Je suis Coffee

User talk:Primefac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Testing AfC drafts in New Pages Feed[edit]

Hi Primefac -- I wanted to get in touch with you directly to ask if you can test out the New Pages Feed in the Test Wiki. We're pushing our changes there first, so that reviewers can bring up issues before changes go to English Wikipedia. The feed now contains AfC drafts, and we definitely value your opinion as someone who weighed in so much during the early part of this process. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I've created a highly representative draft for testing on: testwiki:Draft:CORPSPAMMMM :P Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist vandal[edit]

Hi Primefac. Thank you for actioning my recent request. The vandal is active again. I've reported them at WP:AIV. Could you please RevDel their latest contributions, listed here and here? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, shoot me an email, just to keep things from getting too visible. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

PrimeBOT and WP:DRAFTNOCAT[edit]


I noticed your bot (per WP:DRAFTNOCAT) disabled a category on my draft. Thing is, the category was Category:Drafts about geography and places, a subcategory of Category:Draft articles, both maintenance categories. Does WP:DRAFTNOCAT apply to draft maintenance categories? If it doesn't, you should probably add an exception to the bot for those categories, but I honestly don't know if it does. Cheers. Hecseur (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hecseur, it applies to all drafts. If you want to put it in the maintenance category, use {{draft|subject=places|catonly=yes}}. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh alright, thanks! Hecseur (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

List of 2009 UCI Women's Teams and riders[edit]

In your edit of 04:37, 4 January 2017 of List of 2009 UCI Women's Teams and riders, you introduced the line

<small>(Riders template: {{view|edit|talk|template=CWT2009riders}})</small>

which is a mess, and I do not know what you intended. Please fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I intended to subst out templates that were being deleted, hence the edit summary. I apparently didn't see that there were links back to the original template. I have removed them. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


"'most convincing piece of evidence towards reform was provided by the various Urdu Wikipedians"..? You mean the Wikipedians who were openly admitted by Bukharisaeed to have been canvassed through phone and emails and editing WP:AN for the first time ever? Do you really count such violation of WP:MEAT as "convincing"? For what it is worth, Bukharisaeed can't even answer the question I had asked him no matter how many times he try [1] per WP:CIR. I definitely see no reason why he had to be unblocked. Kindly revert your decision. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am uninvolved here and I agree with the message above. Opposers thought that BukhariSaeed should not be unblocked because of more general issues and failure to understand what is a sock puppetry or canvassing. By letting him know that "any gross misbehaviour" will result in a block, you have indirectly allowed him to engage in general misbehavior which is only going to make it harder than ever to block him again. There was no consensus to unblock. Maybe BukhariSaeed should try again after 6 months without canvassing any of his pals. As of now, there was consensus entirely against any unblock. GenuineArt (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Let's put the pitchforks down please. Part of being an administrator is interpreting and weighing the arguments made by both sides, and occasionally making tough decisions. As I said in my close, it was a close call, but I felt that the weight of consensus was (barely) on the unblock side. In the 12 hours since being unblocked they have done nothing except properly revert vandalism and improper edits. Let's give them a shot, eh? Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
My main concern was to raise the issue and hopefully it has been. Given other editor objected too I feel I was right after all. In place of escalating further I would agree that we can give another shot and have a strict watch. Thanks. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I asked Primefac to close this (put an open notice about it in the admins IRC channel) because there was a question on meta as to if he could be renamed. I obviously opposed the unblock as I think WP:ROPE rarely makes sense when it comes to unblocks and that people don’t ever read the bit of it that says when it shouldn’t be applied (which is basically every time it is invoked in a SO discussion...) That being said, I think he had a fair reading of consensus and that I can’t really fault him for the unblock. Despite what is often claimed, reblocks after an unblock are usually very difficult, but I think this will be the exception to the rule: if he messes up, there are a ton of people willing to report and multiple admins who would be willing to block. Let’s move on. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick advice from you[edit]

Hey! Primefac, what if I come across a draft that I think should go to the mainspace but the creator is blocked as a sock or for any reason whatsoever? Dial911 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If the page was created after the master was blocked, and they are the only substantial editor, then the page should (ideally) be deleted under G5. If you want to take responsibility for the draft, you can make substantial changes and "take ownership" so to speak and then it would be acceptable for mainspace. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Invisible Barnstar Hires.png The Invisible Barnstar
For handling the challenging WP:OTRS tickets that no one else really wants to handle. Probably among the most stressful and thankless tasks you can do to help Wikipedia, especially since it's done in private, and most Wikipedians will never know about it. Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar is awarded to users who make significant and helpful contributions to the project, but have kept to the background without seeking recognition or reward for their work.
Thanks! Primefac (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit to my talkpage[edit]

Can you explain? It consisted of some baseless accusations of sock-puppeteering against someone whose account name is also their RL name; those same accusations got posted a zillion other places, too, but it looks like you only changed them on my user talk (?). Thanks. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you have edited several times since I posted this query, I would like to clarify that this is not meant in a hostile way: I do not understand, and would appreciate if you would explain, the point of your edit to my page in context. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
My apologies Joel B. Lewis, I was not "not responding" to you because I was ignoring you, I've been discussing the matter off-wiki with some of the members of ArbCom. When I did the initial suppression, I did not see that the message had been posted in multiple places, and they're still deciding if all of the messages should be suppressed. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much, that makes perfect sense. All the best, JBL (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I hope you are well. Would please take a look at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#adding talkpage banner? Your help will be appreciated a lot. I am also pasting this same message to Xao, and Rob. Thanks a lot in advance, —usernamekiran(talk) 22:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Trayvon Martin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I'll also note that there is a discussion here, but other users have also removed the sourced content, plus your comment at user-talk, here. Aside from that, your edit-summaries seem tendentious and contradict the wp:RS sources which, in fact, have noted issues as "controversial".-Wikid77 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:African Union flag.svg[edit]

Hi Primefac. Someone has recently added the non-free File:African Union flag.svg to a number of templates which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Actually, they might've only added it to one which is being transcluded into lots of others. I can't seem to find the one template to remove the file, so I'm wondering if you can. This happens every so often with this file, so I'm also wondering if there's any way to make it known not to do this kind of thing in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I figured it out (at least I think I did) and was able to remove the file. I'm still wondering though if there's some kind of way to prevent this from happening again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There isn't, really; anyone can put a file pretty much anywhere (makes the template vandals such an issue). Glad you were able to work it out though. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


WP:MED is generally very supportive of infoboxes. Please do not remove them. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are great, but blank infoboxes? They do nothing except clutter the page. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
No, they key the reader into what the article is about (ie a diagnostic test). They also improve our ability to study Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I genuinely don't mean to be snarky with this comment, but the gigantic header text and the bold in the lead doesn't clue the reader into what the article is about? How does it "improve our ability to study Wikipedia"? If you're thinking about tracking diagnostic articles, a category works just as well. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
It makes it clear that all "medical diagnostics" are part of a category, so we disagree. Sure many of them are a work in progress.
I agree with User:Ozzie10aaaa here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't, but since we seem to be at an impasse a) I'll leave them alone (for now), and b) I've started a (slightly) more general discussion at VPT. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
responded at at VPT--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)



You said i am not allowed to create new pages in the Article space - i must use the Articles for creation process. I am confused about making redirects. Redirects are also prohibited? — Bukhari (Talk!) 18:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Use Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i have made Muhammad Tamizuddin Khan and M.H. Gazder, because i was confused about redirects. Please delete these, then i'll request for redirects. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/RedirectsBukhari (Talk!) 18:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You're fine, it was my fault for not being more clear. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Lower protection?[edit]

Hi, would you be able to lower the protection settings for the following pages:

Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[edit]

hi there,

i am just updating this wikipedia page but i noticed that you reverted it to an old version. Can you tell me is there is an issue? all the best Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmfc75 (talkcontribs) 14:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There are no references from independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. See WP:42. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
i am adding these in to the former version, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmfc75 (talkcontribs) 14:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it. Check out WP:REFB (section 3.1) if you want to learn the best ways to add references. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

hi again, hopefully the citations are credible. best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmfc75 (talkcontribs) 15:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I've been poring over Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Template:Distinguish2 and I can't seem to understand why the "merge" outcome of that discussion should have led to the deletion of the old template, rather than, say, it's convertion to a wrapper. – Uanfala (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two types of mergers, really. There is a "content merger" where something like {{infobox former country}} is merged into {{infobox country}}, but the old syntaxes and parameters are kept in order to not break functionality (and avoid the unnecessary task of replacing all of the old template calls). Most infoboxes have this happen - look at all the templates that redirect to {{infobox person}}! Then there are "process mergers", where one of two templates with nearly-identical functionalities is replaced by the other; there is no need to keep the merged template if the base template can handle both functionalities, so it is deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. So, because the functionalities are near-identical, then it is assumed that the "merge" outcome would automatically entail deletion? That's a sensible assumption, but given that it wasn't explicit in the discussion, and that it was more or less challenged by the subsequent creation of a wrapper template at this title, I wish it wouldn't have been enforced by what so far appears to me like an overstretched application of a speedy-deletion criterion. Maybe that new template wrapper could be restored and a TfD started if deletion is specifically wanted? On a side note, I'm finding the broad situation rather dissatisfactory: before these deletions, if I wanted to make any of the hatnote templates that I know output custom text, I would simply add "2" to the template name; now, for some templates this doesn't work anymore because the templates (and the wrappers) have been deleted, so I have to use the |text= parameter; the trouble is that there are templates for which this parameter doesn't work (and can't sensibly be made to work), so I still have to use the old trick for them. But now I also need to remember which templates use one, and which use the other. It turns out, the system of hatnote templates has become even more complicated than it used to be! – Uanfala (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hatnotes are a very strange section of the template community, as there have been a number of recent TFDs related to them in order to (what seems to intend to) enact a complete smashing of every hatnote template into one base module with varying outputs depending on circumstance. I'll be honest, I haven't read into to the various discussions (other TFD regulars have been doing the closing/relisting of those particular discussions before I see them), but the "fate" of the hatnotes as it were will likely involve some larger/centralized discussion.
For example, I completely agree that if a template syntax is overly complicated (and for lack of a better term, "verbose") then a wrapper probably should be created. No point in having three parameters if you can hard-code two of them in a wrapper. In this particular instance, though, I can see where the delete camp was coming from; adding five extra characters (|text=) isn't a huge burden on the end-user. But again, maybe a centralized discussion about this should happen. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no issue with the use of |text=. In fact, the only reason I came whining here is because I attempted to start consistently using this parameter, only to find out that there are templates that don't (and can't reasonably) support it. I'm aware of the recent TfDs for the merger of the various modules, but I really don't care how the backend is ultimately going to work. I'm only interested in how the templates can be used, and if anyone comes up with any ideas for major overhauls, a large centralised discussion will of course be in order. I'd be happy with any outcome of that, but unless and until that happens, I'm not happy having to put up with a situation where past (and possibly abandoned) efforts at piecemeal improvement have resulted in the whole system becoming on the overall more complicated.
So, is there any way you could restore {{Distinguish2}}? If you're looking for an excuse, then G4 didn't technically apply: the wrapper template isn't, as far as I remember, "substantially identical" to the one that was previously deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It was, actually. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, what was the content of the old template then? – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It started off as the text of {{distinguish}}, then it was converted to a wrapper. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't sound lilke "substantially identical". – Uanfala (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
What you restored was identical to the deleted content. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I've misunderstood then. Apologies. – Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:52:57, 17 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Anonymous1941[edit]

I don't want to make the same mistake again but other than the sentence that you told me to remove is there any other sentences in my draft that need to be removed. In order for the draft to show a summary of the events leading up to her suicide. Do you want me to find more information using more references to find out about more events that led to her suicide. Please let me know what I can do to make the draft better. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

Anonymous1941 (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you every sentence that needs trimming; I don't have the time, and if I were to do that I'd just edit the draft myself. The key thing is to think about what's relevant, and what's an unnecessary amount of detail. Is the cutting important? Yes. Is the fact that she was pushed in the hallway after returning to school important? No. As I said in the decline, we don't need a blow-by-blow account of the events leading up to her death. Someone reading the article should be able to answer the following questions: was she bullied (yes), were there signs she was depressed (yes), what were the potential causes of her death (bullying, death threats, depression, etc). If they want more information about the incidents described, they will be able to read the references and learn more about how she was bullied. Obviously some amount of description is necessary, just not as much as you've provided.
I think you have plenty of information about what led up to her suicide, and should really focus on the "aftermath" - aside from reactions, what (if any) were the long-term affects this case had on public policy, laws, etc? In other words, why makes this death different? Why is it important to know about it? Primefac (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Iv'e tried my best to find information about how her suicide impacted laws and public policies and I changed the Reaction section of the draft to Aftermath and reaction. Are you able to take a look at that section of the draft and see if you approve the new information I added about the aftermath. Unfortunately quotes can't really be paraphrased.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably not in the next few days, but if you don't hear from my by say next Friday feel free to drop me a reminder note here. You can also ask for advice/assistance at the AFC help desk. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties[edit]

I wonder if I could get your opinion about Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties. As you know, "Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers", per WP:TG. For example, if the population of a city in Texas is 101,000, then a template at the bottom of the article entitled "Cities in Texas with a population over 100,000" would be helpful. Readers would have no question about the purpose of the template, because the title of the template is obvious, and the population would be listed several places in the article. With Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties, without some explanation in the article about what a majority minority county is, the template does not assist readers. I left a message with the article's creator, though I am reluctant to nominate the template for deletion without a second opinion. A way to make the template more useful would be to add some text to the article explaining what a "majority minority" county is, but there is no guarantee this will be done by every editor using this template. Your opinion would be appreciated. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit clunky of a phrase, but if I sat and thought about it for a minute "a majority of people are minorities" does kind of stick out as the most plausible definition of "majority-minority". I think the largest issue with this template family, which you pointed out on the creator's page, is there isn't anything specifically saying "this is a majority-minority community/county/etc", so the initial "I wonder which other places are like that?" reason for having a navbox isn't immediately there.
I can see a TFD going either way; the keep camp will say "just add a sentence or two regarding majority-minority" and the delete camp will say "there's no reason to tie these cities together in this way". Depending on who shows up and how persuasive the arguments are, I honestly couldn't tell you the outcome. However, I think your arguments for nominating the template are sound, so if you think that will overcome any opposition then by all means go for it. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, August 2018[edit]

Bots Newsletter, August 2018
BAG laurier.svg


Here is the 6th issue of the Bots Newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

  • Nothing particular important happened. Those who care already know, those who don't know wouldn't care. The curious can dig ARBCOM archives themselves.
  • There were no changes in BAG membership since the last Bots Newsletter. Headbomb went from semi-active to active.
  • In the last 3 months, only 3 BAG members have closed requests - help is needed with the backlog.

As of writing, we have...



These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active.

New things

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 15:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Main category[edit]

Hi Primefac. I just want to know what will happen and the impact it will have on the project if the main cat [2] is deleted? Many editors (myself included) just use main when adding cats. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing, the template itself is not going away, just the module, and it's only being discussed as an issue in the category namespace. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Re:Fostina Dixon[edit]

The DOB that was removed is directly footnoted to a reliable source (The New Grove), not unsourced as you say in your edit. Must it still be removed? Chubbles (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There was a request from Dixon that the specific date be removed. We tend to honour those requests when the subject is not a widely-known or otherwise "famous" individual. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-free file showiing up in Portal:Anti-nuclear movement[edit]

Hi Primefac. File:Nuclear hand.png is being displayed as one of the "selected images" in Portal:Anti-nuclear movement. It looks like the portal has been set up to transclude content and images from various articles. I think I found the spot in the template when the images are being called, but I'm not sure how to change the syntax so that it ignores any non-free files. Is there a WP:MAGICWORD or something which can be added to the portal page's syntax or the source article page's syntax which will stop the portal from calling up the non-free file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Marchjuly: The image is added by {{Transclude files as random slideshow}}. The maintainers need to fix the underlying module to prevent the use of non-free images. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've asked about it at Template talk:Transclude files as random slideshow#Non-free images being included in slideshows. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Afc queue jumping[edit]

Hi Primefac, an ACPERM queue jumper. Morten Pilegaard, Hennedub by user:FrederikTWTTW. The Pilegaard article is brand new this morning, and he is not autoconfirmed. scope_creep (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking me here. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The Morten Pilegaard was recreated after an previous Afd several weeks ago, and I flagged it up. That was after looking at it for a wee while, something clicked in my brain. It has now been G4'd. Thanks Primefac.scope_creep (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)