:PR or some article quality assessment. Next is reviewers on a mission to block anything they see as promotional or COI. Nitpicking notability policy is down the list of problems I've been seeing. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's kind of what I mean, though. Reviewers should be seeing if it's a flagrant issue (either CSD-worthy, nor sourced, or not neutral) and that's it. They shouldn't necessarily be nitpicking SNGs, nor should they be doing "peer reviews" or anything similar. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you've nailed it. The incentives for reviewers are tilted towards decline. This has to be addressed before any culture shift can happen. ~Kvng (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely come across bad AfC declines fairly often (sometimes after the author comes appealing to the Teahouse). The AfC instructions are pretty simple: check only whether it'd survive AfD, and if it would, accept. That many of the most prolific AfC reviewers flagrantly ignore those instructions is a big problem. To be fair, though, there is some truly awful junk that comes through AfC that still meets GNG. I would feel bad accepting a page that has zero MOS compliance (e.g. ELs in the body, typos everywhere, no headings) that just barely rises above WP:TNT level. Perhaps AfCers should accept those and just throw the work onto the NPPs, but the NPPs would probably draftify anyways. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, but if it "looks ugly" that's a (maybe) five-minute job for a reviewer, and an HOURS long process for someone who doesn't understand. Fixing headers, removing bold, etc are piss easy, probably the most onerous thing is removing or converting ELs in the body. If a page looks like garbage, I don't even review it until I've cleaned it up. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sdkb in terms of an issue and with Primefac in terms of my approach (though I do work NPP more than AfC). I am skeptical that the 3 question approach Primefac sketched out above would help. I think rather than leading more articles that should be accepted to be accepted, it would lead reviewers to be more justified in the current approach of declining them. As it stands now, if something is notable but doesn't have RS with sigcov AfD is going to keep it. Maybe not 100% of the time but a very high percent of the time. If something notable isn't neutrally written but doesn't qualify for G11, I suspect that too gets kept a bunch. Ultimately AfD is, in my experience as an AfD closer, pretty focused on that question of notability and there are a substantial segment of AfD participants who dislike attempts ot use AfD for cleanup (see the well known Deletion is not cleanup). I think there's definitely some wiggle room for AfC on this, for instance to not accept an uncited BLP that is notable (BLPPROD exists for a reason) but I don't think moving to those three questions is the right way to change AfC culture. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd be open to tweaking it a little, but on the whole I think we all here agree that getting too nitpicky is one of the flaws of the process right now. How we change our guidelines about reviewing will always be up for debate. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And based on the conversations I've had with Eek about this to date, it's the hard question to answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't matter too much what the guidelines say if the incentives and consequences for reviewers still tilt them toward declining as the safe option. ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Confusion
and Greetings! Kindly help me regarding Draft:Sardar Gulab Singh Rathore which is the revised version of Draft:Gulab Singh Rathore. Right now both drafts are waiting for review. Kindly help me to go ahead with Draft:Sardar Gulab Singh Rathore only. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really do reviews by request. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sir, I am not requesting a review, two drafts with same matter is the problem. Thanks anyway. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I have redirected the one to the other, so there is only one draft now. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou so much and best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tlx template error
Hi. It seems that this edit has caused to now display "}}" at the end. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 21:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So it has! Thanks, nested brackets like that are sometimes hard to see. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome... and tell me about it. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 02:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

AfC probationer concerns
Hi Primefac,

I'm concerned that (currently a noping) should have their probationary afc status withdrawn.

They're making fairly major sourcing failures in multiple AfC submissions of their own, and I don't feel that anyone with that quality of source review on their own can reliably handle difficult calls in other reviews.

Happy if we want to talk to them first or just pull it (I realise I could just pull it myself, but as the granting member thought it best to bring to you) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW I've had my eye on this editor for similar reasons. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They also seem to have tried publishing their own draft, a decision that was reversed by Praxidicae. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the draft that's under consideration. For what it's worth, that isn't what I'm primarily concerned about (no issue with moving your own draft to article space if you think it's suitable), it's the two declines before and after that move (and subsequent reversal). Primefac (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Kindly Requesting Article Cross checking before moving it to wiki
kindly help look at the just recreated and properly put together an article in my User edits on Limoblaze before I move it to become a valid article on Wikipedia. I would like you to help check that the article follows the proper guideline for creating a Wikipedia page. I have double-checked for copyright and all other guidelines and I love you help do a final check Thanks as I appreciate your prompt response MasterOliverTwist (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's rather promotional (e.g. He has likewise made some amazing collaborations...). If the sources are good (I haven't looked) then that's the only major issue I can see. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yorkton Film Festival award pages
, Thank you for your updates on the various Yorkton Film Festival awards pages! :-) Best, LorriBrown (talk)
 * Not a problem! Primefac (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox award warns on preview
In this edit to Template:Infobox award, you put the description into label3 and data3. Those are later used for "Sponsored by", so when previewing a page that uses Infobox award (such as Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Actor), editors get a pair of warnings about more than one value for label3 and data3. It may be okay for the reader, since the last value (sponsored by) is the one used, and it appears you were deprecating description, but the edit warning is undesirable. Can you come up with a cleaner solution, perhaps put description into unused label13 and data13, or renumber? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's weird; I most definitely updated the numbering when I split the two params... thanks for the note, though I see someone else has fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your block on User:RedWarn
Hey PrimeFac, I noticed your block on User:RedWarn. The RedWarn team and I would like to use the account for abuse report management and for continuous integration. I've also asked, but my fellow developers inform me that they have attempted to contact him before to no avail. If does not reply, do you mind resetting the account and sending a temporary password to  ? This way all the developers who have been approved by Ed will have access to the email. Thanks! cc ―sportzpikachu  my talk contribs  08:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll have to get the account usurped, which given the proclivities of the editor who created it shouldn't be an issue. Primefac (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * However, an account used by several members of a team would usually not be allowed, see WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Don't know whether in the specific case an exception would be applicable, but I suppose then such exception would need to be granted, meaning it is not a given from beforehand that such permission can be acquired. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on a parallel discussion it sounds like the account isn't actually "shared", but will be used to maintain the on-wiki script automatically. Primefac (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Primefac, I was unaware of this discussion as I've only just woken up, but I'll probably use an old account I haven't edited on like and request usurpation with that making myself the sole account owner. The idea of taking control of the account was mainly to swap the email for the RedWarn issues mail to make it easier for users to email in issues without needing a GitLab account. As for automatically updating script, I'd prefer to just host RedWarn on our existing Cloud VPS or Toolforge instances, and/or use those to update the script on-wiki if people still want to see a diff view. While Chlod will sort that, I will ensure the RedWarn account remains in my control and my control only and that I still review every code change as I have done for the past several months. Sorry for any confusion, Ed   talk!  11:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Figured it was like a prod
My bad. Though you could have let me know and I would have undone it myself. Still feel like redirection is a better alternative is what I meant then a speedy delete. Also User:BOZ (an admin) seemed to contest that idea too. Jhenderson 7 7 7  15:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suppose I could have; honestly I was only going to undo the edit, but then realized that my summary wasn't as indicative of my motivations as I would have liked, which is why I added in a supplement on your talk page. If you think the page should be redirected instead of deleted, that would be something you're more than welcome to do even as a non-admin. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel that makes more sense really. That or if the revision is a bit different just maybe let it stay. Just was concerned that it was going to be speedy deleted if the tag stays there. Jhenderson 7 7 7  15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the point of a speedy deletion tag (deletion, that is). Of course, G4 like every other tag is dependent on the patrolling administrator agreeing with the nominator, so it very well could be overturned. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the new content compared to what was previously deleted, and it was a complete rewrite - vastly different, and with much better sourcing. I don't believe that an admin with experience would delete it at speedy, so I will trust that to be handled correctly. It could be subject to AFD again, but we will see. BOZ (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I was leaning that direction but also enough on the fence that I figured I'd let someone else review. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that
Sorry for missing that Comparative dictionary of Catherine the Great was created by a sockpuppet. It skipped my mind to check when I saw that the topic was notable. I'm glad that you noticed. SL93 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. I don't even remember how I came across that, and it's not always obvious a page was created by a sock (they're not all terrible pages!). Primefac (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Election
Good luck in the Arb election. You are a prime candidate and will make a great addition to the team. I have no doubt at all that you will get elected - oops, now I've jinked it ;-). SilkTork (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeez! Thanks :-) Primefac (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Good Article template merge question
Primefac, you closed the following Good Article-related templates on Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_9 as merge to Template:User Good Articles earlier today: Template:User GA log and Template:User GAw. The problem with this merge is that back on November 16, Template:User Good Articles, itself one of the many related templates under consideration, was closed as merge to Template:User Good Articles2, so the merge target you gave is a template that's already merging with another.

Can you please go back to your close of these two and make the merge destination Template:User Good Articles2. It will make more sense, and will reflect the ultimate template that the two will end up using. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, though for what it's worth if all of these templates are being merged to a single location, that final location should be the "root" template (i.e. User Good Articles). Primefac (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Restoring edit at List of scientific misconduct incidents
One of my edits to that page (19:21, 10 October 2020) seems to have been included in your (correct) deletion/purge of BLP violations by another user. Please restore it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only issue is that your diff actually removed content. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake - I incorrectly assumed that removing a removal would result in the content being restored. I of course should have checked the article prior to writing the above note. Sorry. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries :-) Primefac (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for my slowness
I have only a phone at the moment. I was going to notify them after the fact. Or am i missing an easier way fo do it outside of just just pinging. I have nothing but the utmost respect for you as an admin and i didn't mean to do another "you should know better" incident with you. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that; I didn't really think about how long it might take someone on mobile to type out a message (though {{subst:AN notice}} is a quick and easy way to notify someone). Primefac (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks I now know why so many comments are similar. Will try the template on Haleth now. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting references
User:PrimeBOT seems to be deleting reference definitions for references that are still in use in articles.

and it removed about 10 reference definitions each, leaving each article littered with red errors reading "Cite error: The named reference {name} was invoked but never defined" in the references section.

Why is it doing this? Are humans meant to come in after this bot and clean up? I looked at the link in the edit summary the bot left and it's a jumble of different conversations ... but I couldn't find anything that suggested concensus about deleting large numbers of references from articles, and leaving them in a bad satate. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Side effect of the task, unfortunately. Based on a quick check those were the only two pages affected, though. For the record, there is a bot that fixes such orphaned refs. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So the idea is to have one bot that destroys references, and another bot that comes by and cleans up those problems? When do you expect the cleanup bot to come by and repair those articles? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say that the idea was to destroy references, but there shouldn't have been any references in those tables, so their removal was entirely unexpected. The bot usually fixes such errors every few hours, but with only two pages to fix I can handle it. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should tables not contain references? (Or maybe you mean those two specific tables ... but I'd have the same question.)
 * Meanwhile, the bot has removed another in-use reference definition . Is there a way that it can be fixed to avoid causing referencing problems? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer the first question, no, there shouldn't have been references in those comparison tables; they were just listing stats. To reply to the second, AWB does not match up removed named references with any potential left-over orphans, so if a reference is removed as part of an otherwise valid removal, it needs to be re-added either manually or by the bot. Until now, it would appear AnomieBOT has managed to keep up with mine, as I think you're the first person who has expressed concern about orphaned references. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Eddy Hall Of Fame
Thank You Very Much. Changes make it a bit easier. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   23:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it :-) Primefac (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban question
Hi Primefac, you recently reverted an edit I made on the AfD page for the article Grounding (earthing) culture. I apologise as I did not realise it was included in the topic ban area i.e. I thought it counted as being an AfD page as opposed to a pseudoscience page. Looking at the topic ban page there are different types such as article space, discussion space, and a complete topic ban. Do you know what type of ban I have? The ban statement says any 'page' but I am not sure entirely what this means. It is an important question for me because I need to know whether I can use the Talk page for the article or communicate with other editors about it via personal Talk pages. I would ask the admin who administered the ban but I am currently appealing it and do not want to contact him directly while the appeal is in process. Thank you for your time. RickyBennison (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the short answer to your question is that according to WP:TBAN (final bullet point), an AFD about the prohibited topic is still part of the topic ban. In other words, going forward if the page involves pseudoscience etc you shouldn't be editing or commenting on that page/section/etc. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, thank you for the information.RickyBennison (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Birds tasks
Hi Primefac: Back in August, you put a lock on so that only template editors can modify it. This means that no "regular" member of WP:BIRD can update the list of tasks — which is a major pain in the butt. Did someone request this change because of persistent vandalism? Because I don't us remember ever having any issues with that. Any chance we can get you to downgrade the protection? Or do we all have to apply to be template editors? (Kinda surprised I'm not one, since I've created a number of them.) MeegsC (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, not sure why I bumped it to tprot, given that in 2018 I downgraded at your request. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We don't update it as often as we should, but it's good to be able to... ;) MeegsC (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi, I have redirected Template:Did you know nominations/King Ludwig → Template:Did you know nominations/King Ludwig Oak, because of incomplete/wrong naming caused due to an error while creating via DYK-helper yesterday. But, I find now Did you know nominations/King Ludwig Oak seems to redirect to Template:Did you know nominations/King Ludwig when clicked Review or comment link in the template. It should be redirected to Template:Did you know nominations/King Ludwig Oak. Please help to fix this. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬  12:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * . For future reference, you also need to update nompage of DYK nompage links ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks a lot — Amkgp 💬  13:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My sandbox page
Hi, I'm currently making a sandbox page with my own list of largest stars, and I want to add a column with type (RSG or AGB etc.), but I'm not sure how to accomplish this with the list of largest stars template you made. Could you make a custom template for me with that column (it should come after the radius column and before the method column) or add a feature where you can add extra columns to the template? Nussun05 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You could always create a new version in the template's sandbox and use that. The template itself is pretty simple, as it's just the standard template formatting on a single page. You should try it yourself, see if you can manage! Of course, happy to help if you're struggling. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding how the code works. Nussun05 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you ignore the #switch functions, you can see that there are basically five lines


 * star name
 * #switch for radius/radii calculations
 * #switch for calculation type
 * notes
 * notes
 * If you wanted to add another column to the template, you would add a new line starting with a pipe on the line before the calculation type #switch; something along the lines of


 * star name
 * #switch for radius/radii calculations
 * type
 * #switch for calculation type
 * notes
 * notes
 * You'll note that all of the | for the #switch statements are indented; I did this specifically so it was easier to see where the "blocks" of code lined up. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

November
Thank you for being ready to serve on arbcom, - good luck! - I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge infobox Bach composition / musical composition: Is it right that it was merged without someone (or some bot) going over the Bach compositions to add the composer? I'm doing that now, because I find it horrible otherwise, but believe it should have been done before a merge, and not by me (who has two articles desperately waiting to be fixed for DYK, and a recent death waiting to be taken care of). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't even realize that would be an issue, to be honest. I've added in a switch to add Bach if bwv is also included (for example, at Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131). Primefac (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I noticed that suddenly by miracle things were alright again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, almost: J. S. Bach please, mind the space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Primefac (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In case you want to look at a an article related to "my question": L'ange de Nisida, - mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:TOS_Welcome
Im a bit confused why you deleted my template. The reason you provided was "(G6: Deleted to fix cut-and-paste page move)" I'm not sure how that applies here. Can you help me understand why you deleted my WIP template? Nithintalk 03:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a direct copy of another template without attribution. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't I combined 2 templates, it also wasn't finished I intedent to heavilly modify them and also give attribution. Also i don't see how your deletion reason (G6) applies here. I think you were a little hasty to delete here. Nithintalk 22:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored it as User:Nithin/TOS Welcome. Feel free to continue working on it there. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news
 * Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lost edits in hijacked page
What happened to the edits that were excised from Kobenz (logs)? and are expecting them to show up in Draft:Kobenz (musician) sooner or later. If the edits are not coming back for whatever reason, please let them know why.

Also, if they have been deleted "for good" then this copy may need to be deleted for the same reason. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  23:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasoning is pretty straight-forward, and was the reason you requested a split in the first place; the hijacked article was not suitable for keeping. However, since they already have a draft I didn't feel it was necessary to move that content to the draft space as a duplicate. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have notified both editors via their talk pages.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Lumin
I am new to copyright laws. I apologize for such an error. Thanks a lot JapaneseBully (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Reversion on GLAAD
Hi there,

Just for my own learning, could you please tell me why my edit was reverted here?

Thanks! --Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Two reasons. First, we generally only bold the first use of the article subject's name. Second, you were missing a ' and thus the formatting was broken. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How do i know what personal info to report to Oversight?
There are obvious cases, but what the the policy for emails and minors? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Send it in, let us take a look. I'd rather decline a dozen requests than miss one. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

TfM
Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 3. I know it just looked like recreation of previously deleted material at first, but that's because you found it mid-way through a feature merge from. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Coolio, thanks. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also notified the "usual suspects" pages for internal HTML geekery. (WT:HTML5, WT:LINT, WP:VPTECH, yadda yadda).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Muslin
Greetings! May I request you to visit the subject, i have elaborated its history. Kind regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Calling all TPS
Okay, so I know I have a fair number of that are template/regex-savvy, and I need some thoughts. Working on some template modifications, splitting parameters under a generic team setup and moving them to a team1, team2, etc setup. I need to write a regex (or two) that will remove the nowrap in the above examples so that I can split at the line breaks, but so far I'm hitting a wall. I've looked through AWB's NestedTemplateRegex from the Tools catalogue (since I'll be using AWB) but I'm not 100% sure it will actually give me the guts of the without removing the rest of the line. Thanks for any help! Primefac (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Also, as a note, these aren't the only instances, but they represent a fairly good cross-section of what I expect to find
 * 1) Auckland Women's Sevens
 * 2) 2008–2013 2015
 * 3) Great Britain England
 * 4) Yorkshire Carnegie Northampton Saints Saracens
 * 5) Edinburgh Rugby Leeds Tykes Glasgow Warriors
 * 6) Toulon Lyon
 * 7)  Yamaha Júbilo
 * 1)  Yamaha Júbilo
 * I haven't the slightest about AWB, so I don't know if this is useful to you, but if I were processing these strings in Javascript I would do . –  bradv  🍁  23:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Borks on line 7, as it matches the }} of . Sometimes simple just isn't perfect ('cause that's one of the first things I thought of). I suspect it will require something silly like the regex for my URL tracking bot task, but that setup is designed more for URLs and not templates. Primefac (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this then: . It might break if you have multiple template calls inside one nowrap, but I believe it works for all the examples above. –  bradv  🍁  00:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And a version that works if there are multiple nowraps on one line, or if there are multiple templates inside one nowrap: . –  bradv  🍁  00:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not something that should be done with regexes. If you can be sure there'll only ever be one nested template – bradv's regex can be used. If there could be more levels of nesting, you could go for a monster regex like the ones used in xfdcloser (see here line 4009). But it's impossible to write a regex that can handle any level of nesting. Does AWB have an equivalent for pywikibot's extract_templates_and_params function? Something like that is what I'd use – it'd give you exactly what's there in the first parameter of nowrap, no matter how complicated that markup be. – SD0001  (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it's impossible to write a regex that can handle any level of nesting You are yet to discover the beauty of recursion :D —- I had one I used in ProcBot before I turned over to doing something saner. It works for this case, but not best idea just because there’s other, simpler ones that can be used. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

NestedTemplateRegex, if template name is nowrap then get arguments (the stuff you want), keep the first arg, then replace matched nested template with that argument directly? Uses PipeCleanedTemplate under the hood so shouldn’t get messed up on nested templates. Just initial thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This has some functions (based on s:User:Pathosbot/TemplateEditor.cs) that may be useful. I used Tools.NestedTemplateRegex there. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Was this appropriately reviewed? I need help.
Draft:Motion_RC 4thfile4thrank (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a borderline case. Remove the "Brands" section and it's better, but there's a little bit that's still somewhat promotionally problematic. Would it be enough to keep it from G11? Probably, but I don't know if it's a small enough amount to keep it from being taken to AFD for it. Primefac (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uselanguage
Hi Primefac! I tried to use this template today to advise a French editor to stop trying to create French articles, and found that it had been merged with UE as a result of this discussion. However, the merge doesn't seem to have been done correctly, as the switch that produces a message in the user's language does not seem to work. I undid the redirect so that I could use the template. I'm supposed to have discussed that with you first, but that rule was preventing me from improving something. My subsequent edit subst'd the template so I don't need it to stay there, but I would like to see UE work properly and I'm not sure what needs to be fixed. Can you help with that, or should I look for a template editor? ( courtesy ping) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So it looks to me that it was user error not template error that is causing this issue. The language is passed to the first unnamed parameter in Uselanguage, but the second parameter in UE (the first param is for linking to the article). Knowing that, do you still object to me simply restoring the redirect? Primefac (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It turns out that uselanguage was just invoking contrib-fr1 (or whichever language was supplied) anyway, so less of a big deal than I made of it. Thanks! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the heads up though; much rather fix something than leave someone out to dry! Primefac (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alexis Crum
Hay how could you delete Draft:Alexis Crum she's Famous on the Times of Northwest Indiana. ArekSmith (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not find a single piece of information that indicated she exists, and thus the information in the draft could be considered a personal attack or defamation. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this article okay, or not?
Laksh Vaaman Sehgal Myy first accepted article. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well... this is awkward... Primefac (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on this, and your comment here, I'm bumping you down to Probationary status, which means that any administrator who finds reason to remove you from the project can do so. It looks like you need to maybe re-read the notability guidelines and the reviewing instructions. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ontotext GraphDB
Thanks for reviewing my first article. I've added tons of citations this time. BildadtomyPeleg (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck! Primefac (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request of Draft:Bhadohi
Reason already given in that draft please see and do it. 🇮🇳GoWB🇮🇳 (ask me any questions) 08:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First, we don't delete pages simply because they're in another language, especially if they're in the draft space. Second, can't just say "your draft is not accepted" when they haven't even submitted it for review. For all you know, they wrote in Hindi as their first language and will later return to translate into English before submitting. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Varija_Bajaj
Hi Primefac,

This is regarding Draft:Varija_Bajaj. I have incorporated the changes as suggested by you to avoid but there were some major issues with promotionalism and advertising in the draft. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mngulati (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you haven't done much, but what you added wasn't super-promotional (I removed all of the problematic content when I moved it back to the draft space). Primefac (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
@ May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Merry Christmas! Warm regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Primefac: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, '' Merry Christmas! Asartea  Talk   Contribs! '' 14:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas! Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Hello, Primefac! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Primefac!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Primefac: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, The SandDoctor  Talk 16:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Reddy
I deliberatly created a separate page Reddy (Irish surname), for the surname of Irish origin. The name is completely unrelated to the Indian name. Unlike say McDonald vs MacDonald in English. It deserves a separate page. Please stop undoing this. --- Steven Bjerke97  talk  20:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you take a look at Category:Surnames, you will see that we do not split by nationality or origin of the surname. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is blatantly incorrect and false. See Lee (Korean surname) and Lee (English surname). Could find other examples. They are completely unrelated names in different languages. They should't be thrown into a mixed article. Same with Reddy. --- Steven Bjerke97  talk  20:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, so there is an exception. Fair enough. I would argue the reason for that is because the Korean article is actually about the name and its origins, not just listing individuals, as is (for the most part) the English version. Reddy does neither, and I would argue that there are not enough names (on either list) to merit splitting them; it's not even 9k in size. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to come off as rude or argumentative, but names like Sabourin have less. In addition, I was planning on adding more names to the list, as well as the history and origin of the name (Irish). It has a significance to me and I think it's appropriate that it have a separate article. --- Steven Bjerke97  talk  20:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you're clearly going to do whatever you want, so I won't edit war with you. I will ask, however, that next time you move a page please do it properly. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I'll be sure to move future pages the correct way, as per the link. My bad on that. Case closed. --- Steven Bjerke97  talk  22:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Learned nothing from G12 CSD cleanup of legal statutes
Thank you for intervening in the speedy deletion of Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. Unfortunately my contesting its G12 status went unanswered, as well as questions on how to include legislation on Wikipedia, while the CSD process carried on as if the claimant had actually heeded the warning of the copyvio tool to manually check for a false positive. I know this place is not a dictionary, but I included the twelve definitions which are together the description of the article's jurisdiction, the c part of §197 in a giant charter for the City of New York (I think this nullifies the not-a-dictionary protocol). If you are not sure what the message is that is fine, I will try to find a better place to ask. But I ask you since you intervened as if the G12 claim was true. Thank you Louis Waweru  Talk 07:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I went to the root page of the alleged violation, which indicates that all content on that site is copyrighted. This is the primary reason why I removed and redacted the content. If you have evidence to the contrary, I am more than happy to restore it. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Avery Atkins (American football placekicker)
Thank you for reviewing Draft:Avery Atkins (American football placekicker). While there's only so many ways to report straight statistical information, this article could be rewritten. That said, is there a way you could privately provide me the source of my submission as it stood prior to deletion? Many hours went into creating this article, and it would be very helpful to have, at very least, the sidebar, list of references, and stats tables. This would save a considerable amount of time in recreating this draft in a new form. Hanna Lauren (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Redacted draft has been restored. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can I consider the non-redacted portions as "safe" - not seen as copyright violations? Hanna Lauren (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the text in the draft is currently not a copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've replaced all the removed copy - hoping for a speedy acceptance as that should take care of any copyright concerns, and notability questions have been answered in depth. Hanna Lauren (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking a lot better. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Aggelos Kiayias draft rejection as 'entirely PRIMARY’
Hello Primefac, Thanks for looking at the entry. You have rejected the draft saying: ‘References are entirely PRIMARY’, and that the draft does little more than list publication history. I based this entry initially on that of Elaine Shi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Shi, which has just 4 references, all of which appear to me to be primary by your judgement. I have 12 references, including to the Financial Times and the US Patent Office. Please explain your thinking.

I looked at the links used by the first 10 entries at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Greek_computer_scientists, and similar lists of science academics. I agree that many of these do nothing more than list publication history and many others are written like CVs. However, I have done work on two other Edinburgh professors and not had a problem. My first entry was accepted and Rated Start-class in 4 categories. That entry led to this one because they are co-authors. I try to ensure my entries are better than average with a wide range of sources. If you feel I have not chosen a correct model - my first entry was a law professor - please suggest someone I should use as a model.

I am confused by your interpretation of the PRIMARY definition. I can see a grey area with info from his employers and Maths Genealogy (though these are checked by the employer/project and most academic’s pages I looked at cited both these sources). But how can a patent granted to the Airbus aerospace group, and a Financial Times report be primary? I would be grateful if you could specify for each source whether you regard it as primary. If so, are you saying they can’t be used? Please add a briefcomment after each entry, such as OK/No-primary/needs expanding.

1. School of Informatics contacts, University of Edinburgh, https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/people/staff/Aggelos_Kiayias.html Retrieved 10 August 2020. This link is to an Edinburgh website to establish the fact that Kiayias is a professor there. Are you saying this is a PRIMARY source? I would have thought that anyone coming to Wikipedia would expect this link. Your reply:

1.	Academic staff, Blockchain Technology Laboratory, https://www.ed.ac.uk/informatics/blockchain/people/academic-staff Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is to establish the fact that Kiayias heads the blockchain lab. Again, I would have thought that anyone coming to Wikipedia would expect this link. There was a report in Business for Scotland citing Kiayias and giving his affiliation. Business for Scotland is regularly mentioned in Scottish papers such as the Herald and the Scotsman and British national papers. The event was organised with the Scottish Government’s Elections Team and has been referred to in a written response to Members of the Scottish Parliament. Should I use this as well as/instead of the Edinburgh source?: https://www.businessforscotland.com/blockchain-academics-define-new-future-democracy-scotland/. Your reply:

2.	Aggelos Kiayias entry at the Mathematics Genealogy Project, Dissertation: Polynominal Reconstruction Based Cryptography, Ph. D. City University of New York, 2002. mathgenealogy.org/id.php?id=58836 Retrieved 10 August 2020. I used this because the project is so widely used in pages about mathematicians; it appears to be a Wikipedia standards source; it is mentioned 7,000+ times. Your reply:

3.	Anon (2005) “Aggelos Kiayias Awarded NSF Career Award”, School of Engineering News, University of Connecticut https://news.engr.uconn.edu/aggelos-kiayias-awarded-nsf-career-award.php Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is used to establish the fact that he was a lecturer at Connecticut and show his research interests. The Shi page uses a similar link at Cornell. I can add a link to the National Science Foundation website if that helps: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0831304&HistoricalAwards=false. Your reply:

4.	Anon (2008) “Kiayias Puts Botnets in His Sights”, School of Engineering News, University of Connecticut https://news.engr.uconn.edu/kiayias-puts-botnets-in-his-sights.php Retrieved 10 August 2020. As (3). Your reply:

5.	Cooper, N. (2009) “Engineer’s Research Targets Wireless Networks and Security”, UConn Today, University of Connecticut https://today.uconn.edu/2009/04/engineers-research-targets-wireless-networks-and-security/ Retrieved 10 August 2020. Work on wireless security cited 11 years later in patent (6). Your reply:

6.	 “Method for generating a digital key for secure wireless communication”, US patent 10,462,655. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10,462,655&OS=10,462,655&RS=10,462,655 Retrieved 10 August 2020. Prof Kiayias cited by aerospace giant Airbus patent. This establishes commercial interest in his academic work. Are you saying this is a PRIMARY source? Your reply:

7.	^ A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol, Aggelos Kiayias, Ioannis Konstantinou, Alexander Russell, September 12, 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160918110246/https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/889.pdf Retrieved 10 August 2020. Pre-print of original blockchain paper. Establishes cclaim of innovation and reason for notability beyond just professorship. Would a link to the Cardano page help? (I am wary of doing this this because anything linked to Cardano seems to be regarded as spam, which is a bit weird.) Your reply:

8.	^ Kiayias A., Russell A., David B., Oliynykov R. (2017) “Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol”. In: Katz J., Shacham H. (eds) Advances in Cryptology – Crypto 2017. Springer, Cham. 27 July 2017. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-63688-7_12 Retrieved 10 August 2020. Again, authorship of Ouroboros, the protocol behind a leading blockchain, establishes notability beyond just professorship. This is proceedings of a peer-reviewed academic conference that is cited on hundreds of other pages. This was one of 71 papers selected of 311 submissions. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yhUwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA357&dq=%E2%80%9COuroboros:+A+Provably+Secure+Proof-of-Stake+Blockchain+Protocol%E2%80%9D&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw6dq6hb3tAhUcXhUIHSshD4kQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=submission%20&f=false I can also add a US press interview from the widely-cited International Business Times: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cardanos-ouroboros-proving-proof-stake-can-work-wild-1663150 Google Scholar has the paper cited 700+ times. Shoiuld I link to this?: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%E2%80%9COuroboros%3A+A+Provably+Secure+Proof-of-Stake+Blockchain+Protocol%E2%80%9D.+&btnG= Of the papers that cite the Kiayias paper, the most cited (apart from another prof Kiayias paper) is ‘Algorand: Scaling Byzantine Agreements for Cryptocurrencies’ (667 times) Should I add this as an additional source? https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3132747.3132757 Your reply:

9.	^ Daian P., Pass R., Shi E. (2019) “Snow White: Robustly Reconfigurable Consensus and Applications to Provably Secure Proof of Stake”. In: Goldberg I., Moore T. (eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11598. Springer, Cham https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-32101-7_2 Retrieved 10 August 2020. This cites the Ouroboros paper and 2 other Prof Kiayias papers. How can this be a PRIMARY source for a page about Prof Kiayias? Your reply:

10.	^ Cardano (ADA) entry at CoinMarketCap. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/cardano/ Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is widely cited on Wikipedia, including on the List of Cryptocurrencies page. How can this is a PRIMARY source for a page about Prof Kiayias? Your reply:

11.	^ Arnold, M. (2017) “Universities add blockchain to course list”, Financial Times: Masters in Finance, https://www.ft.com/content/f736b04e-3708-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3 Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is the Financial Times talking about an financial academic innovation by Prof Kiayias in introducing blockchain courses. It is by Martin Arnold, head of the Frankfurt bureau. Are you saying this is a PRIMARY source? Your reply:

12.	^ Avgouleas, E. and Kiayias, A. (2019) “The promise of blockchain technology for global securities and derivatives markets: the new financial ecosystem and the ‘holy grail’ of systemic risk containment”. European Business Organization Law Review, 20, 1:81-110 Retrieved 10 August 2020. This is an academic, double-blind peer-reviewed law journal. https://www.springer.com/journal/40804/submission-guidelines Your reply: GreyStar456 (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * First, let me say that you are correct, they are not all primary sources; there are a few that are nothing more than a one-line mention.
 * That being said, yes, the institution(s) where people work(ed) are considered primary sources, because they are directly connected to the subject. I do not know of a university that doesn't give a bio (even if it's just contact info) for their professors, or publishes press releases when "one of their own" receives an award. This covers both of your #1s, as well as 3-5. Other primary sources are 6-8 and 12, as these are his own works.
 * 2 is a database listing, 10 doesn't even mention him, and 11 is a two-line mention/quote from him (which is fine for verification, but does nothing for demonstrating notability).
 * I cannot view all of 9, but it is likely the best of the group, since it's actually referencing his work rather than him publishing it directly. However, it's still not great, as it likely says little more than "according to Kiayias...".
 * So in summary, yes, I misspoke in my extra comment, but I stand by the rest of my statement that he does not appear to meet our various notability criteria. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Kanchan7122002
Hi they seems to be a suspected sock of. Though have been blocked for 2 weeks but I think they will return in someway or the other. Anyways, already filled a report at Sockpuppet investigations/Ranjit pasi. Thank you — Amkgp 💬  19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Abushal
I opened WP:ANI before seeing you deleted their userpage. Even though no one has tried to engage them before, the extent of this misinformation warrants a block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For something like that, I'd say ANI is a good place to get the issue resolved. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. I thought to notify you as a courtesy as you could be considered "involved".--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am most definitely not involved - I saw a page that needed deleting under U5 and deleted it. I do appreciate the notification though. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As clarification, I was referring to WP:INVOLVED, indicating that I should recuse myself from any action against them, not just "involved in the situation". Primefac (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting updating of Women related laws in Pakistan with new text
Greetings,

As per Wikipedia's expected due process I have updated Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp building it from scratch with proper close paraphrasing. I suppose it would be acceptable at least as a stub.

Since updating of Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp we will not be depending on previous text of the article, I requesting to shift the text from Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp to Women related laws in Pakistan.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like that temporary article has been deleted. Is there anything else I can help with? Primefac (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

ANB post
Thanks for letting me know why and sorry for my mistake. Dr42 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Assistance requested
Hello, I see that you are helping with the Alahverdian circus. Can you please review the madness that is going on with the edits? Apparently NBC and CBS news affiliates are no longer reliable sources. Thanks. Dr42 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm actually trying to stay out of it as much as possible to avoid getting involved (I'd rather stay as impartial as possible). If there are misconduct issues I will deal with them, but otherwise I would prefer to let the usual BRD and consensus processes go their normal course. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is marked as a hoax without any substantial proof or justification, just interpretations and platitudes on the talk page. Edits with reliable sources are being deleted and reverted. Editors are claiming that edits which are on archive.org may no longer be used on the article as sources since other archived articles were removed (I saw that the controversial archived articles were removed from archive.org, presumably by their administrative team). These issues do not allow for a healthy editing atmosphere. Dr42 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing POV template from Tim Palen
I am in the process of completely revising Tim Palen, with the goal of presenting readers a more complete article and to address the neutrality issues. I believe that when I am finished with the last few sections, I will have corrected the POV issues that led you to place the template, but I am reluctant to make "the bold edit" of removing it myself without first checking in with you. Understanding the care required in editing BLPs, I will ultimately submit the revised article for review, but in the meantime, would you please be so kind as to have a look and advise me as to removing the template? I would welcome any help or suggestions you might offer. Thank you. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , to be completely honest, I've been waiting for you to finish your editing so that I can gut the article. While I will not deny that you've added a lot of well-sourced material, it has almost reached the point where it could be deleted as WP:G11. I just now went to the article, picked a random paragraph, and found Palen's team sold the love story aggressively. I honestly don't know how you see that as "neutral", because it's not (and should be removed). Almost every paragraph has that issue. I highly suggest going back through and revising again. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, . In the specific instance you cite, I had simply paraphrased the source ("sell it hard"). If I had quoted the source article instead of paraphrasing would it still fail the neutrality test? I'm always concerned about the overuse of quotes, perhaps wrongly, and when the sources on a topic all gush, I'm not always sure how to pull it back. I want to do justice to the subject, of course -- Palen's influence on movie marketing, especially horror films, is significant according to industry trades -- but I'm alarmed to learn I've possibly made the original POV problem even worse. I will do a write-through of what I have already added, as well as remove some of the now-redundant content from the previous version. Perhaps then you would be so kind as to review once more. Thanks again for your guidance. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good evening, . I was surprised tonight as I began to do a little more work on Tim Palen that another editor had reverted to an older version. I know I got off to a rough start, but I was earnestly trying to offer a lot of new, well-sourced, and interesting detail about a controversial subject, including criticism of the subject, and as I think the edit history shows, I was trying to be very diligent about POV and neutrality. But the other more experienced editor said my latest version of 12.15.10 was "a promotional nightmare." Perhaps the version I was trying to develop was problematic, but I'm crushed that so much good, well-sourced and relevant information must be lost. I think Tim Palen could be a B-class article, and the subject holds interest for horror movie buffs and Hunger Games fans, Hollywood marketing observers/students, celebrity watchers, and the LGBTQ community. Nonetheless, I am reluctant to simply revert to my last version for fear of seeming antagonistic. I want to be respectful to the other editor and their opinion, of course, but is not the version to which they reverted less neutral than my additions once I'd revised them? And if rounding out the article and including the bad with the good isn't a good approach for getting the NPOV Template removed, how should I proceed? Do you have any suggestions? I'd be grateful for whatever advice you might offer. Thank you.Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After some time to think, and after re-reading all the policy info and guidance I could find on reversions, NPOV issues, and dispute resolution, I thought it best to politely start a discussion on the article's talk page. I would still appreciate your opinion/suggestions, here or on Talk:Tim Palen. Thanks again. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry for the lack of reply, work, life, and some back-end WP issues have been keeping me quite busy the last few days so I haven't had a chance to really look at the page. I think a talk page discussion is a good idea, if only to figure out the best direction forward for the article (e.g. fix the old version, fix the new version, smosh the two together, etc). I'll do what I can to read through everything. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. After studying the deep revision history, I now see it's had issues with apparent sock-puppets, etc. So I totally understand the need for scrutiny. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits on RfA
What did I do? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I basically was fixing the "scheduled to end", as it ended 13 years ago. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 22:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You apparently missed the big notice that says   There's nothing "broken" or "wrong" about leaving a little extra code there. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

an issue with one of your edits
Can you clarify what you meant in this edit summary? You said there was an emerging consensus to include the contest material but that seems to prejudge the direction of discussion particularly when there is an equal number of editors who vouch for its exclusion - you seem to note as much when you said immediately afterwards that there was at best no consensus. Under such circumstances, WP:BURDEN would require that the contested material (which you restored) be removed. I should also point out that the criticisms of the arguments for including the contested paragraph have not been responded to (see the "paragraph removal" section on the correspondig talk page), so unless I am interpreting somehing incorrectly, restorations of the material by non-administrators without resolving the criticisms first should be treated as WP:STONEWALLING Flickotown (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This basically comes down to WP:BRD. The text was in the article, and someone removed it. That was reverted (a few times more than necessary) and a discussion was formed. Initially (and the reason why I didn't revert back to the stable version right away) was that it appeared consensus favoured the removal, but after a few additional posts by interested editors it appeared that (at best) there was a "no consensus"/stalemate, which means that the initial "bold" removal of text has no consensus to be enacted. Given that all of the new comments were in support of re-adding this content, it forms a trend of an emerging consensus, indicating that if it were to continue there would be (i.e. "emerging") a relatively strong consensus to keep the text on the page. If that changes at some point, then of course the content can be removed again. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how WP:BRD would justify restoring the paragraph. Why would the "bold" be the removal of the text? To me, the "Bold" in this case would be the edit that included the paragraph. The "Revert" would have been the removal (i.e. revert the page back to its pre-paragraph version). The "Discussion" should have happened without the revert of that removal.
 * Also, even if WP:BRD applied, why wouldn't WP:BURDEN override it? Flickotown (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you seriously implying that the content you removed wasn't sourced? Can you please detail specifically what isn't sourced, which is what WP:BURDEN refers to? Praxidicae (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity, it's two sentences in the lead, with eight reliable sources: The Trump campaign has challenged the legitimacy of the election results by filing lawsuits, demanding recounts, alleging that mail voting is responsible for widespread electoral fraud, and claiming without evidence that election officials are conspiring to help Democrats.[11][12] Although Trump initially refused to commit to a transfer of power, he acknowledged on November 26 that he must leave office if the Electoral College votes for Biden.[13] or are you insinuating that NPR, FactCheck.org, BBC Washington Post, CNN, New York Times and USA Today are all unreliable? Praxidicae (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you even here? You're the person who said "fuck it, this (the article) is someone else's problem now". Walk the talk, move on already and let Primefac answer me instead of trying to answer for him or her. Flickotown (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Becuase you've attempted to badger your version of the article with random WP:POLICY interspersed that you've yet to answer (or apparently understand) for yourself. So c'mon, what is it? What part of burden applies here? Praxidicae (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not random if you read my arguments for it. Move on already. Flickotown (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did read your argument, or at least your attempt at one. Where does burden apply here, as you pointed out above? Under such circumstances, WP:BURDEN would require that the contested material (which you restored) be removed. The content is factual, neutral, sourced. Where is the issue? Praxidicae (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When i said "my arguments for it" i was referring to the arguments on the talk page not here.
 * On further review, it turns out that what I meant to say was that WP:ONUS would require that the contested material be removed. The confusion was on my part in thinking that WP:BURDEN = WP:ONUS - obviously BBC, NPR and the like are reliable sources. That said, while you are right that the issue isn't about WP:BURDEN, you'd still lose the overall argument that the paragraph should be kept out when the policy issue is about WP:ONUS (along with all the other issues that I laid out in the "paragraph removal" section of the talk page - this explains why I've heard crickets from you there and why you've tried to make as much hay as you can with my honest mistake here.)
 * Further to the discussion above can you address my following concerns: I don't understand how WP:BRD would justify restoring the paragraph. Why would the "bold" be the removal of the text? To me, the "Bold" in this case would be the edit that included the paragraph. The "Revert" would have been the removal (i.e. revert the page back to its pre-paragraph version). The "Discussion" should have happened without the revert of that removal.
 * Also, even if WP:BRD applied, why wouldn't WP:ONUS override it? Flickotown (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't found when that paragraph was added, but it was there at least a month before the edit warring started, with a good hundred edits between. Thus, the default state of the article was "has the paragraph" (re: BRD). As far as ONUS goes, that is the root cause of the edit war and the discussion (i.e. that discussion is determining if that onus is there). Primefac (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) As a minor note, Praxidicae is one of many on this page, which is likely why she commented after seeing you post here.
 * Can you comment on the content dispute under the "paragraph removal" section on the talk page? As I said in my OP, the people who want to keep restoring the disputed paragraph (which includes the talk page stalker that you just mentioned) haven't been responding/have been refusing to respond to the criticisms of their arguments, so attempts to keep the paragraph without resolving the criticisms first should at least to me be treated as stonewalling. Flickotown (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There haven't been any additional comments regarding that paragraph since the last time I said something, so from that perspective nothing has changed. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No I meant policy or core content policy wise. I've been saying how the disputed paragraph violates WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE but people have been restoring the paragraph without resolving the criticisms I've made first. Can you comment? Flickotown (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/Waskerton/Archive. Travelmite (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Fett merge
It wasn't a duplicate request, It was a request to a new target destination. I have created two redirects about the same thing in the last seven years, I just don't see the need for both. Rusted AutoParts 23:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but a merge isn't going to do anything (i.e. there's nothing to merge). If you think they should be deleted, feel free to request a G7 or send it to WP:RFD. Primefac (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)



Welcome to the Arbitration Committee

 * Congratulations, Primefac...and good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy 2020! Happy Holidays text.png


Primefac, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding    to user talk pages.

– Hhkohh (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to make a joke, haha. Hhkohh (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hah! No worries. I can still have a good few hours this year! Primefac (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Empire AS  Talk ! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be . Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive . This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS  Talk ! 18:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Primefac , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 21:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Primefac!


Happy New Year! Primefac, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)