User talk:Primefac/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Congratulations

I have closed your RfB as successful. Welcome to the team, and good luck with the new tools. Maxim_(talk) 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Congrats and Best Wishes and thanks for answering my questions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You start tommorow :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks ike you're gonna get the day off after all :( ——SerialNumber54129 14:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations for bureaucratship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. Tomorrow, you may take part in RexxS crat chat. Best chatting Hhkohh (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

i see you already got the crappy t-shirt, someone should start gifting the pants too. Welcome to the corps, btw. It is not going to be as bumpy ride as admin corps —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: don't you know we go Full Winnie the Pooh? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm more a fan of being taps aff ;) Primefac (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought admins go winnie the pooh, and crats get the pants. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Which crat are you a sock of? Natureium (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Natureium: Actually its the other way around. More than half of the current crats are my socks —usernamekiran(talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! --SQL ^{Query me!} 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding my voice to the chorus. Many congrats! A well deserved promotion and - as with everything else at the 'pedia - there is no pay raise whatsoever :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Congrats. Please carry out my todo list. Add crat to Cyberpower678, deflag everyone I don't like. Add the crat flags to my bots, and then push the red button I have stashed away somewhere. Thanks. :D—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Went searching for the red button, found six of them attached to a shirt. Not sure that's what you meant, so I'll keep looking... Primefac (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks all, it's appreciated! Primefac (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat belated congratulations! Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A very late congratulations on your successful RfB, as well as your very well written comment on the current crat chat.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 03:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Sir! :-)

Sir, Thank you very much for dispelling my concerns. Have thanked you on that very talk page. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Always happy to help! Primefac (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, Maxim_(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

In at the deep end eh? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Might as well! Primefac (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, well spoken! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Re your comment about WD in interlanguage links: today I had the sad job of notifying of a friend's death, and even without, am not much into general discussions. Could you perhaps go there? I use the ill template A LOT but so far only for other languages, and I always give only one, because that one will have the others, such as for a French person, I give only fr, for a German person de, and a reader who goes there will see that the person perhaps also has a Spanish article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit war on Van Badham and Sally McManus Pages

There are two users, "ChangeTheRulesComrade" and "Emuwren" who are engaged in an edit war on the entry pages for Australian writer Van Badham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Badham) and Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_McManus). Their edits relate to adding in a false reference that Van Badham co-authored a book with Sally McManus. This can be seen in the change logs. There is currently a Federal election in Australia, and obviously political activists are attempting to cause trouble by doing this edit. I'm happy to keep an eye on the pages, but would it be possible to have the pages locked? Thanks. Lymantriidae (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Lymantriidae, as I'm currently involved on the Badham page I cannot really do anything. I suggest filing a notice at WP:AN3 if they persist. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Jag Chima Article Advise

Hello Sir,

Can you please help in making changes to my article 'Jag Chima'. It has been rejected twice by StraussInTheHouse.

Here is the article - Draft:Jag_Chima

Any pointers would be highly appreciated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav Dhingra PG (talk • contribs) 06:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Gaurav Dhingra PG, firstly, you need to replace the {{redacted}} templates with the content which was removed due to copyright violations but put it in your own words. Secondly, you need to cite reliable sources, the fifth and sixth sources appear to be unreliable. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

StraussInTheHouseThank you very much for pointing me in the right direction. I have worked on your inputs and resubmitted my article. --Gaurav Dhingra PG (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Retford King Edward VI Grammar School

Sorry but I'm new to wiki. Does your edit mean it is now OK to be published? I added lots of citations, lots of bits were removed - I assume they were too close to the associated citation so were deemed copyright breach. Ok for now, I think I need to represent those but until the basic article is published it's very difficult to interpret various editor actions. What is the basic next steps I need to take please? Gedgmoss (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)G.MossGedgmoss (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioscrivo (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Gedgmoss, my only contribution to the draft was to remove the content that was in breach of our copyright policies. I haven't had enough time to actually look at the draft and form an educated opinion about its potential. I would suggest asking Theroadislong, who declined it the first time, or StraussInTheHouse, who was the one that removed the copyright violations and took it off the review list. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Page mover

How about this proposal? You are the admin who declined the prior request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure whether admins have a common view on what the candidates ought to have. In my opinion the best qualification would be frequent participation in WP:RM or WP:RMTR using arguments that show good understanding of WP:AT. But probably that's not very common. So my inclination is to guess whether they are able to negotiate, stay off the admin boards, and show some effort at diplomacy. Also, one guy had 32,000 edits and had created a featured article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say your initial assessment of what admins look for is pretty consistent; most of the folks I talk to on a regular basis feel RM and RMTR activity is the best way to gauge a user's need/ability to use the right. Not showing up at the drama boards helps, though! Primefac (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

stale unblock requests

Hi. I went through WP:BLOCK, WP:GAB, and appealing block; but I couldnt find about dealing with stale unblock requests on any of the pages. I think there is something like "procedural decline, declining stale request". What to do when one comes across a stale unblock request? Say, 30 days old or more. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Let it sit there until someone takes care of it? Ideally it should be an admin who declines an unblock. If there are any really old ones you could always post a notice at WP:AN to get some eyes on it Primefac (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

erm... Okay.

Thanks for the reply :) see you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fleecehold in the United Kingdom.

Dear "Primefac".

You very kindly looked in and left some comments on the first draft I submitted of an article titled "Fleecehold". I then spent an intensely busy week re-working the article, eliminating all opinion, eliminating anything "primary", and ensuring that every statement is evidenced by a citation. Then I resubmitted, but the article was very swiftly rejected as if by a swashbuckling blow from a warlord who surely failed to carefully examine the editing record, and who must have failed to observe the substantial rewriting.

I really can do no more for this suggested entry about an issue which is extremely topical in the UK today. Only this morning, 16 April, further articles about Fleecehold issues have appeared in the UK press, AND a 40-minute radio documentary about Fleecehold was broadcast on BBC Radio 4's "You and Yours" programme at lunch-time, so I am appealing to YOU, Primefac, to do whatever you can to ensure the article is published.

Could you, please, fashion it according to whatever formula you know the Wikipedia guardians require? I don't mind at all if it is altered - after all, once it is published it will then be edited by many people as weeks, months, and years pass by.

Further background to my request to you, is as follows.

The rejection reason was again that the article "reads more like an essay", but both submissions were written according to encyclopedic form, that is, I used encyclopedia articles as models. So the submission does not have the form, style, or the elements of an essay (those elements being, as you are most probably aware: an exordium, followed by narration, partition, arguments, refutation, and conclusion). There is not even a classical introduction or a conclusion in the submission. It only presents information about what has occurred, and what has been stated in reputable secondary sources.

So the submission does not, for example, bear any similarity to any of the 33 essays by the celebrated essayists presented in Morley's "Modern Essays", as at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38280/38280-h/38280-h.htm

As the article's list of External Sources shows, the issue of Fleecehold has been "hot" in the UK since 2016, and I wrote the submission expecting that Wikipedia would be eager to include an informative entry for the benefit of readers. I am sure the submission could be better as it is rare that any article cannot be improved in some way. However, I am aware that the submission is majorly more informative and helpful than many of the articles which can currently be read in Wikipedia. In terms of formatting, it is possible that the number of endnotes could be reduced by using Wikipedia's method of combining endnotes, but after a month's work on this article I can afford no further time learning how to implement Wikipedia's styles, particularly as it is highly unlikely that I will ever submit another article, given that I have never submitted an article before.

So, please, Primefac, could you make the submission publishable? Or could you, please, facilitate an expert Wikipedian doing whatever is necessary to make the piece publishable as soon as possible?

The submission is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fleecehold#Fleecehold

Lastly, to ensure you fully understand my puzzlement, the following Wikipedia articles, all very recently edited, are longer and more complex than the Fleecehold submission.

An article on a pop-star: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Collins Last edited on 7 April 2019, at 21:15.

An article on a medieval nobleman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Ros,_6th_Baron_de_Ros Last edited on 7 March 2019

Article on an economic idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism Last edited on 5 April 2019

Article on a religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church Last edited on 31 March 2019

Article on mythology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology Last edited on 6 March 2019

Please help as best you possibly can, for the benefit of the dissemination of knowledge!

Over the course of many years, I have instructed 100s of students in the art of essay-writing, so I reach out to you in exasperation. (My career has been that of a university lecturer in English Literature, Business English, and Business Communication, my postgraduate qualifications being in Linguistics.) I can do no more for this article, except ask you to take care of it.

Sincerely, Ioscrivo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioscrivo (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@User_talk:Primefac, (I now watch your page because of my 'crat vote) I am now reworking Fleecehold. I am struck by its UK POV, and I think I might try to make that page an article. It's going to look different, as we all know, but 'I have no dog in this fight' and I will try to cast the information as encyclopedically as I can. @Ioscrivo, "Many hands make light work" (says a Wikipede). --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In looking at the draft, my first thought is that it's just... wordy. I mean, the entire Private Estates section doesn't even mention the word "fleecehold" except in the opening sentence, and it's six huge paragraphs long. Does it need to be that lengthy to get the point across? In skimming over it I'm failing to see how a lot of that content is relevant to the subject material (but in fairness I'm just skimming it). It is always easier to expand a small article, but often much more difficult to trim a bloated one. Start with "just the facts"; what is a fleecehold, and why is it notable? How did it come about? A short, well-worded draft is much more likely to be accepted than something that looks like an essay.

If you want to discuss more about your draft being declined, I'd start a conversation with CAPTAIN MEDUSA, the editor who declined it. I see that Ancheta Wis has also offered some assistance - maybe you could coordinate with them at Draft talk:Fleecehold to work on the draft?

I know it can be frustrated to have a draft declined for failing criteria that seem to be rampant in existing articles - just please keep in mind that all pages are judged on their own merits, and the existence of one (or many) poorly-written articles is not necessarily an excuse to create another; they should be cleaned up instead! I'm happy to give other thoughts if you still need them. Primefac (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Primefac,

Thank you for your comments.

I appreciate that the draft will appear wordy to readers who are unfamiliar with the issues, particularly as the issues are entirely new, and complex. I do believe though that a careful reading of the articles which have been selected for the "External Sources" section of the draft will assist anyone who is unfamiliar with the issues to fully comprehend the whole submission.

I am delighted that Ancheta Wis has advised that they are reworking the draft.

Regards,

Ioscrivo (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC).

Unblock request for FWTH accounts

Now that I'm no longer blocked, would you please unblock my alternate accounts Zawl, FWTH, FloodedBot, Z0 and KingAndGod that were (enthusiastically) blocked because of this account, according to the reason given "alt account of blocked user"? I'm not going to use them per the ArbCom sanction but they do not necessarily need to remain blocked. -- Flooded w/them 100s 10:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds, genuinely out of curiosity, why should those accounts be unblocked if you are not allowed to use them? Primefac (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Because they were blocked for being alternate accounts of a blocked user, but now that reason is moot due to my successful unblock appeal of this account. It hasn't to do with the ArbCom case and my not being allowed to use them. Furthermore, it would be nice to not see the red block notice on the contribs page of those accounts nor see their usernames striked out, for my own psychological benefits. -- Flooded w/them 100s 04:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Flooded with them hundreds, I do not think Primefac should unblock your alternative account. But I think they can consider changing the block reasons Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Think of the psychological benefits of the sense of accomplishment you would feel if you spent your time improving the encyclopedia instead of worrying about things that don't matter. Natureium (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft re-review

I was hoping you could re-review the Draft:Lowndes County Freedom Organization. I rewrote the article to satisfy stub-class standards. Mitchumch (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Mitchumch, it's looking better, but I prefer to let a different reviewer take a look at the draft to avoid any unconscious bias. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Mitchumch (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

color templates / semi protection

Hi there. I see you added semi-protection to {{yellow}}. Recently there was vandalism done to {{lime}}. Where can I ask to have that template semi-protected as well? It was up for a few hours and caused issues at Mueller Report. Thanks, - Paul^T+/_C 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it wasn't immediately obvious that the color template was the problem. I think all the colors should be protected. starship.paint ~ KO 14:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the necessity of protecting all of the colour templates, but since lime is used on a pretty major page (though I don't necessarily see the necessity of using it there) I've semi-protected it. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

Saw you reverted my change to the archived Editing Restrictions page; why would my old account name need to be listed? The restriction is still in place on this account. All that's changed is the name, and I need to have that removed per the fact that it contains personal information that I can't have up here anymore. Renamed user 2423tgiuowf 00:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Two reasons, the first being that your change broke the links so that it didn't actually lead to the proper thread on the proper page. Second, the related thread lists the old name, which must be linked to, so removing it from the RESTRICT page leads to potential confusion as to who is actually being sanctioned. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion

Hi. You just deleted Tonga women's national under-18 futsal team per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Islands national under-18 futsal team. However, the article was never actually tagged with an AfD notice, and per WP:MULTIAFD it needs to be tagged. See also the discussion at User talk:DannyS712#AFD where I removed speedy deletion tags from the article for the same reason - looking through the (now-deleted) history, the page was never tagged. Would you be willing to restore it please? Thank, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Primefac beat me to deleting this. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Good deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There is zero point in restoring an article where there was unanimous consensus to delete the page and a half-dozen other pages like it on a minor technical glitch. All it would do is delay the inevitable for another week. You're welcome to recreate the page and/or take this to DRV, though. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Would you be willing to email me a copy of the deleted page? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of User Page concern

Hello Primefac. Firstly I would like to thank you for restoring my user page on Wikipedia. However, I am just concerned why it was deleted, though I think I know why.

Looking forward for your answer,

DerpieDerpie:D 00:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's just say that it's best not to put too much personal information on a userpage. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I get what you're saying.

Thank you for the clear answer,

DerpieDerpie:D 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 15#Template:Infobox UK place

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 15#Template:Infobox UK place - "The result of the discussion was keep." Why that?

Could you give more background? Why are UK places treated differently, cf. Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place? Why exactly should it not be converted to a wrapper? Note the bold part of the proposal "No content will be lost, no code in the articles will change - just the back-end code in the template itself will be changed to use Infobox settlement.". Ping User:Gonnym 77.13.194.116 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The consensus of the discussion was to oppose the proposal. The consensus was large enough that I did not feel further explanation was necessary. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"large" - by what quality? Does !vote not apply when you close a tfd? "I did not feel further explanation was necessary" - that's obvious, but not maybe stick to policies instead of feelings? 77.13.194.116 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

77.13.194.116, there is no real guidelines for templates, so it is practically a wild west situation where you can do almost anything and the onus is then on others. In this situation, I agreed with you that there is abosulty no reason why a UK place should appear differently than the entire world, but as we were the minority there is nothing to do about it. Stuff like WP:CONSISTENCY and common sense have no weight here. --Gonnym (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Having done a bunch of template mergers (including some pretty hefty ones) I can see both sides of the argument here. From my initial read-through of the discussion there was a large voice of opposition that said that not only would it be difficult (which has been shown to be irrelevant) but that there were some genuine concerns about being able to keep the template accurate/updated if it were converted into wrapper. When I get an opportunity I will expand upon my close and give more rationale for my decision. However, I find it highly unlikely that I will overturn a 10-2 result in favour of deletion/wrapping; numerical opinion does count for something at TFD. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, a lot of voice, and a numerically high opposition. I don't understand how keeping accurate/updated would be negatively affected. Manner of editing in the articles would not change. So it must have to do with editing the template? 77.13.82.51 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your first!

	The Bureaucrat's Barnstar
	Congratulations on closing your first RfA! MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

… demonstrated need

Hopefully it became pretty clear very early that {{edit template-protected}} is expected to become the main source of my edits. In other words, to offer help for other users more than do own projects. Do you expect me now to invent some MediaWiki-coded stuff while “policies and opinions certainly [changed]” since my old times? How to learn what should I write in sandboxes? But I suspect that your ruling was actually determined by some other factors, such as my substandard civility record in Wikipedia and controversies on Commons; it would be nice to mistake about that. Have a good day. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, I'm glad you want to help, and I know you said you have an interest in patrolling the TPER queue. However, until one can demonstrate that they can request such edits successfully, there's no evidence that they won't just end up mucking about in a major template and break something. Please keep in mind I'm not saying you would do that specifically, but it is the reason why you weren't granted it at this time. If you find yourself making a large number of edit requests that are approved with little or no issue, then by all means feel free to re-request access. If you'd like clarification on anything else, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems consistent with Wikipedia’s practices, but I am not interested. Congratulation to the site having a pool of qualified volunteers in excess of all projected needs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

New message from RhinosF1

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at Lourdes's talk page.
Message added 16:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen as you actually Declinined, your thoughts are requested. ~ RhinosF1^{(chat - live)}/_(contribs) 16:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Seen, will get to it tomorrow. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I just wanted to belatedly give you some wikilove after reading about you getting your bureaucratship. I'm sure you'll need caffeine eventually. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Revdel Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (Thailand)

Hi Primefac, I was wondering if you could help with a housekeeping revdel. I have just accepted this article at AfC which seems to have originated from a user sandbox and carried all the unrelated history from previous edits. This diff appears to be the starting point of the actual article. Previous entries are irrelevant to the article. Many thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Editing when logged out

Hi, you might like to read WP:LOGOUT. The editor disclosed that they are editing when logged out, so any sockpuppetry is automatically out of question. Regards, — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Primefac raised this with me, and in my view it is a clear violation of WP:LOUTSOCK. Commenting negatively about a high profile user who was ArbCom blocked on their talk page is in my view equivalent to discussing internal project matters, which is quite clearly not allowed by policy. Logged out editing is governed by the spirit of SOCK. In this case, the edits by the person by the IP were inconsistent with these principles as they were an attempt to split up editing histories in a way that evades scrutiny. Primefac was correct to revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kashmiri, the first bullet point of the entire page says Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. The "nutshell" header includes Do not use ... to stir up controversy. Yes, editing while logged out (in the strictest sense) is allowed, but not when it's borderline gravedancing and (because of being logged out) borderline aspersions/personal attacks (i.e. no diffs to back up their claims). Primefac (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The IP's post comment has been re-added yet again by a different editor. At some point the adding, removing, re-adding, re-removing, re-re-adding, etc. seems like it's just going to be an endless cycle that will only waste the community's time and energy. If Jytdog was still an editor in good-standing, there's a chance that he might just blank the IP posts without a response per WP:BLANKING; he'd be totally within his right to do so and there would be really nothing more that anyone could do about it. So, it's not clear why "his" user talk page should now be a free place for anyone to try and re-hash any grievance or dispute they ever had with him during his time as an editor, especially now that he's unable to respond. It would seem to be more venting and baiting to do so even if the poster was a registered account, but using an IP so as to avoid scrutiny seems much worse (at least in my opinion). Any problems which existed between Jytdog and others should've been resolved at the time through ANI. If that option wasn't pursued, then the ship has has long sailed and there's no point in bringing it up now. If, on the other hand, it was pursued, then the community has already decided what action was needed (if any) and it's time to move on. If someone is unable to move on by now, then they are acting as if they are WP:NOTHERE which is of no benefit at all.

If people want to post flowery things about how much they support him and want him to come back, then I see no real harm in that; I'm not sure how much of a point to it there is, but it seems harmless.At the same time, if "his" user talk page is going to attract so much heat, then maybe it's time to protect so that admins can only edit it. Just for reference, I'm not just posting this only because it's Jytdog; I think the same consideration should be given to any banned or indefinitely blocked editor regardless of how badly they screwed up. These editors have screwed up royally and the community has spoken and taken whatever action it has deemed appropriate. It serves no constructive purposes to turn their user talk pages into places to try and get even or re-argue past disputes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I hope you don't suggest that it's okay to complain about a low-profile user who isn't an ArbCom member? No, the editor wrote about their own case, and they have full rights to do so, issuing gag orders is a step too far IMHO.

@Primefac: Is narrating own experience on WP really WP:CONTROVERSIAL? Or you call it "controversial" only because it differs from other people's experiences?

@Marchjuly: If it was up to me, I'd lock the Talk of every editor who's been booted out, to everything other than unblock requests and ensuing discussion. Talk pages are not '"graves", memorials, places to socialise, memory albums, etc., per WP:TPG and especially per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. However, if we are allowing comments like "the editor was such a great guy", for fairness we should also alow comments "the editor was not such a great guy". Otherwise we deliberately introduce a WP:BIAS in the public perception of a particular editor.

If the editor was active, they would manage their public image any way they like. If they are gone, it is not the role of other editors to promote their specific image. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I call it controversial because it's casting ASPERSIONS because they're accusing Jytdog of doing something without providing evidence. If the editor had sucked it up and edited with their own account, at least we'd know who it was, but as it stands it's just an (even more) anonymous complaint from someone with an axe to grind. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not difficult to figure out the account, and yes, this was an ArbCom case in which the editor was hammered by Jytdog (without prejudice to the merits). Recounting a negative experience can hardly be called aspersion – the editor did not question Jytdog's interity, honesty, etc., which is what aspersion is. They only explained why they are relieved Jytdog is gone, using quite balanced language. But this was a scar on a carefully cultivated image of a good colleague, wasn't it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If it isn't difficult to figure out, then they should just log in so that those of us who have no clue who they are can view the context and agree with them. Right now, it is just an anonymous attack without anything backing it up. That is the definition of an aspersion and also the definition of logging out to evade scrutiny. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I also think it would be fair if they posted from own account, but assuming that they are doing this for "evading scrutiny" is casting aspersions. Maybe they only fear a reprisal from another admin? You are always welcome to engage and clarify, especially given that they seem to be a long-standing editor if my guess is correct. 07:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs)

No, I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. I said that in cases of a high-profile user that was ArbCom blocked it was a clear violation of policy as evasion of scrutiny. This is because the community as a whole would likely be interested in knowing who is saying this because of those factors. Context matters. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree it would be better if they openly posted from own account but I am far from punishing them for not having done this. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: A talk page, let alone a user talk page, is not subject to the same encyclopedic standards as an article; moreover, a user talk page isn't written in Wikipedia's voice and there's no need to present a neutrally worded or unbiased view of its "owner" to anyone. The only time those things would matter would be if someone decides to write a Wikipedia article about the "owner"; so, trying to argue that negative user talk comments should be allowed just because positive user talk comments are allowed is likely not going to get you very far. There are plenty of "quasi-memorial-type" user talk pages (for example, user talk pages for deceased Wikipedians or for Wikipedians taking long-term leaves of absence) where editors post "thank yous" or other supportive messages, but there's no general need to ensure that user talk page comments critical of the "owner" are given equal weight on those or any user talk page. If you want to argue that this should be the case, you can; the place to probably best do that, however, would be at WT:UP or WT:TPG.

The most relevant policies/guidelines applicable to user talk pages in my opinion are WP:NOT, WP:UP#NOT and WP:BLP; if you think the page is clearly in violation of any of them, then perhaps WP:MFD it and see what the community thinks. At the same time, if you want to argue that {{Banned user}} should be added to Jytdog's user page and the page blanked, then you're probably going to need to go to AN to do so since his user page has been WP:GOLDLOCKED.

Regardless, nothing is going to be accomplished by others trying to re-hash any previous dispute they might've had with Jytdog by posting on his user talk because he simply cannot respond in any way. If others want the community to sanction him in some way over some past misdeed, they should've started a discussion about whatever the issue was when it actually happened since nothing posted now is going to lead to the community taking further action retroactively against him. If others are concerned about Jytdog someday being reinstated and feel they need to state their opposition to that ever happening, then there's no point in doing so until there's some real indication that Jytdog intends to appeal his ban. They should watch his user talk page for any indications that might be happening, and then express any concerns that they have at the appropriate venue where any discussion related to an appeal is taking place. In such a discussion, however, it's unlikely that a comment by an IP account which shows up out of the blue after having not made a single edit in over a year, which has also never previously edited Jytog's user talk page (or any other user talk page in fact) or otherwise has had no obvious interaction with Jytdog anywhere on Wikipedia is going to be viewed with anything other than suspicion; so, there's no reason why it should also not be viewed the same way when posting comments on Jytdog's user talk page page as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for posting the same links to WP:TPG and WP:NOT that I did. Glad to see we agree that these are relevant guidelines also for Talk page content.

there's no general need to ensure that user talk page comments critical of the "owner" are given equal weight on any user talk page Nobody is asking for equal weight. Just let them stay, don't censor Wikipedia, the comments were not libellous ~~ffs~~!

If you want to argue that {{Banned user}} should be added to Jytdog's user page and the page blanked No I did not write about blanking and tagging, never was my idea. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be rude or dismissive by reposting the same links as you, and I apologize if it came off as such. At the same time, if you think NOT, TPG, or NOTCENSORED are somehow being violated by leaving the positive comments as is and just removing the negative ones, then perhaps you should start a discussion about this and seek greater community input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Will do in spare time because I find it unusual that a blocked user can only be praised but not even mildly criticised. I am sorry if I sounded dismissive, but I think you responded to what I did not say. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition to Marchjuly's excellent explanation, there is the simple point of banned means banned and an SPA IP posting aspersions on an opponent's talk page ticks every box at WP:DUCK. Wikipedia is not available for malcontents to tell the world about their grievances. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: A "SPA IP"? Posting aspersions equal to WP:DUCK? Speechless here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

But that's just what a hacker would say!

[1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if hackers compromised accounts and then made better edits than the original owners! Primefac (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirect and draft

Hi Primefac, Greetings. Is there a way to reserve the editor who writes the article as the original creator (so they name would shown on the article) instead of the editor who did the redirect edit? Also how do we go about accepting a draft which the article name already existed via a redirect - article here - Draft:Expedition 62 and the redirect here [2]? (note I have the page move right - not sure this right is applicable for the question above). Thanks in advance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, if you've got PGM, then I'd use User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap to simply swap the pages. You'll have to clean up the article manually, but it will preserve the original creator. A second option, if you want to use AFCH to do all the boring work, is to use {{db-move}} on the existing redirect and an admin will delete it. As a note, we almost never do a histmerge on these sorts of pages because there's no point. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, Thank you for the info above appreciate. Since I am here, I have another question. When an editor created identical article in mainspace and draft space, what is the normal protocol to remove one the the article? I usually tag histmerge on the mainspace article and Anthony would delete the draft space. Kindly advise. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If Editor A creates Draft:Example and Example, there are four general scenarios

Editor A is the only significant editor to both pages. The Draft can be turned into a redirect
Editor A is the only one who edited the Draft, but others have edited the Article. The Draft can be turned into a redirect.
Multiple editors have edited the Draft before it was copied over to the Article. A histmerge should be requested.
Multiple editors have edited the Draft before and after it was copied over to the Article. In this case it's clear there's active editing going on in both places, so they should probably be left as-is. If it's an AFC submission or something, just turn the page into a redirect.

There are other side possibilities but this should deal with most cases; really there are few cases where a draft would need to be deleted or even histmerged. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, Thank you for the information. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being an admin

Thanks for this action. I know that being an admin is a difficult job, and I'm grateful to those of you who are willing to take it on, despite the negative feedback that inevitably comes with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Always willing to help when needed. Those sorts of edits are the worst to do. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange ifeq

Template:Charmap seems to be broken... -- Polluks ★ 17:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Looks like a subpage got tweaked and it broke things. Should be fixed. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-open a deleted page.

Hello, it's been a while since Primefac deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bloss%C3%B6m_Records

Since then the company has only grown and now we need to update the Wikipage as well as un-delete it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeinformationfront (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Freeinformationfront, you're welcome to submit the draft for review; click the "Submit your draft for review" button on your draft and it will be reviewed by an experienced editor. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Warner Chappel / Mumbo Jumbo

Hello,

I have seen from the historic of the wiki page of warner chappel that the part concerning Mumbo Jumbo has been edited/removed many time. Some of the reason were about that source that was not reliable.

I do not know if this will be sufficient as a source, but here the link to an article that I suppose could solve the issue: https://5mag.net/news/mumbo-jumbo-youtube-copyright-warner-chappell/

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.89.40.232 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please post your concerns/edit requests at Talk:Warner Chappell Music. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit of my talk page

Hi

You recently deleted a post by Anthony Bradbury on my talk page. Could you please undo that change? I did not do a copy of the text just yet.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Frederikwh (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, email sent. Primefac (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Primefac! When you moved User:Binod2055 to Draft:Anish Luitel, [3] were you aware that Draft:Anish Luitel is create protected?[4] Knowing it had been salted, I was puzzled to see it as a blue link. Now I understand why: only an administrator could have created it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I was not aware; I only came across a draft on a user page and moved it to what I felt was the correct location. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No reason you should know; we don't normally check for a log of a potential target before we move to it! OK with you if I delete it? It's been G-11'ed three times. There are references but no reliable sources, just things like press releases from his Boy Scout council. Online search finds Facebook and his own web page. I wondered about that "Duke of Edinburgh International Award" but it turns out that award has been won by 8 million people. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

can you add the symbol protection for dipika kakar

Hi you have protected Dipika Kakar's page but you forgot to add the protection symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.91.41 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend to not do that. Don't know why. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok but don't you have to do it. I just informed you so you know.

Bot request

Could you replace {{cite}} with {{citation}}. It is an outdated alias that makes CS1 and CS2 names confusing. {{citation journal}} to {{cite journal}} is a similar templat of CS1/CS2 confusion. Maybe even the spaces lacking {{citeweb}}, {{citejournal}}, {{citepaper}}, and {{citebook}} too which at least do not cross CS1/CS2 boundaries. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

AManWithNoPlan, if you want to have the redirect removed from use, you will need to go via WP:RFD. Template redirects are perfectly acceptable and can/should be used until there is an issue such as the one you describe. As for the latter mentions, "spelling errors" are very common template redirects that mean if someone accidentally missed out on a space their time isn't wasted. Again, if you think they should be deleted and/or removed from circulation you will need an RFD or similar discussion. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I will look into that. I don’t think they should be deleted, just substituted. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

ANI thread on Chahal

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've opened an ANI thread about Chahal. I did not mention you in the thread, but given your recent involvement with the topic, I felt you should know about it. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Didn't see the gaming - I've pulled their EC status. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking care of that. Lepricavark (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

AWB access on alt account

As mentioned in my request for AWB access, I plan on using a new alternate account, User:AspeningAWB, for AWB edits as there will probably be a lot of them. I can't use AWB as AspeningAWB because that username isn't on the check list. Can you add AspeningAWB to the list? Aspening (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, duh. Got into autopilot when accepting. Will fix in a sec. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Aspening (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For repeatedly closing old TfD nominations. * Pppery * _survives 23:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

How can I avoid making mistakes when editing Template:Infobox time zone UTC?

Hi Primefac, I’m sorry about the changes on Template:Infobox time zone UTC. I’m not sure how to edit the article without making mistakes because I copied a revision from August 2018 and the reason why I did that is because I’m not sure how to edit the article without copying an old revision. Can you please show me how to edit the article without making mistakes because I'm worried the next time I edit I might make another mistake, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Every template has a sandbox where changes can be made. In this case, it's Template:Infobox time zone UTC/sandbox. There is also a "testcases" page where you can try out different combinations of parameters and do general bug-checking to make sure the template is working properly.

As far as editing old versions - if you are accidentally editing an old version of the page, you will get an error message starting with "You are editing an old revision of this page" in which case you'll need to hit the Edit button again to get to the newest version. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I used the sandbox for my proposed changes to the article and then I put them down on the article. I have removed time zones UTC+01:30, UTC+02:30 and UTC+08:30 because these time zones are currently not being used by any country and I have also made the info is larger so it makes it easier for people to click on the time zones on the template. I made these changes because I want to help fix Wikipedia for you and I hope you agree with them. Lachlb (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Blanked

I blanked because it had OS-able details e.g. phone number, I think it's been cleaned now. Thanks, SITH (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If it's just a small section the whole thing doesn't need blanking. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	This is for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia as an Administrator. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits by this guyI may have to block this guy he's started edit warring

[5] bad source, and in the UK most senior lecturers are the equivalent of full professors with lecturers being the same as junior professors. I was a tenured lecturer and not happy with the title. Senior lecturers at Oxford and Cambridge almost revolted and that ushered in a change of titles. It was embarrassing for them at international conferences. I might block him, he's started edit warring and his edits violate NPOV and particularly BLP. On my iPad in a car swinging around, no fun editing! Doug Weller talk 07:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If I get a chance I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

They've commented on my talk page where I've made a short reply, no more time tonight. I had a ten+ hour drive today to pick up a new dog, zonked. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Dineo

Hi @Primefac: Could you get rid of this redirect. I would like to put draft at Draft:Cyclone Dineo into it. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Everett Stern

Hi @Primefac:. I hope you are doing well and thank you for being the main moderator for my page. I read through all of these alerts I received and I wrote up a paragraph on my talk page for you and the other moderators to give a better understanding. I am getting alot of questions regarding Netflix and the show is growing and growing. I am being invited to give speeches across the country. People are researching me and you are simply going to have more activity from my page. Pleaee read my comments though on how I feel about some of the things people are trying to do. At the end of the day the moderators decide and I am not trying to influence or change things. I am simply trying to introduce another side to this. I actually agree with you taking out the Clandestine service for different reasons though. Thank you for helping make my page as accurate as possible. Everettstern (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Pangolin876

Hi @Primefac:, I am reviewing all of these alerts. May you please bann Pangolin876 from creating a company page for me. I am not sure why this person or group is trying to do this and they have my company spelled wrong and as an intellgiece director there is something wrong with this. This person does not represent me or anyone from my organization. I have not hired anyone to do ANYTHING for me on wikipedia. I am reading some of there comments and they are the ones going through my campaign donations. I do not like where this is going. If Tactical Rabbit is going to submit a company page I would want it to be offical and me disclosing it has official company contributions to it. Every other of my competitors have done this. We are a large company and this has to be done properly. No adverisement page. In fact the Everett Stern page covers Tactcial Rabbit tremendously so I am not sure we need a page. Either way I do not like how this person or group inserted themselves. If they want to comment on my page that is fine but submitting pages for my company? There is bad faith in that and I am concerned. What was even submitted? Was it accurate? If it read like an advertisement as I read then what message were they trying to convey? If we are going to have a company page for a company I built from nothing it had better be accurate. I dont want him or her notified. They could even be a group of people trying to commit some kind of scam against me. They see a high profile figure with a company and no company site and then they try to hit me up for money after it is up... There are a number of bad guys can try and get me with this. After my previous experience I do not like the way this looks. I just want them blocked please. I have nothing to do with this and I do NOT want a company page from this person or group. I he/she/or group was legit why not notify me about the company page? I just ran accross it when I clicked on their name and a Tactical Rabbit Submission popped up. If they felt the need to create a company page for me then why not post to me saying "Hey we love your work we are going to do research and try to get a company page going." That is not what happened. Randomly forming a company page? Something is off. Everettstern (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC) --- I just read another moderators post about multiple users or accounts this person is using. I am now seriously concerned. I have not hired anyone to do anything to my Wikipedia. I actually like it the way it is. As someone who has been targeted before I am concerened about being set up again. If someone wants to make changes to my page - good or bad - I am all for that as long as it is in good faith. As someone who is nationally known for his ethics I have a real problem with what is going on. If someone or a group is making changes to my account especially in the formation of company pages then I have an issue. Of course you are asking if this person or group is being paid by me. It looks very suspicious. Now that I am looking at it the statements and changes are accurate but why the company page? I think these people or person are trying to set me up a house of cards that they can extort and and then the house comes down. This is the same situation like before except I have not been approached yet. A group of college kids watching Netflix and doing research on me and think Tactical Rabbit is cool leading to a dradt up of a page is one thing, but this is different. I have nothing to prove my allegations, but all I can say whatever this user is trying to submit for me - I do not want it. I want to make that very clear. I am not interested in some random Tactical Rabbit page being created about me by who knows who with an unknown intention. I do not want to have to worry about this or my page being attacked. My moderators have always looked out for me. Please watch out for an attack on the page. And please ban this user as they are clearly doing things that me or my associates have not authorized. I am going to be signing off of Wikiepedia for a while again as I rarely check this. I sign back in and post if I am approached with an extortion attempt. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 06:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Unused type parameter by Template:Cleanup-SVG

Looking over Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_3#Template:Cleanup-SVG, I'm thinking there's no need for Twinkle to include {{Cleanup-SVG}}? It uses type=SVG per Ahecht, but {{Cleanup image}} doesn't take a type parameter, so it doesn't do anything, right? Maybe it could still add to Category:SVGs for cleanup, which is (oddly?) not a subcategory of Category:Files for cleanup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amorymeltzer (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh... this is what I get for closing a discussion with a fairly clear consensus and then find out the participants had no idea what's going on. I suppose we should either add a param to {{cleanup image}} or just turn {{cleanup-SVG}} into a redirect. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I hear ya! There could be a conversation to have about using {{cleanup image}} to sub-categorize images, but given the size of the category that might not be worthwhile. It's long enough ago and you made the merge, so you could open a DRV if you like? There're no transclusions, so unless you or Ahecht disagree, I think I'll just redirect it tomorrow. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

If it were a huge category, splitting it into the image types (even by sorting, not subcats) would be useful, but yeah, with the cat having <100 pages in it, there's not much need. I'll redirect the wrapper for now. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

SEA Games RM closure

Hi. Could you reconsider your closure of Talk:Southeast Asian Games#Requested move 26 May 2019? The second !voter provided a rationale that seemed apparently confused, since the move in question concerned only "SEA Games", not any other iteration of "SEA", and was in no way ambiguous like the (rather irrelevant) WWF example they cited. To me it seems the outcome would be "no consensus" at best. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Paul 012 their point was that SEA points to the dab where there are a lot of possible acronyms, which is how I interpreted it. You made a reasonable argument, but those opposed made better ones. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Can't say I find those to be sound policy-based arguments, but thanks anyway. It's your call, of course. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 28#Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_28#Template:Infobox_Prefecture_Japan - it was 3 "replace and delete" and 2 "keep" when you relisted, could you explain why? @Pigsonthewing: 78.54.88.162 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Because that implies there are opinions that fall on both sides of the debate. TFD isn't a numerical vote, and I found that the arguments were reasonable enough to merit relisting. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Which keep argument was reasonable? 77.13.28.252 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Lachlb not only mass edits article and template space against consensus, but also removes talk, now the second time, first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_time_zone_UTC&diff=899620556&oldid=899194048

77.13.28.252 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make the connection with their edits on the template talk until just now, but I agree they're problematic and have left them a note. If you think they're being disruptive with regards to time-related articles in general, you should bring it to WP:ANI. Make sure that you have diffs to demonstrate your concerns with their editing habits. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you forgot to add time zones down when you edited Template:Infobox time zone UTC

Hi Primefac, I think you made a mistake when you edited Template:Infobox time zone UTC by forgetting to add time zones UTC-10:30, UTC-08:30, UTC+07:30 and UTC+09:45. Can you please add these time zones down because I think you forgot to put them down, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC

I haven't done anything to the template other than restoring the last "good" version before the edit warring started. If there are things missing, add them to the sandbox and get consensus to update the main template. Primefac (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Redlinked Entry

What is a redlinked entry? Did it just need a source or was it because the actor didn't have a wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.157.130 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Mostly yes to both. A Red link indicates that the subject doesn't have a Wikipedia article. This isn't expressly forbidden (since it often encourages editors to create the page), but they are generally not permitted in list entries. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you delete Angel of Decay? This is in regards to Ted Bundy. Angel of Decay doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia. Or was it allowed to stay because there was a source cited to IMDB and the actor had an existing wikipedia page? Doesn't it need to meet ALL of the criteria? Or was it possible that I accidentally created a red link when I tried to add the film title? It was on my work computer. If I put the source to IMDB will it be allowed or will it be disallowed because the actor did not have a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.157.130 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably just got overlooked. As a page watcher it's easier to see an "incorrect edit" than to go through and fix the page - I'm mostly interested in keeping vandalism out of the article so I don't spend much time actually reading the content of the page. Thanks for checking about that. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok but now i'm even more confused. Angel of Decay wasn't a red link. I looked up what a red link is. It's an actual link on the article that technically leads you nowhere. It has to be "linked" to qualify as a link. In other words you can't create a link to a page that doesn't exist and that's not what that angel of Decay user did. He had a source to back it up. So you deleting that confuses me even more. It's because the two movies didn't have their own wikipedia page and that's the primary reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.157.130 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much - there are quite a few of us who use the term "redlink" to refer to any article that doesn't exist, whether or not it's linked. Now, I will give you that there was a source after that line, but it wasn't a particularly good source - IMDb (like Wikipedia) has user-generated content and thus is not really allowed as a reference. If there were a newspaper or magazine (or reliable online source) that demonstrated the importance of the film, then it could probably be re-added even though at this point in time it doesn't have an article. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

But does that apply to only film? Or does this apply to televison documentaries? Shouldn't you clean up the television section? I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect source. A newspaper is written by people who could purposely provide inaccurate info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.157.130 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are acceptable sources. They're not great, but they're reliable, independent verification that the shows exist. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

But that again is only your opinion..unless somewhere on the rules page says that tvguide is considered acceptable. If those two films can be found on tvguide, would that override deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.157.130 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that they're reliable, independent verification that the shows exist isn't my opinion, but that's not really the point. Nothing has been "deleted", just removed. All content on Wikipedia needs to be properly sourced, so if a fact is sourced it can be added into an article. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's not your opinion/your ruling then whose is it? What gave you the idea that it's reliable? Is there a link here that shows what is considered an acceptable source? If the administrators ruled that only tvguide and a few slected sources are acceptable then you got me and I can't counter argue you anymore. It just says you are an oversighter so I don't know if you are a mod or not. I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to the need to properly source something. But you didn't answer my question about movies becoming a reliable source if tv guide lists it (not that I plan on looking for it at this point). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.157.130 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS, WP:RSN, and the community consensus built over the last decade of discussions. We cannot list every source because it would be impossible; setting rules and guidelines is more than enough. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What do I do next after I’ve edited the Template:Infobox time zone UTC/sandbox because I can’t edit the main page because it’s locked?

Hi Primefac, I can’t put my proposed changes down that I used in the sandbox today like you said yesterday onto the main page Template:Infobox time zone UTC because the page is locked, what I do next after I’ve used the sandbox to get my proposed changes down onto the main template? Thank you. Lachlb (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Make a proposal on the template talk page, transclude the template and the sandbox into the testcases page so that there can be a discussion about the possible options. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot subst

Hi. I'd like to follow up on User talk:Primefac/Archive 22#BRFA - Substituting templates. I recently ran a query, Quarry:query/36726, and found that there are many templates that should be substituted but aren't automatically. Have you given the matter any more thought? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This should be a WP:VPT discussion about why we have "optionally subst-able" templates. In other words, you need to determine if having {{subst only}} on a page means it must be substituted or just should be substituted. If it must be substituted, then having the |auto=yes parameter is superfluous and it should trigger auto-subst all the time. If it's only a suggestion, then why are using the template in the first place? Primefac (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: thanks for the suggestion. Also, on a similar note, can you glance at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 46? I think that it shouldn't be controversial to substitute a depreciated template to carry out a TfD close. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

What do I do next because I’ve made a proposal on the template talk page and transcluded the template and sandbox into the testcases page in Template:Infobox time zone UTC?

Hi Primefac, I’ve made a proposal on the template talk page and transcluded the template and sandbox into the testcases pages in Template:Infobox time zone UTC, what do I do next now to put my proposed changes on the main template? Thank you Lachlb (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait until other editors comment. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Help adding TfD notices to template editor-protected templates

See this. I just nominated some templates at TfD, but they're template editor-protected so I can't add the appropriate notices. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been handled. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Didn't realize it at the time because the AN thread wasn't edited, but it was done a few minutes before I posted this message. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to have happened all in a rush. I was just commenting mostly for {{tps}} and myself that it was done. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving a page

Hiya thanks for checking in on the page I tried to make. I haven't edited in a long time and I must have made some mistake.

I was confused because I tried to make a page for a person named Andrea Lewis, and I know there are some others with that name, so I wanted to clarify it was a Jamaican person of note. I tried to make a page for Andrea Lewis (Jamaica)and submit it for review. But then when I added a link to the Andrea Lewis (Jamaica) page on another page - it appeared not to link to the one I submitted, but to link to an empty page, which allowed me to create a whole new page under the same name. I would prefer to have it be live and visible and linked-to, so I tried to replace the empty text of the new page with the draft. That got it flagged, I assume.

Would you mind explaining: How can I make the draft be linked to, if I can't recreate the draft on the linked-to page? If I delete the draft submitted for review (I note there is a significant backlog), can I just add that text back into the page that you deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djripley (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Djripley: (talk page stalker) Its because the page you created is still a draft, and so is linked with the Draft: prefix (Draft:Andrea Lewis (Jamaica)). DannyS712 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have left a message on Template talk:Infobox time zone UTC regarding why we should unlock the template as we used to.

Hi Primefac, I have left a message on Template talk:Infobox time zone UTC regarding why we should unlock the template as we used to because I made a mistake by accidentally using edit warring when I didn’t know before I edited so now I know not to. I’m sorry I used edit warring when editing and I promise I won’t use it again, so I think we should unlock the template as we used to because me using edit warring was a mistake, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2019

There seem to be some decent discussions about the template, so let's see how they play out. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

How long will my proposed changes to Template:Infobox time zone UTC be discussed?

Hi Primefac, how long will it take for my proposed changes to Template:Infobox time zone UTC be discussed because I really want to put them down on the main template to help improve the article and Wikipedia, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically I'm still waiting to hear back from you regarding the unused timezones. Also, the split proposal (which I'm somewhat in favour of) has not seen any reply by you. It's almost as if you don't actually want to discuss these things and just want to edit it the way you want. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I have just left messages on Template talk:Infobox time zone UTC regarding the unused time zones and the split proposal, I’m in favour of the split proposal because it will provide more information about the time zones and the Méridan of them and it will show a map of all the UTC time offsets.

I agree with your idea about you saying the unused time zones should not have a colour or have a key saying " are no longer used because it will make more sense by having the colours of the time zones only being used because the colours and time zones won’t be a little confusing. Lachlb (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I have just left a message on Template:Infobox time zone UTC requesting that the split proposal be installed and move the unused time zones onto a separate template and should not have a colour or have a key " are no longer used. Please can you have a look at my edit requests and say what you think of them, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the best way to install my proposed changes down on Template:Infobox time zone UTC if the template gets unlocked to avoid them getting deleted and the template locked again?

Hi Primefac, I’ve heard there has been discussions about my request to unlock the template on 1 August this year. I wanted to ask you a question about how I can install my proposed changes if the template gets unlocked because I’m worried I might make a mistake when I install them? Can you please show me the best way to avoid them getting deleted and the template locked again.

I hope my proposed changes to the template are going to get consensus and not get into a situation that led to the initial lock on the template, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I just left a message on the Wikipedia:Request for page protection saying I hope my proposed changes will be made consensus if Template:Infobox time zone UTC unlocked

Primefac, I left a message that if Template:Infobox time zone UTC is unlocked my proposed changes will be made consensus and will not get into a situation that led to the initial lock of the page on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, thank you. Lachlb (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia

Hi. A link to Wikipedia on policy pages may be counter-intuitive at first, but makes sense in terms of both new and regular users seeing it and deciding to read the Wikipedia article (which they may have never thought of reading). A link also makes sense in terms of understanding the full concept of the encyclopedia, which, again, many editors (new, old, or wandering by for a look) and the project may benefit from. So I think the links should stay, and were already on many pages. Thanks for the edit summary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems like overlinking to me but it's not a hill I even feel like getting a papercut on. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. You made me realize that papercuts are probably becoming much rarer since the use of computers and mobile, and soon children will ask their great-grandparents, "Great papa, what's a papercut?" Then the grandparents will show them, and the children will PTSD all over the place and run screaming from the room. But I digress... Randy Kryn (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hah! Primefac (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user after procedural close?

I might be missing something, but this thread did not seem to indicate cause for this action. Would you mind explaining in a few details why you blocked that user? Please ping any response. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict - two minutes before I blocked, Ammarpad closed the discussion. Figured it wasn't worth re-opening or commenting. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Didn't see the request to ping. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Ah, gotcha that makes sense! Likely it won't matter since they aren't too keen on editing anymore regardless. Thank you for the explanation!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football league season

Hi, since you protected the template, I can't make the change myself. Can you arrange a parameter for teams which withdrew (e.g. bankrupcy or voluntary relegation) or got removed (e.g. multiple no shows or misbehavior of players/fans) from a league (during the season). The documentation mentions a "Dissolved" parameter. However this parameter is not implemented. Dissolved doesn't cover all scenario's anyway. In case of a voluntary relegation, dissolved isn't the appropriate term. So maybe even 2 parameters, "dossived" and "withdrawn". --Sb008 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If you know a better option, i'm open minded. --Sb008 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Sb008: Or you can use {{Edit template-protected}}. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please make a talk page request so that others interested in the template can comment if necessary. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Primefac may you get this to the editors that participated in the Administrator's noticeboard/I need help dealing with a Disruptive user

I tried to edit that discussion but it concluded before I had the chance to participate again. I was at work. I'm asking for your assistance because you were on the side of the section. I don't know if you were part of the discussion but I don't know how to contact them as a whole. And contacting them individually seems like too much work to me. If you can't then simply tell me so.

"Understood and I'll try to get better as an editor in this regard as it is correct I am not the best with edit summaries and I don't have much experience on Talk pages with other editors and I should begin to do that more. I need to personally improve in this regard. I had no intention of creating this section/discussion to belittle or demean MarnetteD. As redundant as it is to restate I have no quarrel with someone I don't know personally. I will try to take it to the forums you guys have told me of such as WT:FILM, WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:SECONDARY. Which before this I had not known about it. I will state that it's hard to learn from other editors as I often get nothing but minor snippets from them. Personally I wish there was an editor that would help me improve in all these regards by guiding me step by step. Now I know this is a content dispute and not behavioral. I didn't know which forum to take this to, I simply thought I was taking the appropriate actions. I have nothing else to comment on and I regard this case as closed. Thank you for all of you taking your time to even discuss this with me.

If any of you dislike me then that's fine, I don't any of you personally so that would be a waste of emotional effort on your part and mine. I don't know if any of you do, I simply am just stating this if that is the case with anyone here or other editors not on here who take issue with my problematic editing. This is simply a case of Wikipedia being a difficult thing to figure out.

If anyone receives this please know there was never any malicious intent." User:IceBrotherhood (talk 21:38, 20 June 2019

IceBrotherhood, let's start simple - if you write a huge paragraph of stuff it's very likely that it will go unread. I found it hard to follow your original thread on WP:AN; it does sound like it's a content dispute, but I'm still not entirely sure the actual substance of that dispute. Where's the original page/thread that you were editing? Primefac (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Index

Is Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive index and Wikipedia:Bots/ArchiveBox/search needed now that Wikipedia:Bots/ArchiveBox is more functional? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really. I created the index because {{talk header}} already contains the archives on WT:BOTS and WT:BRFA, but I don't think we need either page. If you don't think either is necessary I'll G7 it. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The index might have some worth, but usually archive indexices have a sort of summary about each threads (e.g. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_Index). If it's not in that format, I doubt there would be much value in them. G7 would probably make sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For Wikipedia:Bots/ArchiveBox. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Permission to use AutoWikiBrowser

Primefac,

I see that you have the authority to allow editors to use the AutoWikiBrowser. You have addressed the use-requests of three editors, who all applied for permission after I did, yet you did not address my request.

If this place is the proper forum for doing so, please share your reasoning for neither approving or denying my request for permission to use the AutoWikiBrowser. If it is proper that this discussion takes place somewhere else, then I apologize for bringing up the question here, and I will be happy to repeat my question wherever you deem is the best place for us to discuss the situation.

I appreciate your attention to this matter, and I thank you, for your work on Wikipedia. catsmoke (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You made a reasonable request, just didn't have time to think it through; the other requests were pretty straight-forward. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

redirect

Hi. You just created a redirect page from a viable article. It has enough content to be classified as a stub, and developed later. The article is Ministry of Justice (Romania). And the redirect is towards a page with no info on the subject. What do you think is missing from the article? --MSClaudiu (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

MSClaudiu, the old version of the page (which you restored) was nothing more than a list of Justice Ministers. The page should be about the ministry, and if all that can be said is "The Ministry of Justice of Romania is one of the ministries of the Romanian Government. It administers the judicial system" then there's not enough information for an article. You are more than welcome to create a list article of the Justice Ministers, but that would likely be located at List of Justice Ministers of Romania, similar to List of Ministers of Finance of Romania. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Redundant refs in infobox

Per you edits Steve Kazor, on what basis should we need redundant references in infoboxes? Such references are typically absent from Good Articles and others well-developed articles. Jweiss11 (talk)

Nah, you're right; I think I either mis-remembered or misread WP:INFOBOXREF; if it's in the text it doesn't need to be referenced in the IB. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

courtesy notification

This is a courtesy note that based on your recent close [6] I have recommended that you be added as a party to the pending WJBscribe case [7] Regards, Crazynas t 09:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Seen, commented. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom courtesy note

Given the action taken re WJBscribe, I have added you as a party to case request. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Seen, commented. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Thanks, Sir! :-)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat

Edit war on Van Badham and Sally McManus Pages

Jag Chima Article Advise

Draft:Retford King Edward VI Grammar School

Page mover

stale unblock requests

Fleecehold in the United Kingdom.

Unblock request for FWTH accounts

Draft re-review

color templates / semi protection

Editing Restrictions

Undeletion

Restoration of User Page concern

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 15#Template:Infobox UK place

Your first!

… demonstrated need

ArbCom 2019 special circular

New message from RhinosF1

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

A cup of coffee for you!

Revdel Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (Thailand)

Editing when logged out

Notice

But that's just what a hacker would say!

Redirect and draft

Thank you for being an admin

Strange ifeq

Re-open a deleted page.

Warner Chappel / Mumbo Jumbo

Edit of my talk page

Question

can you add the symbol protection for dipika kakar

Bot request

More questions regarding sources

ANI thread on Chahal

AWB access on alt account

A barnstar for you!

How can I avoid making mistakes when editing Template:Infobox time zone UTC?

Blanked

A barnstar for you!

Edits by this guyI may have to block this guy he's started edit warring

Cyclone Dineo

Everett Stern

Pangolin876

Unused type parameter by Template:Cleanup-SVG

SEA Games RM closure

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 28#Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan

Talk page vandalism

I think you forgot to add time zones down when you edited Template:Infobox time zone UTC

Redlinked Entry

What do I do next after I’ve edited the Template:Infobox time zone UTC/sandbox because I can’t edit the main page because it’s locked?

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

Bot subst

What do I do next because I’ve made a proposal on the template talk page and transcluded the template and sandbox into the testcases page in Template:Infobox time zone UTC?

Help adding TfD notices to template editor-protected templates

Moving a page

I have left a message on Template talk:Infobox time zone UTC regarding why we should unlock the template as we used to.

How long will my proposed changes to Template:Infobox time zone UTC be discussed?

What is the best way to install my proposed changes down on Template:Infobox time zone UTC if the template gets unlocked to avoid them getting deleted and the template locked again?

I just left a message on the Wikipedia:Request for page protection saying I hope my proposed changes will be made consensus if Template:Infobox time zone UTC unlocked

Links to Wikipedia

Blocked user after procedural close?

Template:Infobox football league season

Primefac may you get this to the editors that participated in the Administrator's noticeboard/I need help dealing with a Disruptive user

Index

A barnstar for you!

Permission to use AutoWikiBrowser

redirect

Redundant refs in infobox

courtesy notification

ArbCom courtesy note