User talk:Primefac/Archive 37

Infobox country at games
Hey its me again lol. Is there a functionality for the Infobox country at games template that would automatically competitors_men and competitors_women totals to give an overall total? Right now we have to enter one for each, plus a total for it to show up. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do pages actually use the men/women split? Genuinely curious, as I just checked about 20 pages and none of them used anything other than competitors. I mean, it should be possible, I just want to see an example where all three values are used. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All the Beijing 2022 pages have them separated. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging User:18abruce for a FYI. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edit, Primefac. Please see my message on the template's talk page. Deor (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. I'm working on a fix. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
What the hell, why are playing with party modules when it worked perfectly fine for years? You destroyed syntax and now its making dozens of syntax errors. You should have never did that in the first place. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , please link to one or more articles where error messages are being displayed. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I can't fix things if I don't know what needs fixing. As far as the grumbling part of your post - it was decided after a rather lengthy discussion that the /meta/X subtemplates should all be deleted; even though they've worked for years (which I am not contesting) this is a new and hopefully easier-to-maintain system. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * A hearty second. Well done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree! Good job! Gonnym (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! I might have been the driving force, but I'm by far the only one that made it actually happen. Primefac (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

user groups
Hi Primefac, since you put in the page mover group 3 months ago I've been helping at RM and I've been handling several requests every day, most days. There was a bit of a learning curve 3 months ago and I made a few mistakes to begin with, but then several people kindly gave me feedback and it's been really smooth for the last couple of months. It'd be good to have this on a permanent basis if you think that's fine - I've built this into my wiki-routine now and I don't mind carrying on. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to re-apply at the PERM page - I prefer to let other admins take a look at re-requests. Primefac (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry to pester you about this again. I placed the request as you suggested. It's now been a week and it hasn't been reviewed yet, and now the right has expired, so I can no longer help with these :( Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There aren't that many admins that patrol PGM requests, though a week seems a bit long. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Module:Political party
Hi, how can i change the party colors of ukrainian parties? All of them that I have seen are incorrect if you check them, many of them are incorrect. I'm interested in {party color | ***}}. If you explain to me, I will change everything to the correct and correct colors, because now there is a certain mess with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Block baby (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Information about updating and fixing content in the module is at Module:Political_party. If cannot edit a data module yourself, then you should place an edit request on the module's talk page along with the requested change (for example, "The colour for XYZ party is incorrect, it should be _____"). Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Block baby (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The revert of your edit was unintentional
I clicked the "vandalism" button, thinking it would take me to a page about vandalism but it reverted your edit instead. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, now you know. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did you change Kashyap (caste)
Haraamkhor, kyun baar baar kashyap caste change karta hai. Paagal hai kya tu Jayant D. Kashyap (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You added unsourced changes. I reverted them. Unfortunately I do not speak your language, so please use English in the future (I am answering only the question you gave in the header). Primefac (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

NovemBot AWB
Hey Primefac. Thanks for processing my BRFA. I appreciate it. So I am missing the Bots tab in AWB. Is this possibly because NovemBot needs to be moved to the bots section of the CheckPage? Thanks in advance. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Same problem with Bots/Requests for approval/TheCowBot. --TheImaCow (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps premature closing of ANI.
I just saw that you closed my Outing ANI after the offending editor deleted their problematic text, and even thanked them from doing so. I must note that it took significant push-back from another editor (and me opening an ANI) before they made the revert. Before that, they wrote several times to justify what they did. Additionally, this is part of a pattern of behavior on their part, including harassments of editors, as I noted on the article's Talk page: "First you initiated a project to out editors who you felt were part of an off-Wiki editing team, even trying to get like minded editors to help, and now this. For some reason I am laughing at your "unintentional" claim. I am done with you." The issue there was an ANI brought against me and others by this editor because they were not getting their way editing a page - which led to a ridiculously long discussion wasting everyone's time. I believe the editor was temporarily blocked. (check this?) There was talk about initiating a topic ban as well. (?) So I think - this being on the same topic that they will not let go of (Skeptical articles and editors) perhaps that issue needs a reevaluation. Rp2006 (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Reopened for more discussion. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How? Rp2006 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the question. Primefac (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry... How do I reopen the ANI? Rp2006 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I already did it. Primefac (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks. This has badly escalated. Some of the remaining text can be followed, without too much detective skills, to ascertain the original outing details, as another editor (someone who has been sympathetic to the problematic one) just did in the ANI. Rp2006 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As ScottishFinnishRadish just did! Rp2006 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

RFO
Hello. Could you please consider the edits that I recently reverted at Ashley Biden as candidates for REVDEL under RD2? Thanks! Alex Eng ( TALK ) 09:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the swift response. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 09:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For that sort of content, absolutely. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Please provide details pertaining to your recent reverts and copyright violations RE: Troy Lyndon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophergraham (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing much to explain, I suppose - the added text was taken from his own website, which is under copyright and thus cannot be put directly on our article. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We may have a UPE Reviewer
Please see This AN thread and their user contributions. I am not sure whether it is proven, but it is worrying. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 16:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the initial posting. Will keep an eye on the thread. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Luciapop has an interesting contribution, where it may be that this is a further iteration of prior behaviour Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Flag question
Hi Primefac. Do you have any idea why the non-free file File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg is showing up when Torres Strait Islands is used in combination with Template:Flag. The combination was being used in Australian Aboriginal languages, which probably means that the non-free file is being taken from some documentation page like Template:Country data Torres Strait Islands. The exact syntax was  and it seems that the "local" argument is what's calling up the non-free file. I think it might have something to do with this IP edit made to the country data page, but I'm not sure. It's not really a good idea for a non-free file to be able to be added to pages via templates like this because it could cause the file to be used in non-policy compliant ways, but I'm not sure whether this was intentionally done or is just a template qwirk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is pretty much spot on. fixed. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Need help with potential TfDs
Hi, i just learnt that most Political shortname and color templates are deleted in favor of a centralised Module as per the outcome of this TfD initiated by you. So, can you consider to add the templates under Template:Party shading in this module, and initiate appropriate TfDs, unless one is already in process. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 17:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the shading templates, and by extension what to do with them. On the one hand, they do fall into that /meta/shading system that saw /color etc to be deleted, but since there are generally ACCESS concerns coming along with (what some view as) unnecessary shading, I'm not sure if it would make more sense to delete them outright or merge them into the module (which wouldn't be a huge burden to merge them in). I do note (if my quarry is right) that there are only about 200, so I think the case could be made to just get rid of them since they clearly aren't as heavily-used as say the /color options. I'd want to see a bit more discussion, especially since there are some folks who really want them kept. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * meta/shading templates are generally unused but for US Democratic & Republican parties it exceeds 26,700 transclusions total (Republican, Democratic), which is pretty high usage. Some editors also seem to have a thing for shading up cells with party colors if shading colors are not available, and party colors are generally darker than corresponding shading colors making it unreadable. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 14:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been working on post-module cleanup of templates and categories and have been looking at these more closely. Of the valid /shading templates (templates used to color a cell with text in it, and not those that are used in the exact same manner as the Party color family) most (all?) don't take into account color contrast accessibility (MOS:CONTRAST) and a lot use the colors without any real reader value and some even impact the article in a negative way. A few random examples of bad usage of colors:
 * Alaska - the coloring of the Democratic and Republican columns is pretty much pointless as the colors don't add anything that the column header didn't already say but they do make the table much more "noisy" and harder to read. The only columns which have colors that have any meaning are the "year" and "others" columns, however they aren't accompanied by any text explaining what they mean. So vision impaired readers won't know there is any significane in either cell while everyone except a small group of editors don't know what the colors purple and grey mean in the "other" column.
 * Austin, Texas - the coloring of the entire table here also serves very little value. The "Party (officially nonpartisan)" column already has this info better explained.
 * In both situations, if the color is needed, it can be used like it is done in non-shading tables (such as the one at Alaska) by using another small column at the start (however, as noted above, this should not be the only way that a piece of information is presented in a table). Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically what I'm hearing is that for 99% of situations where there is shading, it can either be removed as redundant or replaced by a party colour cell that adds an extra colour box (for those "visual representation of the party changes" needs). Primefac (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Haven't checked each shading usage so there might be some other use-cases, but in general those are my findings so far. Gonnym (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Another example of bad usage is at KwaZulu-Natal (National Assembly of South Africa constituency) (which is a common type of a table, see also Courland (Saeima constituency)). The entire row is colored with a party color which I'm assuming is meant to represent the party with the most seats, yet it isn't explained anywhere and makes completely no sense that a column for "United Democratic Movement", which is yellow, has green and red colors in its cell. Better methods of presenting this information would be for example to add a color cell at the start of the row, or a column for "Party with most seats", or a note explaining that the bold values represent the party with the most seats that year. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In articles like 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia and Opinion polling for the 2019 Indian general election, I believe, that shading remains the best way to highlight the data (party colors have been used in latter due to absence of shading templates). In articles like the above examples of Kwa-Zulu and Courland, shading would be a better visualisation if done correctly as in 2021 London Assembly election. In my opinion, party colors can't completely replace shading (and thus they be kept). But in articles like List of members of the 17th Lok Sabha, where colored cells can obviously replace shading, they should be carried out. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 22:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think shading templates can often be useful, such as at 1996 United States presidential election in Georgia to pick an example. I don't see how removing the shading there would improve the situation, and regardless, I think that should be a separate discussion from the merging of these templates into the module (which already has consensus). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)
Primefac, I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Your approval of AJDaGuru
FYI, I've just taken a chainsaw to the article. Its sourcing is woeful, and I'm wondering if you would be willing to draftify the page in lieu of me taking it to AfD. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 23:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Send it to AFD please; draftifying it will only kick the can down the road. I accepted it as a borderline case but I know that if it's sent back to draft the author will just beat their head against the wall attempting to get it accepted again (I wouldn't wish the hour I spent with them on IRC to be repeated for anyone else). Primefac (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Too late. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 01:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And AfD has been started. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 01:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If we only had a way to coordinate on IRC so that all of our respective hours spent trying to help this draft weren't so apparently oblivious of each other. My logs say that Jeske, Dragonfly, and I spent almost 5 hours on 9 Dec with it.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't remember that I'd seen this before (in fairness, I'm kinda bonked from holidays). —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 01:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Plus another now nearing four hours from today. I'm not even the one interacting with them the most and I'm exhausted from it... Perryprog (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should change the -helpers welcome message to include all of the newest "issues" so that helpers know who to keep an eye out for. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Primefac you said it was borderline but still passed so how can it be marked for deletion please the holidays are here and the subject sources were not bad it's the way journalism in Hip hop is done. Please guys this hurts so bad because the subject has shared with all of his family members and the world the link and now it says it going to be deleted. Borderline is a pass please guys don't do this it hurts so bad it's almost like the chainsaw cut off our necks when this was done we were simply just trying to remove the ophan tag please guys it is a pass like Primefac originally stated please don't pull the rug from under us just like that. The sources are credible and borderline which means it should not be scheduled for deletion! Its almost like giving a kid a bag of candy then when they go to take a piece out you take the bag from him. This hurts so bad words can't explain that pain felt from this. Hopefully you guys can please stop the deletion process and find it in your hearts to accept it back! Happy holidays!Godsentme1 (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the end, it's not the New Page Curation volunteers, the English Wikipedia sysops, or even the Wikimedia Stewards that decide whether or not a subject meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is, in fact, the community themselves. Since the article has been proposed for deletion, the community will consider whether the topic is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this is not a social nicety nor is it a process that can be stopped for vanity sake. This is how Wikipedia is intended to work.  Operator873 connect  05:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Godsentme1, a "borderline accept" is not a guarantee of anything. We have a saying at AFC that we only accept drafts that have at least a 50/50 chance of being kept at AFD, and your page falls squarely into that group; on the surface the draft looked "good enough" when I reviewed it, but I knew that further community review would be necessary to determine if it really was an acceptable page. I'm sorry that this don't appear to be working out the way you had hoped, but not everyone gets an article on Wikipedia no matter how hard they try. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Some template moves
Hi Primefac. Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 72 and suggest a possible next course of action? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would start an RM about the matter. As much as the "D" stands for "discussion", the two or three times I've seen someone attempt to use TFD as an actual venue for discussion they pretty much got shouted out of the room. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again Primefac. I made a request at WP:RM for these templates and they were moved accordingly; however, the wording in the templates and the corresponding notification templates weren't changed. I thought that would all be taken care of as part of the move, but it wasn't. The templates are protected and I can't edit them myself. Do I need to make another RM request for notification templates or can any admin just do the rest of the cleanup? — Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A TPER would be needed to change things in the template itself, otherwise just let me know specifically what needs fixing and I'll get to it. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a dummy link in each template's "Usage" section that still refers to it by its old name. There's also a link in each template's "Notify" section to a notification template as well, but each corresponding notification template may need a separate move to reflect the parent template's name change. Basically, it looks like the only thing that needs to be changed is "fair use" to "non-free use". — Marchjuly (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The usage and notify sections are tied to the provided template's name, so the notification templates likely need to be changed before the usage can be fixed (though I will note that since it's a redirect technically it will still work as described/intended). Primefac (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking another look at these. I made a RM request for the for notification template so perhaps the in-body links can be updated once those pages are moved as well. If there's any other clean up that needs to be done that I can do, please let me know. There are a some short-cuts for a couple of these templates and mentions of them made on other pages like WP:CSD, but those probably will redirect to the new page names, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, assuming the moves are done "as usual" (as opposed to doing so with the redirect creation suppressed) everything will still work even if it's not fully up-to-date. Primefac (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The notification templates have been now been moved and the in-body links in each template now rediect to the new pages. I guess that's sufficient for the moment, but ideally it would probably be a good idea at some point to update the wording of each template as well. Is the best way to go about doing this via TPERs on each templates talk page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated the template links, but if there's more that needs updating a TPER means you're not dependent on my seeing this and caring enough to make the edit (though I do patrol the cat so I might be the one that responds anyway!). Primefac (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help Primefac. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

For some reason, the last request related to these templates that I made at RMT got moved to WP:RMT by another editor. I'm not sure why this was done because the other moves I requested were done fairly quickly as uncontroversial requests. Anyway, the request has gone unresponded to for almost a week; so, I'm wondering if you could take a look at it and see if there's a problem with it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really sure why that needed an admin, but the page has been moved so you should be good to go. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The templates were move protected so that only admins could move them -- Megan B....  It’s all coming to me till the end of time  12:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know, it's odd that move protection doesn't show up when you edit a page... Primefac (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying things . I didn't notice the template was protected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Primefac. I came across another template whose wording needs to be tweeked in accordance with the above-mentioned changes. Can you update the f7 part of Template:Deletable image-caption "Criteria" section to change "This file has an invalid fair use claim" to "This file has an invalid non-free use claim"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Than you Primefac. I hope you and your family have a happy and safe holiday season. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Word limit
Thank you for your latest message. I'm trying to honor the word limit. May I have an exception to post a few extra words, so long as I try to keep it concise? Jehochman Talk 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've passed along the request, and as I'm sure you've seen in other locations we're discussing with the clerks on how to proceed. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayz
I get where you were coming from when you decided to accept at AfC. —valereee (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some times you need to play the long game. "One reviewer says no" is easy to argue, "community discussion says no" is a bit more final. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Srsly?
You really think there's promise? I thought I was being too generous. —valereee (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been known to surprise myself with low-probability outcomes working out. I will not be surprised if the indef is reinstated before the new year, though. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Welp, I'll cross my fingers for a good outcome for all! Merry Christmas! Ho ho ho! :D —valereee (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. To you as well! Primefac (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Thanks for all of your work on Wikipedia. I really appreicate all of it. It's people like you who have helped me become a better editor Rlink2 (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am always genuinely happy to know that I've helped folks navigate what can be the weird yet often wonderful world of Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2021 (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! Весела Коледа! 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) 01:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!
From my family to yours, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Here's hoping that 2022 is an all-round better year.  We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year! May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! The SandDoctor Talk 04:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

''Adapted from Xmas6. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page.''
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!!!!!
We've had some rough patches, but I still love you and wish nothing but the best. Happy Holidays Prime!Godsentme1 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

CSD for redirect declined
I put an CSD on Alice Doyard because I wanted to accept Draft:Alice Doyard, got declined because "draft is still being reviewed" (by me). Pinging you per your comment here. Rusalkii (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * aaand Jessica Neuwirth, please. I'm not sure how to be clearer in my explanation that "I have reviewed and accepted this draft and just need you to make way for it", this time I got declined because "draft proposed to be moved here has not been reviewed and accepted". Rusalkii  (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll get right on it. It might be a good idea for to start marking pages like this as "under review" so the patrolling admin is less... confused?... about the situation. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did that with the first one, it didn't help, decided to try the other way instead. Rusalkii  (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hrm, good point, I forgot about that. I guess better to do it so that you can say you've tried everything? Primefac (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll keep doing it for now, it seems like the obvious way to avoid duplicate work anyway. Rusalkii  (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Template edit request
Thanks for cleaning up that mess last night. I'm hoping you'll make quick of another request. If you'd have a look at XRV-notice and maybe do some safe substitute magic to it, I'm hoping to post it to the XRV project page right away. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it not currently work as intended? It looks like everything should subst properly. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes everything works fine, I just wanted you to look and sort of do a technical copyedit of sorts, if and where needed. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me! Primefac (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Trouble with AWB
I’ve been trying to log in all day but I keep getting “Aborted” as a pop up message, could it be because of the fact that I have 2FA enabled be causing this? Please help me. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Using AWB with 2FA? Primefac (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks it worked like magic. Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

page move
This lol'ed me. Whenver I think enwiki is getting boring, something funny happens. This week was weird. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm a little less amused than you, but I guess as long as someone is finding it enjoyable their work is done. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular, , and for closing the most difficult conversations and for  for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
 * 1) Revision of standard question 1 to Special thanks to  for help with implementation.
 * 2) A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
 * 3) Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to and  for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
 * 1) An option for people to run for temporary adminship ( proposal, discussion, & close )
 * 2) An optional election process ( proposal & discussion and close review & re-close )

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Surname hatnotes
Hi Primefac, and happy solstice season! I'm considering starting a large discussion sometime soon proposing to switch our method of clarifying surnames from hatnotes to explanatory footnotes, following up from the prior discussions here and elsewhere. Given that you've been involved in this area on the technical side through your creation of Family name hatnote, I wanted to check in to see if you have any preliminary thoughts. I presume that, if consensus for it was found, it would be possible to create a bot task to make the transition (although it might be a little tricky, as the bot would need to identify if an existing explanatory footnote method is used and to find the right spot after the bolded title). Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't care if we use hatnotes or footnotes. My main thought would be that we do not need to make it nearly as complicated as the existing hatnotes make it, which in retrospect is somewhat my fault for bending over backwards to "ensure nothing visually will change" resulting in a rather messy coding situation. In other words, whether we go with hatnotes or footnotes there should be a fairly small number of possible phrases which can be used to describe the naming convention. As always, I am more than happy to lend my bot to whatever implementation is decided, though I do also recognise that there might be a fair amount of context and/or placement concerns that might make a bot run a bit more challenging. Apologies for the ramble, it is extremely late, even for me... Primefac (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I care mainly about the hatnote vs. footnote choice and not much about everything else, so we make a good compliment haha. I'll launch the proposal once I get around to it, probably at WP:VPR (with invites at the expected places elsewhere). Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

PrimeBOT 37 approved
Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 37 has been approved. Happy editing! -- The SandDoctor Talk 16:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week Hall of Fame for 2022
Once again I call on your kindness to create this years platform. Extreme thanks! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   17:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, have fun! Primefac (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Figures...
I see I wasted 10 hours of my time with User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust in occupied Poland arb com evidence. (sighs). Ealdgyth (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is just one motion; there is every chance that your evidence could be used for a multitude of things . Genuinely, thank you for creating that; I will make sure the other arbs know it exists so to see how it can be used going forward. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Mr. Stradivarius



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Opabinia regalis
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Opabinia regalis
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news


 * Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.


 * Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration


 * Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Miscellaneous


 * The functionaries email list () will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

BRFAs about adding a category
Just wondering, how do you handle these, and what criteria do you assess them by? I usually just check if they seem sound enough, let them have a trial and give a period for input (sometimes with a recommendation to post on a WikiProject talk). A recent one was Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 5 (although it's currently at CfD). I guess yours (Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 37) was another. I'm just wary of approving a task that ends up making a couple thousand edits and then has to be reversed by a future CfD, especially when the category is created recently and the category creator makes a bot request to populate it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't say I've dealt with many of them, but in general I would say that maintenance category changes are good (PrimeBOT 2 and 37 come to mind) and article-related categorisation is likely to be context-dependent. A user making a cat and then wanting to populate thousands of pages is actually one of the reasons I will often decline AWB access requests, now that I think about it, and should be a red flag for pretty much any bot task. Just like CSDs, the bot operator should ideally not be the one asking for the task to be run (unless it really is an "I found a problem and it needs fixing" situation). Primefac (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Emailed you regarding American Industrial Partners
Hey, just saw your edit to my page. I've emailed you as requested. Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Malaysian political party shading templates
Hey, I've noticed that a lot of the Malaysian political party shading templates are not used for shading but rather for colors like the standard set. Is this something your bot can replace and leave only the actual shading usages? Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there would be some context issues with just blindly going through the list, but if you can think of a good way to split them out into shading/colouring, then the latter would technically still fall under the TFD and could be replaced/deleted. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Looking at Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, maybe checking if the cell has only a color, so in a table having cells that are like this - ? Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help
Thank you so much for your help on the track listing!Parrotlovers (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, always happy to be of service. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi
Can I clear my talk page ??? as the IP spamming on my talk page. Vexedsmug (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do pretty much whatever you want to your talk page, per WP:OWNTALK. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for posting and tagging admins. I did not knew the rules. Sockpuppetry query is already filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Blogs19 and requested a global lock at meta based on all evidences. 2402:3A80:1C42:2225:807C:F8C:2DAD:7952 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :) Vexedsmug (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A cowboy hat for you!

 * Hah! Thanks! Primefac (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverting you at AN
Sorry about that. I assumed that your edit to the indenting conflicted with my removal. If you'd like I can restore the section, but the user is already blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Likely an ec. No point in restoring, but thanks for checking. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

IP using AWB
Is it possible? special:diff/1065272550. Courtesy ping to. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So "sorta" - AWB is just client software the uses the writeapi; the AWB source code is open source, so it is possible to fork it to remove the authentication check. It is also possible that someone logged in to AWB lost their session token while it was running - as I don't know if AWB checks for "am i logged in" on each edit or not.  Notable, the "AWB" change tag is missing, as IP users are not able to add change tags to edits. Examining that edit with the abuse filter (Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1462471053) doesn't reveal much else, other than that it was not via a mobile interface. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks the same as Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Nardog (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like this IP has been making edits like this for a while, so it is more likely a patched/forked AWB client, also their edits don't seem to match their summaries (example - that isn't "tidying" up). — xaosflux  Talk 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AWB has added tags rather than "using AWB" in the summary for some time now, so I doubt the IP was using an AWB mod. (If so, why declare so and bring attention to yourself?) Nardog (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed; per the other discussion (and I believe one in my archives as well) this is an IP simply copy/pasting an "AWB" summary - I highly doubt they're using the tool. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lambda Sigma Upsilon
Now he's got someone else to be angry at. 1/2 :) I've been trying to communicate with him, so I haven't pulled the "your name needs to represent an individual"...Naraht (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Always happy to take the heat for someone who actually exists in real life :-) Primefac (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I completely disagree with removal of the list of the founding members of a GLO. It is a key part of the history. Now whether founding such a GLO makes the people notable, is a completely different question.Naraht (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll give an honest think about it, but most lists on Wikipedia require that the entrants in said lists be notable (at least so far as having Wikipedia articles). "Here are 20 random names" doesn't fit the bill to me, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A list of Alumni sure. The people that a GLO treats as founders aren't random. Look at it this way, Alpha Phi Alpha went to FA with the list of founders as a referenced part of their history.Naraht (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Referenced and bluelinked (or at least, most of them), though. I do realise it's not technically "20 random dudes" but for the purposes of "can I find out more information about them" they pretty much are. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Participating nations
Template:Participating nations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have just dropped a note here instead, but Twinkle is so temptingly easy and I'm just moving down the list in order, doing the same thing to a bunch of templates. Feel free to speedy it or otherwise do something intelligent with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh, you're not the first and probably not the last. Primefac (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Block vandalism user
Hello. Could you block this user? It is a new account of. Before you blocked. Thanks. Pichu VI (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Genuinely out of curiosity, what sort of evidence is there that they are related? Primefac (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He was followed on Twitter, where he has registered under various names, and in he wrote to be a co-author of the article Pristimantis gretathunbergae. Other evidence is his erratic edits always requesting to reverse vandalism in Spanish pages here, here or here. Why does he do it in the English version if not because he is forbidden to edit in the former?. It's one of the tentacles of Mmoreno25 in Spanish Wikipedia. Pichu VI (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That works, and yes they are a sock, but I needed enough for a check. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Alpha Psi Lambda § Section blanking
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Alpha Psi Lambda § Section blanking. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Primefac. Maybe you could clarify why you revdeleted content from this article. The conversation is starting to move in a nasty direction with all kinds of combative buzz-words and accusations already being thrown about. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned at the talk and ANI, there were copyright issues going back quite a ways, which is why it was RD'd. I'm pretty much headed out the door but I'll make an attempt to explain further at the various other locations when I get back. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. My original post was made before things ended up at ANI. I think things have been fairly well explained there by the others who ended up commenting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for what I did in 2020
I am sorry with what I did to all of you in 2020. I disruptively edited talk pages, made toxic messages, continously wrote in caps lock, etc,etc.... I am sorry. Please forgive me, for I truly regret what I did.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Water under the bridge, mate. I quite honestly can say that it was long enough ago that I don't even remember it. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay but I usually think about the past and my past actions, which may be good or not.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Batch of unused See also templates that were created in August
Did you have a plan for these? They are on the latest unused template report. I remembered to ask first this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See also Asian Beach Games
 * See also Asian Games
 * See also Commonwealth Games
 * See also Deaflympics
 * See also European Athletics Championships
 * See also European Youth Olympic Festival
 * See also Intercalated Games
 * See also Mediterranean Games
 * See also Pan American Games
 * See also Paralympics
 * See also Winter Paralympics
 * Thanks! They actually were in use until about six months ago when I revamped infobox country at games to not be so reliant on "other" templates. That being said, I don't think they're actually needed any more so I will do away with them! Primefac (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Revocation of user-groups
Hi, Primefac, I hope you are doing well. I have some mental disorders at the moment and the doctor advised me not to use electronic devices for than 1 hour a day. As an AfC reviewer and new page reviewer, I sometimes need to answer complex questions. The doctor advised me not to interfere with complicated things as it could cause further damage to my brain. Please revoke my access to NPR, and AfC unit i recover from this disorder. Regards. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, feel free to re-request when you're feeling up to it. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Yeah, I'm rather surprised at how often this template got used. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Declanhx block
Didn't mean to step on your toes; I didn't notice your "final" warning until after I implemented the block. I felt that a full temporary block vs partial was appropriate given that the user had already been indefinitely partially blocked for WP:IDHT edit-warring on State vs. Chauvin. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, that's why I gave my caveat. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your bot
Hi Primefac, one of your PrimeBOT edits was just partially reverted in the JData article. Bot was supposed to remove a deprecated maint. template, but you've probably set it to make other small corrections. In this case one of the small corrections was to link to a disambiguation page, 6.0, which caught my attention. That edit didn't appear to be correct, so I reverted all the other small edits while still getting rid of the deprecated template. As usual, I could be wrong, so if I was wrong, feel free to revert my edit. Thought you should know just in case I was correct.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like AWB's link fixing removed a bunch of properly-formatted but "wrong" sets of square braces and ended up making some weird wikilinks. Thanks for fixing it! Primefac (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure!  Paine  22:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to go to bed for an hour now, I'd like it if you could stop stalling my bot so I can do so. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know very little about bots, Primefac, so apologies if I've done anything to stall yours. Pleasant dreams!  Paine   22:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Mine runs AWB, so any time its talk page is edited it shuts down the bot, caches need clearing etc before the bot can start up again. G'night! Primefac (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Roadblocks to helper script
Hi - I requested AfC helper script access and you declined me, saying I needed more articles. So I'm trying to up my article stats to get the script, and just did an article for multi-billion dollar public testing company Cue Health, and it was promptly nominated for deletion. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? And I'll start participating in more AfDs, another of your concerns, starting with this one. Thanks. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that you have overcome the deficiencies I pointed out the last time, then by all means reapply; I don't do on-request reviews, mainly because I just don't have the time but also because it wouldn't be fair to the folks are waiting at WT:AFCP. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Hungary at the 1956 Winter Olympics
Hello! Can you check regarding the Hungarian flag at the 1956 Winter Olympics. I see that the flag from 1946 until 1949 and from 1956 until 1957 is in use. I think they used the Stalinist flag during the Winter Games. Check if that is right. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.14.227 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sondre, as I've told you a dozen times, I don't have the time to check every variant of every flag that shows up at an Olympic Games. If you know that a flag was used and is not currently showing in the proper location, please let me know (along with the evidence you have collected) and I will be more than happy to update things; just because you think something isn't right doesn't mean that it is wrong. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Primefac (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Why you change some info. Is it totally true
Why did you change some info in wikipedia,did you find it wrong?or you just want to give misinformation 130.105.62.223 (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Without knowing which page you're referring to or which edit I made, I cannot reply to your statement. Primefac (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikiedu subst run
Prime, should the bot be substituting one template while leaving a second behind? -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * And an unrelated oddity: the bot has here substituted two consecutive uses of the template (each now in its own section), but it has left it signature in the second section twice, and not at all in the first one. – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To answer the first question, yes, it should, but I forgot to increase the "how many times to run this regex" above one, so until about half an hour ago it was only running the check once.
 * To answer the unrelated oddity (somewhat touched on in the now-subsection below): I have no clue why that happened. If you look at the diff before that (at both Linguistic Typology and Mad Men) there was only one template. To make a wild-ass-guess, I think it was a server lag issue, because there is literally nothing in my code (which is a glorified "find/replace") that could add something as complex and complicated as a full-on, fully-formatted, wikiedu template (also note the timestamps are disjointed as well). I am hoping that I haven't discovered some sort of weird wormhole/tunnelling bug in AWB that allows me to move text from one article to another via a series of tubes, so when I get a chance I'll double-back on the related pages edited at the same time and see if the servers just happened to drag along some information. Primefac (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hah! Found one of them, Special:Diff/1066156221 somehow got copied into the Talk:Linuistic Typology edit. Definitely not a bot-related issue, but likely a server-side glitch. Honestly not really sure how to find (or fix) the issue, but honestly? I don't think anyone is even going to notice (or care) much past fixing the sig thing. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, there's a small possibility this glitch got copied on to about 800 pages.......... wtf. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess as soon as the bot run completes I'll run through and remove all of those duplicates. At least they all have the same message. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NOT A GLITCH. Well, a human-made glitch, but most definitely not my fault., pinging you as a courtesy, as I was planning on handling the excess removal myself, but... any chance you want to do it? Primefac (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for unearthing the cause of that. What a funny situation, though. I'm wondering if similar stuff can be avoided by a mechanism that pauses any bot-run template substing the moment an edit is made to the template. – Uanfala (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the short answer to that is "no"; it's the primary reason we auto-protect any template with more than about 50 transclusions, because it's just too easy for someone to slip in vandalism and then have a bot subst or otherwise proliferate the vandalism, requiring a ton of cleanup. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Two questions. It's not doing either one at Talk:Mad Men and at several other talk pages I monitor. I believe it should be doing both to conform to talk page guidelines. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Shouldn't the bot be signing its work?
 * 2) Shouldn't new threads go at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top?
 * To both of those questions, I'll give a vague "yes and no". The bot is signing its work, as far as I can tell, and I know that because I've programmed in ~~~~ into the replacement options. If there is a page where it's not signing (at all), please let me know. Based on my regex logic, I'm honestly not sure why a double-use such as at Mad Men is causing the signatures to stack like that - it should put putting each signature right after each substed dashboard call. (there's something weird about this, see the thread above, I need to run but I'll be back on in an hour or so to hopefully figure it out)
 * As to "new threads at the bottom" - this template is years old, and often placed years ago. Unfortunately the template itself doesn't have any sort of indication of when it was added, as it was originally a banner, so I had the choice to a) substitute it as an unsigned section (which would then likely be auto-signed by Sinebot anyway) or b) add an artificial date from the bot. I chose the latter because I wanted the notice to eventually get archived (as this was one of the concerns in the TFD. Before the subst the dashboard note was listed at the top of the page (again, as a banner), so keeping it at the top isn't really "adding a new conversation" but more "signing an old unsigned conversation". It just happens to be that the timestamp doesn't match the placement. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) merged into the preceding section as the same topic
 * Thanks. 1: The first section wasn't signed, and my concern (like yours) was the archiving. But I see now what's going on. 2: I would still call it a new conversation, but I understand the technical issue and I guess that's the best we can do, so ok. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the way you are doing them (ala leaving them at the top). The bot is hitting my watchlist hard; not sure if there is more student medical editing than in other areas, but I am happy to see the old sections at the top, so I can just archive them.  It does take me an additional step to click on the course to see whether it is recent, but I don’t mind doing that work to be rid of this old template clutter on talk pages. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Section headings
Your bot is violating MOS:BLANKLINE, which says "The heading must be on its own line, with one blank line just before it". It's not leaving the blank line before the heading. Or rather, I think it's removing the blank line before the following section. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk pages aren't beholden to the MOS regarding header spacing. I'm not going to go back and change the old edits, but since you seem to be concerned about it and it's an easy fix I'll add it in for the remaining 10k pages. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New usages
Is anyone working on preventing or updating the use of it? Or have I misread the TfD closure... :) New one here. -- ferret (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm working on it; the intention isto subst all of the old uses and then convert it to a subst-only template. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good god, apparently every course in the world decided to updated today... I must have cleared out the list a half-dozen times in the hour. Either way, it's now a subst-only template. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And..... I've been reverted. Discussion is at for anyone interested. Primefac (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation on page- how to proceed?
Hello Primefac, I saw you were involved in copyright related concerns, and I found a page that seems to have one. The jhajariya page seems to take its first two sentences verbatim from this page. I could add a cite to the page, but then we would still have a WP:PLAG problem (I also think it doesn't meet WP:RS anyways.) Would you suggest I propose deletion of the entire article, since there isn't much verifiable content? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Cheers~ PinkElixir (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , from the page you've linked, it says "According to Wikipedia" immediately before the content in question. This implies that they copied it from us, not the other way around. I have no opinions on whether you propose the page for deletion. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles for Creation potential participant
I had my request declined later last year, and now, am I ready to be a Articles for Creation participant? However, if I fail one of the criteria for the Creation, can you please give me advice on why I failed and how I can improve on becoming a participant? Thanks. Severe storm  28  01:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you lacked experience in the "deletion" side of things; CSD, AFD, etc, and potentially article creation (I honestly don't remember exactly). If you think you have overcome those deficiencies, though, feel free to re-apply. I don't do on-request reviews though, mainly because I just don't have the time but also because it wouldn't be fair to the folks are waiting at WT:AFCP. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So, is creating 7 articles and participating in more than 5 AFD enough to participate? Severe  storm  28  22:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Much as I do not give timeframes for "when can I reapply" (as seen here for example) I try to not give hard numbers for what constitutes a minimum level of experience required, mainly because everyone's situation is slightly different. If you feel that you have overcome the aforementioned deficiencies, then you are welcome to re-apply. I will note, however, that your 5 AFDs have not yet closed, so whether or not you made "good decisions" at those venues remains to be seen. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles for creation
Hey you declined my request for this few days ago, but I want to review articles and also did some before I knew that I need to be a participant of, Articles for creation, can you suggest me what to do and where I need to improve, which type of edits I need to do more and when I can re apply for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and get to place to the member of the project. ... २ तकर पेप्सी   talk  11:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can point out a mistake that you committed recently and acknowledged later like you moved Guddi (TV series) → Draft:Guddi (TV series) per, even before WP:AFD is closed violating WP:NotEarly and implementing WP:BADNAC. 2402:3A80:6AA:BC9:B971:FE0C:B1BB:E896 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My main concern was a lack of demonstrated understanding of the notability criteria, as evidenced by your declined drafts. Getting a draft accepted at AFC, or participating and demonstrating knowledge of our deletion criteria via AFD/CSD, are both good ways of showing you better know the guidelines and criteria. I cannot put a timeframe on that, however, as it is entirely dependent on how you choose to spend your time. When you feel that you are ready, though, you are welcome to re-apply. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * for your reference, २ तकर पेप्सी is a suspected paid editor who is not ready to accept it directly. See the proof ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anachronist&oldid=1041996493#Can_you_provide_an_draft ) 2402:3A80:1A44:1E6E:E54C:946E:6C27:E9B7 (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Revdels
I don't want to keep emailing if it's just revdel worthy, not OS worthy. Can you semi the page, or should I go to RFPP? Thanks for your help so far. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * took care of it. Thanks Ponyo! and thanks Primefac for earlier. Much appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Np. Happy to help.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Always happy to provide a talk page for folks to get things done, especially when it means I can eat supper ;-) Primefac (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad edits
For example, this one. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Oh, shitballs. I apparently did not delete all of the old removal code when I ran that one. I'll go and fix things if they haven't already. Primefac (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Content copypaste move within Wikipedia
Dear, thank you for the reverts on those "information commission" pages. suggested (at Talk:Tripura_State_Information_Commission) to merge various "State Information Commission" articles into and redirected to Central Information Commission; which is quite similar to my suggestion which I made at my talk page. And, John and you have a similar opinion - "Copying within WP is not a CopyVio, although it generally requires attribution". So my question is how should we prepare for future scenarios like the one we faced today? What parameters we should consider while evaluating such pages at NPP? -Hatchens (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those articles are nearly identical, with the only differences seeming to be specific names and places. Thus, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to merge all of them into one article, with tables to provide the various differences (e.g. the name of the Chief Information commissioner for each State). As far as the intra-wiki copy/paste, attribution can always be added later, so while an ideal world would see page creators giving the proper credit for their huge copy/pastes like this, it isn't mandatory that they do so provided it gets done at some point (relatively soon after page creation, of course). Primefac (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:COPYWITHIN is that it is mandatory to give attribution when moving or copying text apart from a few exceptions. As far as NPP is concerned, you can add the attribution and then place Uw-copying on the editor's talk page. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For specifics, WP:RIA describes the after-the-fact attribution. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Aparna Yadav
Thanks for redirect Qweasdzxc (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
Good Day and all he best in this 2022. year, on Branković dynasty page first one purpose IP made a unsourced edit [] (I believe it is for fun because it does not make any sense) I reverted them one time but after that a account appeared with the same revert [], can something be done? Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 21.January 2022 (UTC)
 * Notify them on their talk page about their behaviour (welcome messages, talk page warnings, etc) and if it persists and they do not engage (either on their talk or the article's talk) seek sanctions at WP:ANI (or WP:AIV if they're purely a vandalism-only account). If one particular page is being vandalised regularly, then request it be protected at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Pages with script errors
Looks like most of these script errors are from your changes, for example, see 10,000 metres at the Olympics. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly fixed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ACountry_alias&type=revision&diff=1067485724&oldid=1067431807 here]. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 18:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. Just for the record those are 's changes, I just re-implemented them after a temporary revert. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:FIAV
Hey, your last edit on Template:FIAV appears to have caused ~60 errors to be flagged at CAT:MISSFILE because soem were using upper case - such as Flag of Rwanda uses now giving  instead of  as it uses capital N. Not sure it the edit should be removed or these fixed? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Argh... two templates with literally opposite setups (re: caps)... took a gamble and it didn't pay off. I've self-reverted for now. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Task 24 wikied disaster
This edit at Talk:Transgender youth for task24 for Wiki ed cannot possibly be what was meant by the Tfd. This is page header wreckage; please hit the big red button on Task 24 on an emergency basis until this can be discussed and before you wreck more pages. Adding User:Sage (Wiki Ed). Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * are rather late to the party, my friend; see, Sage's talk page, and the WikiEd noticeboard, all of which have discussions that started (and ended) on 18 January (the bot hasn't run since then). Incidentally, I am waiting for replies from Sage and/or the WikiEd group so that this can be dealt with. Primefac (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Shall I create past seasons article
Hi, I am here infront of you with different topic. Can I create any teams season article where that season was already completed i.e Multan Sultans in 2020. I hope for your positive response. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources and independent coverage and all that jazz, then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to create an article for it, especially since it seems to be missing from the sequence. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes I have sources which you have mentioned above. I am confused because that season was already completed. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because it's over and done with doesn't mean that someone has written an article about it. I am rather surprised, given that '18, '19, and '21 have articles. Primefac (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox locomotive
I saw you worked on that. Could you please correct this erroneous "Water cap" entry - i.e., add a period after "cap"? - see discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_locomotive. Thank you! --User:Haraldmmueller 17:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Another Olympic favour
Hi! I was wondering if you could get the Infobox Olympic event template to show competitors male and female, just like the infobox country at games template. Tyia! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just noticed there should be a space between nations and the ( bracket. Here is an example . Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed, ta. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hebrew Template
Please, remember to check this. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying that I was going to look into it, and quite honestly I'm not familiar enough with CSS to do anything other than verify that implementing a TPER or similar will not break things. Sorry. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good mopping

 * Sometimes discretion is the better way forward, though I hate to admit "we" were informed before I noticed it myself; unlikely anything will come further of it but we're aware. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

RfA cleanup
I saw that comment when it was made and wasn’t sure what (if anything) to do about it, but I think you took a good approach, so thank you. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sometimes "late" is better than "never". Primefac (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)