User talk:Primefac/Archive 22
 | 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Music moves and the page mover permission
Hello Primefac. My clear recollection is that the user formerly known as User:Zawl had his page mover permission revoked by you due to overenthusiastic moves related to music topics, and that Z0 was not supposed to be using the page mover function to work on bands. See, for example, this diff.
The reason I remember this so well is that on July 28, User:Z0 initiated a large number of individual move requests attempting to rename things with the disambiguator "(band)" to the disambiguator "(duo)". This was a suboptimal way of requesting moves, particularly because Z0 hid previous discussions of the same requests when introducing these–the history of that is recorded at Talk:16bit (band), etc. The discussions that were hidden had been initiated by User:Zawl in February and resulted in WP:SNOW closes not to move the pages. But at least these were done as requests instead of WP:BOLD moves. All of the July requests were subsequently closed as "not moved" by User:Amakuru.
Now User:Flooded with them hundreds is back to moving music pages: see Talk:4L (group). Further, these are moves in which the primary focus is the replacement of the “(band)” disambiguator with another disambiguator–in this case, "(group)". I do not wish to argue that the reading of the discussion was incorrect. In fact, I specifically did not take issue with the "(group)" part of the move request after having opposed the previous requests by User:Z0. However, User:Flooded with them hundreds is not uninvolved in these requests, having recently and repeatedly expressed clear and relatively radical opinions on the topic, so the discussion should have been left to someone else to close. And it continues to push back at the directive not to use the page mover right to gain the upper hand in discussions related to music. The issuance of that directive has been obscured by various renamings or restarts, but I think my timeline is accurate, and unless I haven’t been informed of a change, it seems like the directive should still be in effect.
I am not all that invested in these move requests (rather, I'm fairly invested in the proper functioning of the requested moves process in general), but since I have commented in each of these cases, I am going to defer what I think would be an appropriate response–to at the least give another final warning about use of the page mover function, or to revoke the permission again outright due to misuse and/or failure to get the point. The gaming of the system going on feels inappropriate to me. I'm very interested to hear your opinion on this. In addition to notifying User:Flooded with them hundreds via this message, also pinging User:Alex Shih as someone who may have a useful perspective on this matter. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- It didn't occur to me as something I'm involved with, but rather a discussion in which I saw a consensus with the opposers opposing (girl group) but are okay with just (group) and the rest were fine with it as well. Sure I might have had an opinion on things months ago but I've had opinions on many different topics in move discussions that I'm never interested in pursuing and upholding my views for, especially when they appear to be "radical". Thanks for assuming good faith, Dekimasu. My interests are more for closing discussions procedurally as an uninvolved editor rather than "gaming the system" to achieve an outcome that doesn't truly matter to me. According to the restriction I'm allowed to make music-related moves if there's consensus at RM or anywhere else. Flooded with them hundreds 06:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the restriction stipulates you should obtain consensus for music-related moves, meaning you can initiate discussions on these topics when you think moves are warranted. However, I do not read this as indicating that you should be evaluating the consensus of discussions of music-related titles or performing moves of this type. As far as assuming good faith, I am trying to be prudent by asking for the perspective of editors familiar with the situation rather than going ahead with any action myself–the same thing I ask of you. Dekimasuよ! 06:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly there is some step of which I am still unaware, since the February incident ended in endorsement of the revocation of the page mover right here and I can't tell when you got it back (there doesn't seem to be a request for the page mover permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive under either of your more recent usernames). Can you clarify this for me so that I understand the situation better? Was there a different restriction involved in reinstating your page mover permission? Dekimasuよ! 07:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- (since I was pinged in above) According to this it was reinstated following "an email". Aside from the lack of transparency in taking action based on off wiki communication, it seems clear that it shouldn't have been reinstated anyway. Page mover bit is only for people with no hint of controversy in the page move space, i.e. with near admin-like credentials in the RM arena. Clearly that's not the case here. Nobody needs to have the right, if there are uncontroversial moves to be carried out they can be requested at RMTR. — Amakuru (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, a few things, so I'm just going to start a new indentation.
- First, regarding the email - the conversation went pretty much along the lines of "is that offer still valid? / yes / okay, could I take it? / yes". I tried to make that as clear as possible in the perm re-granting, but it's sometimes hard to get a point across succinctly on the internet.
- Second, the reason PGM was removed in the first place was because Flooded was abusing the permission in order to gain the upper hand in move disputes. Other than this particular area, I had not (and continue to not see) any issues in other areas of the project. They were/are one of the most active editors in the WP:RM/TR area, so I felt cutting off that one problematic aspect would be acceptable.
- Third, regarding the endorsement - I understand the AN thread to be an endorsement of the removal, not any sort of ban from the tool. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm okay if that's the case, but that's my interpretation.
- Now, regarding this particular situation - I think this was a very bad decision on Flooded's part. He knows he has a restriction regarding these types of moves, and if I had such a restriction I'd just avoid that area entirely when it comes to using the tools. That being said, my restriction is specifically for Flooded moving pages that he wants moved. It's an unfortunate loophole that I will admit I didn't see coming, but moving a page as a result of an RM that he didn't start doesn't (in my mind) break his restriction. To reiterate, it was a very poor decision, but in my mind not one that is sanctionable. I would expect, if someone were to vacate his close on concerns that it is biased, either re-open the discussion or defend the decision at WP:MRV.
- If the majority of folks here disagree with my decision (re-granting or not re-removing), I'm happy to discuss it further here, at AN, or another noticeboard. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Brandon
Thoughts? Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_14#Template:Rnd. He didn't edit the template but that makes the nomination invalid.... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Your RFBAG
Hello Primfac, your Request for BAG membership has been closed as successful. Welcome to the WP:BAG. — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Reminder
You forgot to delete Module:Ping2/testcases when closing the deletion discussion for Module:Ping2. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Request
Hi, Primefac
Please allow me to create new pages about politicians in the article name space.— Bukhari (Talk!) 12:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Because draft process take some time— Bukhari (Talk!) 12:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- BukhariSaeed, it does appear that your recent draft submissions have been approved (with no declines!) so I'd say you're okay to start creating directly in the article space again. I'll remove your restriction from WP:RESTRICT. Keep up the good work! Primefac (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Problem with error 90
Hi. I think that I will also need error 32 (Double pipe in a link) approved for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot so that when I fix error 90 (Internal link written as an external link), error 32 an work alongside it and things like this diff which I fixed afterwards won't happen. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Pkbwcgs, is it possible to make sure that when you convert from external to internal that the bot removes the pipe automatically? If so that should fix the issue.
- Looks like there are ~300 hits for error 32 anyway (and it's not cosmetic), but I'd like to see a limited trial of five edits before approving it outright. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is not possible to remove the pipe when converting from external to internal but I will do a trial of five edits now. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- The trial is complete. The edits are the first five edits here. There are no issues from what I can see. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is not possible to remove the pipe when converting from external to internal but I will do a trial of five edits now. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Reverting SineBot
Hi, I apologise for that revert on Talk:Guraleus nanus, I was using huggle, which queried through the mediawiki api. However, at that time, the response from wikipedia was very slow (in excess of 1000ms), and I did not see the changes made by the bot since the vandalism. It was not my intentions to revert the bot but rather, to revert the vandalism. Apologies, Dark-World25 (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
WikidataOI
Hello, I am not sure you master the lua code of the template WikidataOI but perhaps you could help me? I wished to show the patronage of latest year for Sydney airport and tried this : 28,983,874 [data here Sydney Airport (Q17581)] The challenge is to show this true figure : 43 329 917 passage any advice ? Many thanks !--Bouzinac (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{WikidataOI}} calls WikiData, so if the data is incorrect it will need to be changed at WikiData itself. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
afc review
Hello, where's the reject/accept button that is meant to be there when reviewing an AfC article? Abcmaxx (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's probably easiest to read through WP:AFCH and WP:AFCR. Just as a note, it's a little troubling that you did not know this before asking to join the project, since it is one of the prerequisites for getting AFCH access. Primefac (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
{{Year}}
I have closed the relevant RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Template:Year. Thanks for offering your bot's services to mass-migrate existing uses of this template redirect. Deryck C. 10:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have not forgotten this task, but will look into it soon. 14:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan, in looking into this, there are only 12 uses of this template - some of them are being used properly, so it might be better for you to go through and change them manually. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Primefac: It seems that someone has gone through all previous uses outside Userspace and replaced them all. The RfD opening statement said there used to be 68 transclusions. I've checked the 12 transclusions. Eight of them are maintenance template listings so they can be migrated. The rest aren't so clear so I'll leave talk page messages to the relevant users. Deryck C. 17:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan, in looking into this, there are only 12 uses of this template - some of them are being used properly, so it might be better for you to go through and change them manually. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
BAG Nomination
Hey Primefac, hope you had a good Christmas and all is well. I was just looking at the BAG Nomination and gutted that my name isn't there. I definitely remember adding my name, also mentioning the previous bot runs you did for me which was excellent, perhaps I never clicked saved, hmm - I can't remember what happened, but I supported it and I'm really pleased to see the result was a success, you deserve it :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- No worries (I thought I had seen your name there as well). Thanks! Primefac (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm sure I added my comment, I don't know, whatever happened, we'll just pretend that my name is there haha - sorry about this Primefac and you're welcome Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Fwth restr
P. Can we nullify the page mover restrictions? It's been 10 months and I haven't made any controversial moves since then. Flooded with them hundreds 08:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's only been 5 since the restriction was put into place. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Primefac has given you another less-is-more response here, but I feel obliged to respond. Although I let the issue above go after Primefac's reply, I appreciated his considered response. I felt that Primefac's assessment that the above case "was a very poor decision, but in my mind not one that is sanctionable" was magnanimous, but fair. I think Amakuru's view that the page mover right is best used by those who have no history of controversy, period, is also reasonable. As above, I accept your good faith and have nothing against you. However, there are many active page movers, and I'm not convinced that it would be a net positive for you to be handling these yourself at this time. Please consider that it might be a questionable decision to make the claim that none of the moves you've made have been controversial after I raised an issue here only two weeks ago. Dekimasuよ! 19:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Restore
Hey Primefac, can you pls restore the version of Rafale deal controversy when it was previously protected?. Thank you.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- In a word, no. For more words, see The Wrong Version. I suggest discussing the issue on the talk page and coming to a consensus. If a consensus emerges that the older version should be kept, then it will be reverted. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Names:Grayson Bailey Dolan Ethan Grant Dolan Nationality:American,Italian,Irish Fatimax2016 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:
- G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
- R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
- G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
- The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
- Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
- Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
- At least 8 characters in length
- Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
- Different from their username
- User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
- Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
- {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Arbitration
- Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.
Miscellaneous
- Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
- Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
WP:RS move
Please see the discussion at WT:RS concerning your recent closure of the RFD about the title of that guideline. There are some procedural concerns, and your input would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk)
Redirects and wikidata
I have a doubt related to the category Redirects connected to a Wikidata item. Should the pages that are listed under this category be removed? I mean, should the wikidata links from the source of redirects be removed?Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I will create an archive, but...
This could not be a better example of a place where recongnition should be denied. You understand that this was a paid editor, acting with subterfuge, trying to water down an aspect of our response to paid editing? It should vanish.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we should go about deleting every comment from every editor that was ever deceptive or got blocked for breaking the rules. There were a few people involved in that conversation, and deleting it a year+ after the fact seems a little unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Question
Hi,
Can you check this [1], I didnt copy from original source.— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- And what is DS-alert?— Bukhari (Talk!) 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Discretionary sanctions are slightly more strict rules for editing a page. Pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan fall under this restriction. It mainly lowers the edit-war "limit" down to 1 revert (instead of the usual 3). Just make sure you discuss everything on the talk page if there is a dispute. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 05:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Task 2 - disable cats per WP:DRAFTNOCAT
I understand that where {{draft categories}} has been used, "Task 2 - disable cats per WP:DRAFTNOCAT" is unnecessary. Context: here and again, and similar at Draft:Carlos Ágreda. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- If the template really "takes care of it" as you say, then it shouldn't show up in Category:AfC submissions with categories. I don't disagree with you, of course, and will tweak my AWB run to account for the template. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- The template does take care of the problem, but the module that populates that category doesn't account for the template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Afc review
Could you please grant me now afc script? Previous afc issues is fix now and i am more engaged in afd and csd. Regards, AD Talk 12:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you feel you meet the requirements, you are welcome to re-apply. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I have requested please take a look. Regards, AD Talk 05:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Extension to PkbwcgsBot's task 13
Hi. I just noticed that <sup>st</sup> and <sup>nd</sup> are also making up WP:WCW error 101. I would like to get these two approved as well. Should I open another BRFA for that and call it "task 13.5"? Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- They already are approved; the task is to fix ordinals inside
<sup>tags. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)- Okay, thank you. I was a bit confused because I only included "th" in the BRFA. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please add that information into Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 13 that
<sup>st</sup>and<sup>nd</sup>have been approved so that when I run this task today, there won't be any confusion. Only "th" has been indicated in that BRFA. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please add that information into Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 13 that
- Okay, thank you. I was a bit confused because I only included "th" in the BRFA. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Infobox school cleanup
Hi Primefac, hope all is well. I've undone your revert with explanation but mentioned I was going to post here. Basically, that discussion was on hold until the UK merge was complete. If you have a look at Jonesey95's talk page, you'll see that we're going to continue the discussion. You'll also see that I mentioned about working on merging the two lists as there is a bit of duplication which is what I've done. New subsections have been added so it makes it easier to see where things are and to comment on as we go down the list. Also you'll see on the Infobox school talk page in the collapsible box titled "Previous "Time to consolidate and simplify" section discussion..." which talks about the two lists. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, I saw you had struck some comments made by DePiep and what looked like the removal of some content (as well as the often-problematic changing of headers), hence my concern. If everyone's find with what you're doing go ahead. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's ok, I should have been a bit more clearer in my edit description and yeah it was just the part about "At the moment we are merging..." which is now no longer relevant, so I struck that part out. All the comments are still there just re-arranged under new subsections but I see what you mean. Thanks for understanding and I mentioned on the talk page that you would be my ideal candidate for the bot run and per the previous ones we did, would you be up for doing this when the discussion has finished? It will require going through all the transclusions (can't remember if I've already asked you) but if not, that's ok - please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can do the run. Thanks for the clarification on the above issue :-) Primefac (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much and you're welcome :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can do the run. Thanks for the clarification on the above issue :-) Primefac (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's ok, I should have been a bit more clearer in my edit description and yeah it was just the part about "At the moment we are merging..." which is now no longer relevant, so I struck that part out. All the comments are still there just re-arranged under new subsections but I see what you mean. Thanks for understanding and I mentioned on the talk page that you would be my ideal candidate for the bot run and per the previous ones we did, would you be up for doing this when the discussion has finished? It will require going through all the transclusions (can't remember if I've already asked you) but if not, that's ok - please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Request for PrimeBOT
Hey P, the parameter updated is deprecated from {{Infobox cyclist}}; any way you could set PrimeBOT loose to remove it from the ~2,400 or so articles that still have it? Would sure be easier than my having to go in and pull it out of every one of them. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, can do. Would you like me to update the template etc when I'm done? Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Only the template's infobox tracking code at the bottom would need to be updated but yes, that would be great, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Adminship Anniversary!
|
Wishing Primefac a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! A 10 fireplane Imform me 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
Awww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- No problem thanks for all you do
A 10 fireplane Imform me 17:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
- Thanks! Primefac (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Primefac Belated Adminship Anniversary from my part.Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Mohamed Ouda
I'm somewhat confused about how that WP:AN thread ca be considered outing, given that MO clearly edits under their own name and even has a Wikipedia blog article about them (complete with photo) that was obviously sanctioned by them. I was about to add some more information about the situation, but obviously won't do now, even though it might be pertinent. Please reply by email if you can't post a reply here. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- It started getting into heavy "opposition research"; linking to off-wiki evidence is generally frowned upon and a few of the OSers were becoming concerned that the discussion would devolve and (either intentionally or not) reveal content that shouldn't be revealed. If the older discussion hadn't existed we'd have kept the majority of the released content suppressed. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, right, I'm guessing you're talking about the websites advertising articles for pay. Fair enough. I was simply going to add a comment about the location of some of the relevant sock-rings, because there's something that doesn't quite ring true there, but since MO is clearly not going to be unblocked here any time soon, I don't suppose it's particularly important. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Right now if you've got good information to pass along regarding sock rings, and it involves off-wiki information, I'd suggest sending it to the functionaries list; we're not technically the ones in charge of hunting down socks (or UPE) but if it involves private info it's currently the best place. Otherwise, I think it would be a good idea to start a new thread at AN. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, right, I'm guessing you're talking about the websites advertising articles for pay. Fair enough. I was simply going to add a comment about the location of some of the relevant sock-rings, because there's something that doesn't quite ring true there, but since MO is clearly not going to be unblocked here any time soon, I don't suppose it's particularly important. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Fédération International de Natation Amateur flag.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Fédération International de Natation Amateur flag.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Glitches with CFB schedule conversions
There appears to be a glitch with PrimeBOT's conversion of CFB Schedule templates. I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but in some articles the game results aren't being properly rendered. See 1936 Fordham Rams football team and 1937 Fordham Rams football team. Ostealthy (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like the problem happens whenever there are characters or a space template before the "score" parameter. See my edit to 1937 Fordham. Ostealthy (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think this is an issue with the template itself and how it treats {{spaces}}. I see you fixed the issue, but I'll see if I can fix the issue on my end. Pinging Frietjes about this - Lua issue? Primefac (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Another glitch can be seen here Ostealthy (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I actually found/fixed that issue when I was working on the other one. After the run is done I'll go back through and see what is still transcluding {{CFB Schedule Start}} (since I suspect there will be a few). Primefac (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- A "few"? From what I can tell (see here), it's more like at least 1,026 articles spanning alphabetically from 1870 Rutgers Queensmen football team to 1990 Montana Grizzlies football team. That's at least 1,026 articles your broken bot placed broken visible code in. Please revert all of these edits. Modulus12 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Primefac, thanks for getting these conversions going. Something funny happened at 1971 Wyoming Cowboys football team. I managed to clean it up manually, might it be worth taking a look to see what went wrong. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Similar thing happened at 1969 Wyoming Cowboys football team. I think the issue is that these tables were using a mix of the old and new templates before the conversion was applied. @Glacier109:, I think this was your edit. Going forward, if you choose to build out more of these schedule tables, please use the new templates, e.g. those now found at 1971 Wyoming Cowboys football team. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Modulus12, "a few" is a relative term when there were originally something like 12k pages using the templates. I'm not going to undo those edits, I'm going to fix them. But, thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know much about how bots work on Wikipedia, but to me this (error rate of 1 in 12?) looks like a blatant failure of whatever approvals process there was. I guess the only redeeming factor is that nobody on Earth looks at most of these articles, so the bare template code can just stew on them until you fix it. Modulus12 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's usually why I run these high-volume edits on a Sunday night, because the people who care will notice and let me know but the punters won't be visiting. You are right, that is a fairly high failure rate, and I can honestly only blame myself for not doing more than my standard fifty completely-manual edits before switching to full auto, and not anticipating every possibility for the GIGO errors that I'd be encountering. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know much about how bots work on Wikipedia, but to me this (error rate of 1 in 12?) looks like a blatant failure of whatever approvals process there was. I guess the only redeeming factor is that nobody on Earth looks at most of these articles, so the bare template code can just stew on them until you fix it. Modulus12 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Primefac, thanks for getting these conversions going. Something funny happened at 1971 Wyoming Cowboys football team. I managed to clean it up manually, might it be worth taking a look to see what went wrong. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- A "few"? From what I can tell (see here), it's more like at least 1,026 articles spanning alphabetically from 1870 Rutgers Queensmen football team to 1990 Montana Grizzlies football team. That's at least 1,026 articles your broken bot placed broken visible code in. Please revert all of these edits. Modulus12 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Not to be beating a dead horse but 2010 Incarnate Word Cardinals football team it also erased the table I reverted the edit for the time being. It is a mess but hey I like the effort.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Task 24 bug
Unrelated to the above, I just came across this edit from last month that mysteriously removed two brackets from a citation. Modulus12 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Please comment
If you know the solution for the question posted by me at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser, please comment.Adithyak1997 (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Category:Paid contributors/No listed employer has been nominated for discussion
Category:Paid contributors/No listed employer, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DannyS712 (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
TfD question
Hi! When closing this, didn't you also mean to delete the module data page? Or is there a reason to keep it around some more? – Uanfala (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Task 30 bug
The bot made an absolute mess while applying Task 30 to 2007 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team. I'm not familiar with these templates or other similar articles, so for now I simply reverted the change. --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for helping me Mathi0879 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Technical Barnstar |
| For all that you did on Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor. Keep up the great work! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, Primefac. For Chinese name parameters, I think use {{Infobox Chinese}} for |module= is better than |native_name=. Thanks. --Dabao qian (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Could do, but that would require moving all of the information out of the IB into a separate template. Not impossible, just more impractical than the current situation. Will think about it. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Derp. Totally just clicked that it should be put into a module. Gotcha. Yeah, can probably do that. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! Adding on to this section as well so it's in one spot in case discussions overlap. If there's a better spot to have this discussion, please let me know. I tend to monitor the Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field page and noted a lot of pages from this infobox merge ended up there. I'm planning on leaving them alone right now, as I don't want to mess up the process, but can certainly start working through them when it gets to that point. Just let me know what's most helpful. Bonnie (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I was wondering if that might happen. The IB being merged has a half-dozen "background" options that don't really match up with the IB musician options, but that's because some of the uses are improper! I'll see about finding a way to only pass the param if it's a valid "musician" background. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Update: the second issue is that this infobox is being used for both musicians and non-musicians, and unfortunately most of them use "musician" parameters without needing to. I still haven't figured out the best fix for that yet, other than going through them all manually... Primefac (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bonnie13J, good to go! While I was there I tweaked the tracking code, so it now sorts by the
|background=parameter itself; if you don't want that change feel free to revert, but it sure helped me find a silly typo. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC) - Thank you!!! Bonnie (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Master Mitrasen Thapa Magar
P. I accidentally moved Master Mitrasen Thapa Magar without realizing it was about a singer (I didn't read it). -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
- Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
- A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Americas' SAP Users' Group
In this edit to Americas' SAP Users' Group from September, PrimeBOT broke the infobox. I have fixed the infobox. GoingBatty (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Why did you add a bot to approved users list instead of bots? Hhkohh (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Edit confirmation required
Please see the article Frankenweide. I have recently made an edit in that article. Please confirm whether that edit is correct or wrong. The reason for asking such a thing is that I have not yet dealt with changing the attribute |comment to |rfc.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You closed it as Delete It was no consensus, default to keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- 7&6=thirteen, how does 5 "deletes" and 1 "keep" equate to a no consensus? Primefac (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did not make that decision; somebody else did. Suggest you talk to User:Mz7.
- Huh? Your math is wrong. Numbers were 19 KEEP; 13 DELETE. Suggest you recount. Are we talking about the same article? Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- You looked at List of most like on line posts and not at Instagram egg. See this AFD. These are not fungible goods. Fix it!. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- 7&6=thirteen, my edit removed a link to List of most-liked online posts, which was deleted following the deletion discussion I linked above, which only had the participation I mentioned above. The AFD you link to has nothing to do with the edit I made. I am confused as to why my edit is problematic. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- If that is all you did, then I was wrong and I apologize.
- Your edit and the edit summary seemed to be to the contrary. Seemed to relate to Instagram egg. You wrote an ambiguous edit summary, from my point of view. And they appeared almost simultaneously with teh closing of the AFD on that article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at it again, you are right. I was wrong. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
Facepalm 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at it again, you are right. I was wrong. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
- 7&6=thirteen, my edit removed a link to List of most-liked online posts, which was deleted following the deletion discussion I linked above, which only had the participation I mentioned above. The AFD you link to has nothing to do with the edit I made. I am confused as to why my edit is problematic. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Does this mean I can have my trout back? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
.jpg)
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Red marquis/sandbox/Mechanical Animals sandbox
Give me back User:Red marquis/sandbox/Mechanical Animals sandbox. I wrote the MAINSPACE article. Who the fuck do you suggest I attribute to? -Red marquis (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Uploaded image
Hi Primefac need assistance with upload image c~~ Webbotz (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Webbotz, I think the best place to start would be Wikipedia:Images#Tutorials_and_help. If you're still stuck, though, drop me a slightly more descriptive note of what you want to do and we'll see about sorting it out. Primefac (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanx for reply I’ve gone through that and it seems I’m still having issues description is CarrieMokadim.jpeg <~ Webbotz (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The Derek DeGrate article submission
Hi primefac! Thanks for reviewing my article on Derek DeGrate! I noticed that you did not approve the article; based on "notability" and criteria; however Derek DeGrate meets the criteria for a wikipedia article and he has also been credited for his music compositions on multi-platinum records (including JODECI's "The show-the afterparty-the hotel" platinum album. (which he composed instrumentation work) Derek meets the criteria of a wikipedia article (which states that the artist must meet at least ONE from the list). Derek Degrate has been signed to a major label (Universal Records/global records) Global_Music_Group which was the label that acquired the major label; Death Row records (with artists such as tupac; snoop dog; etc) Derek DeGrate was on the same label roster as multi platinum artist; Mark morrison and DMX. Derek DeGrate has also been an artist signed to a major booking agency (lustig talent) http://www.lustigtalent.com/frameset1.htm which included the multi platinum band "the jets", earth wind and fire, the gap band, on its roster. Derek DeGrate wrote 9 songs for the Homeland Records (a division of the major label; WORD records; now a part of EPIC records)which all of the songs were published by centergy music group (which has now been acquired by WORD/EPIC records. Derek DeGrate with his band “Don DeGrate and strong tower” has been included on the worldwide tour of the Bill and Gloria gaither homecoming series; which airs on national and international television. Gaither_Homecoming
In addition; here is the criteria of a music article stated by Wikipedia; which Derek DeGrate meets at least one of these from the recording artist’s list and the composers list. Please kindly approve the article; thanks!
Text of WP:MUSICBIO copied verbatim - removed 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Text of WP:COMPOSER copied verbatim - removed 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingtd1 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Kingtd1, the issue is that your draft does not verify any of the things you claim. There's an interview (which as a PRIMARY source does nothing towards demonstrating notability), a local radio article (which does not show a breadth of coverage), and the lyrics to a song (which only use his name). The latter two can be used to verify facts, but they do not fulfill the minimum requirements for an article on a musical artist. Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi primefac! Thanks for the reply. However indeed my draft is an article of the music credits of Derek DeGrate as an instrumentalist and songwriter. There is a reference from the JODECI wikipedia The_Show,_the_After_Party,_the_Hotel that verifies instrumentation and composition work by Derek DeGrate and there is a reference from the Global_Music_Group that verifies Derek Has been signed to a major record label (one of the things from the criteria list) and there is a reference from Gaither_Homecoming which verifies that Derek DeGrate has been a part of a major televised tour (with his band Don DeGrate and Strong Tower) (which is also one of the items from the criteria list). There is a reference from http://www.lustigtalent.com/frameset1.htm which verifies that Derek DeGrate has been signed to a major booking agency (on the same roster as Roberta flack, earth wind and fire, The gap band, The Jets and more). (which is also one of the items from the criteria list.
Hi primefac! Thanks for the reply. I added references as you suggested; However indeed my draft is an article of the music credits of Derek DeGrate as an instrumentalist and songwriter. There is a reference from the JODECI wikipedia The_Show,_the_After_Party,_the_Hotel that verifies instrumentation and composition work by Derek DeGrate and there is a reference from the Global_Music_Group that verifies Derek Has been signed to a major record label (one of the things from the criteria list) and there is a reference from Gaither_Homecoming which verifies that Derek DeGrate has been a part of a major televised tour (with his band Don DeGrate and Strong Tower) (which is also one of the items from the criteria list). There is a reference from http://www.lustigtalent.com/frameset1.htm which verifies that Derek DeGrate has been signed to a major booking agency (on the same roster as Roberta flack, earth wind and fire, The gap band, The Jets and more). (which is also one of the items from the criteria list. Here is more media coverage regarding Derek DeGrate (which was written by a Los Angeles music industry writer https://thelightnc.com/536901/derek-degrate-releases-new-album-brother-of-devante-and-dalvin-of-the-multi-platinum-rb-group-jodeci/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingtd1 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Kingtd1, thanks for adding more sources. There is not an issue with verification of the information in the draft, but one of notability. As written in shorthand here, all article subjects need to have significant coverage in order to meet the minimum requirements; simply having a website say "he did XYZ for Person A/Band B" is not significant coverage. There need to be sources that are specifically about DeGrate and his music. Simply being mentioned isn't enough.
- Essentially, there are three main types of reference:
- Unreliable sources: these are things like blogs, forums, Facebook, IMDb, etc., that are either user-generated or of questionable reliability. If some guy with an opinion writes something on the internet, it's generally not acceptable.
- PRIMARY sources: these are sources that are directly connected to the subject. Often this is the subject's own website, but interviews also fall into this category. They are discouraged, mainly because it is the subject talking about themselves and they could be lying (so it's easier to just not use the information).
- Independent reliable sources. These are articles from newspapers, magazines, and reputable websites (such as Mixmag). These references are what Wikipedia is built on - good sources of information and a place where someone can potentially learn more about a subject. There are two types of reliable source
- Name drops/passing mentions: these are sources that do little more than mention the subject or give their name in a list (such as the Top 100 Widget Makers, or saying "Company X, run by it's CEO Joe Bloggs"). Since they are reliable sources, they can be used to verify the facts on the page, but don't actually demonstrate notability.
- In-depth sources: references that talk about the subject from a reliable source show that someone has "taken note" of the subject. If there is no in-depth coverage of a subject, they fail the Golden Rule and generally are not given a Wikipedia entry.
- The references you've provided fall into categories 2 and 3.1. I highly suspect that unless you find more sources of the "3.2" variety, your draft will be declined again.
- As a very minor note, I have changed your URLs into wikilinks. If this is an issue, you're welcome to change them back. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
hi primefac.... thanks for the info; however i was simply saying that the minimum criteria was met. Wikipedia says at least "one" of these from the list. Derek has been signed to a major records label.. global music group/universal records (which the label has a wikipedia article) and Derek has been signed to a major booking agency (whose roster include major recording artists) these are references that i included..(which; according to wikipedia; serves as requirements for an article. Kingtd1 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- The minimum criteria requires significant coverage; WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER both say that a person may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria; they still have to conform to WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thanks for the info! however i don't understand how you can not see the article on gospelflava.com and skope.com and genius.com is not a detailed summary of Derek DeGrate as a national accredited composer and artist. But thanks for your contribution and; GOD bless you! Kingtd1 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Page Protection
Hello, I was wondering if you could protect the Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/CreateDraft page, considering that you placed protection on the Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Referencing page in 2017, and the createdraft page gets misused quite often and I just reverted some vandalism as well. Thanks a million Goveganplease (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing. - checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- paid-en-wp
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
Screen shot
I also noticed that when I click on one of the two links, I see the flash of a deleted page for the Auto Wiki Browser, but it disappears quickly and the normal WB interface appears. It does the same thing on both Safari and Firefox. Strange. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review for Ephixa
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ephixa. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
AWB
Hi Primefac, can you remove me from the AWB check page? I haven't used AWB in almost a year and don't plan on doing so in the near future. Thanks!--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:REFUND request
Hello PF: please restore all the Portal subpages you deleted via WP:CSD G6. Since there are now assessments in process as to whether the single-page or multi-page versions are better for the encyclopedia, the only way these assessments can proceed is if the subpages are restored. Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is entirely too broad of a request. Please create a list (either here or as a subpage in your userspace) of pages that should be refunded. I would also appreciate a link to the discussion in question. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry about that PF, here is the list:
- Portal:Python programming/Books
- Portal:Python programming/Python programming topics
- Portal:Python programming/box-header
- Portal:Python programming/Quotes
- Portal:Python programming/Categories
- Portal:Python programming/Selected article
- Portal:Python programming/Selected biography
- Portal:Python programming/Did you know
- Portal:Python programming/Intro
- Portal:Python programming/Selected picture
- Portal:Python programming/WikiProjects
- Portal:Python programming/Related
- Portal:Python programming/Things you can do
- Portal:Lithuania/Featured picture
- Portal:Lithuania/Things you can do
- Portal:Lithuania/Intro
- Portal:Lithuania/Featured article
- Portal:Lithuania/RelatedPortals
- Portal:Lithuania/box-header
- Portal:Lithuania/Categories
- Portal:Lithuania/WikiProjects
- Portal:Lithuania/Quality content
- Portal:Lithuania/Topics
- Portal:Lithuania/Wikiprojects
The discussions are taking place here and here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. That one redlink doesn't seem to exist. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, and sorry there was a typo above; the one remaining one is Portal:Lithuania/Related portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
BRFA - Substituting templates
Hi. In Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 5, I asked to be able to automatically substitute templates that had over 100 transclusions but were not being substituted by AnomieBOT. I completely understand why I was denied, but I recently came across a similar scenario, and thought that before opening a BRFA I should ask. {{Autoblock}} currently has over 200 transclusions, and it is meant to be substituted. But, it is not added to the category that AnomieBOT patrols. I don't know the reasoning behind this, but there are other cases where templates that should be substituted aren't, and they are not automatically substituted by a bot. If I proposed a supervised task to substitute such templates (those marked as substitute only, but not automatically substituted by a bot), ensuring that it is only substituted where it definitely should be (like user talk pages in this example) do you think I would run into the same concerns? It wouldn't be "automatically" substituted by bot since I would set the parameters of each run (eg only substitute on user talk pages in this example). Thoughts? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Awesome Aasim: Were you intending for transclusions of this template to be bot-substituted? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I think you pinged the wrong person :). You probably meant to ping @DannyS712:? Awesome Aasim 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Awesome Aasim: No, that wasn't an error; you added Template:Substituted to the doc page of that template in 2017. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: you are right I did do that a few years ago. That was part of the disruption that I caused then and got me blocked. No, I do not think this was supposed to be substituted by a bot. You can change that if you want to, or you can have it not be substituted at all, whatever you think. Awesome Aasim 06:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Awesome Aasim: No, that wasn't an error; you added Template:Substituted to the doc page of that template in 2017. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I think you pinged the wrong person :). You probably meant to ping @DannyS712:? Awesome Aasim 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712, I haven't forgotten about this request, there are just some questions I have about the {{subst only}} template that I'm mulling over before replying in full (mostly wondering why some templates are "suggested" to be subst always and some are bot-substed if the user forgets). Primefac (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox country at games
Hi, for the above template, the Pan American Games only shows articles to 2015. Would you please fix the settings to show 2019 as well? Thanks in advance! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Errors detected on template
Why are templates like this one Japanese era names semi-protected after they left some errors?
- Errors (in source mode)
- "848–851 Kajō" (should be "848–851 Kashō")
- "1257–1259 Shōka" (should be "1257–1259 Shōka (era)" since "Shōka" was redirected to the "Seika" page)
Please remember my remarks, thank you.
RevinCBHatol (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- RevinCBHatol, they are semi-protected to prevent vandalism; any errors should be fixed. I believe I don't have much more to say than the reply you received to a similar question here, but please let me know if I can help further. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
BLPPRIVACY and Oversight
I'd just like to clarify the oversight policy as it relates to personal info in articles for my own sake. WP:BLPPRIVACY says that people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private
, suggests sticking to years only unless RS have published the full date, and in the following paragraph says If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team...
(emphasis mine). Are full dates of birth explicitly excluded from this part of the policy? Triptothecottage (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is a question that gets discussed a lot between the OSers, and the consensus we often return to is that unsourced DOBs should be removed but do not requite RD or OS. You are correct that DOBs are not explicitly included in the OS policy, but neither is it specifically excluded. Thus, we simply go based on past precedent, which is (as mentioned) to do nothing. There would likely need to be some form of on-wiki consensus to specifically include DOBs or codify existing practice. Primefac (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's a great answer, thanks. Would it be advisable therefore to continue reporting unsourced DOBs to OS, or should I refrain from doing so except where there are other egregious violations of privacy (phone numbers etc.)? Triptothecottage (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would say that unless there is other content that requires suppression, simply removing it would be acceptable. If it looks like there's someone trying too hard to get it added without a source we can take administrative action and either protect the page or block the user. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's a great answer, thanks. Would it be advisable therefore to continue reporting unsourced DOBs to OS, or should I refrain from doing so except where there are other egregious violations of privacy (phone numbers etc.)? Triptothecottage (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
CFB template conversion
I noticed that you used your bot to change a large number of schedule templates of college football teams. I really don't think that's proper. A large part of the templates actually look worse or even can't be displayed. Why would you do that? Can you change them back? 七战功成 10;12, 2 February 2019
- @七战功成: I noticed some of your reversions of Primefac's bot edits. These bot edits are part of effort to update these schedule tables to a new set of templates with better functionality. The old templates are being deprecated. In some cases, like 2012 BYU Cougars football team, some pre-existing stray characters seems have thrown a wrench in the works on the conversion. But in the case of 1992 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team, what seems to be the problem there? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: I didn't notice the message before. I didn't check them quite carefully, so I may reverted some proper edits. I think the edits that should be removed are those make template disappear or make unnecessary color change. 七战功成 07:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there were some (likely unforseen) issue with the conversion process, so for that at least thanks for bringing it up. I think I've fixed the remainder of the issues (usually from someone inserting a stray |-). If there are wrapping issues, though, the template talk would definitely be the place to check, since I actually had nothing to do with the writing of the template conversion code and thus don't know the best way to affect change in that regard. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: What do you mean? I don't understand what you just said. 七战功成 01:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- The sentence that you started with "I think" is grammatically incomplete. Its meaning is unclear. Likewise your edit summaries, "The template cannot be displayed due to that edit", since my edit removed a template, so of course it cannot be displayed. I urge you to stop until there is some clarity here, since your reinstating that edit still produces a big fat warning sign saying "Template:CFB Schedule Start is deprecated. Please use Template:CFB schedule instead.". Drmies (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Interesting. This may be your problem. I mean those edits made templates disappear, so I reverted them. Can you understand this time? 七战功成 01:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah, my English is problematic, I know. I hope they're gone by the time I get to class tomorrow. Jweiss11, I saw you made some edits related to this subject matter. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the template conversion process gets fouled up in cases where there are stray characters or in-table subheadings sitting in the old template code. The way to fix this is to undo the conversion, remove the stray characters or subheadings, and re-apply the template conversion. The template conversion can executed as follows: (1) add
{{subst:#invoke:CFB schedule/convert|subst|at the top of the table, before the{{CFB Schedule Start}}and}}to the bottom after the{{CFB Schedule End}}. (2) press show preview and compare the output to make sure nothing went wrong. (3) press save. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the template conversion process gets fouled up in cases where there are stray characters or in-table subheadings sitting in the old template code. The way to fix this is to undo the conversion, remove the stray characters or subheadings, and re-apply the template conversion. The template conversion can executed as follows: (1) add
- Thanks. Yeah, my English is problematic, I know. I hope they're gone by the time I get to class tomorrow. Jweiss11, I saw you made some edits related to this subject matter. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI, everyone, Frietjes has edited the templates such that wikilinked scores no longer cause formatting problems. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, good! For what it's worth, I'm going to give it until the end of the week (so any latent issues can be found) and I'll redirect the old templates to the new. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Can you make some adjustments on this two article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_team, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Emporia_State_Hornets_football_team The templates are clearly incomplete due to your bot's recent edits. And I found the previous version of all schedule templates can't be displayed normally anymore, so I can't simply revert it back to previous version, what happened? 七战功成 18:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac:I didn't notice your edits before. I am not very sure about this. So the previous version of templates can't be displayed normally just because you "convert templates into a redirect"? I think if feasible, we should still let the old version of templates to work, otherwise it's really inconvenient to look over those history version. 七战功成 03:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's fair enough; it seems like there are enough edge cases that still need investigating. Eventually, though, it will be redirected. I suppose two weeks was a little optimistic, but if there aren't any other issues discovered by say the end of Feb I'll put back the redir. Primefac (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: I just noticed that those old version can be seen normally again. I think keep those older things working is still necessary, otherwise, as I said before, it would make looking up information on those history version much more difficult. And I don't think there will be misunderstanding, the notification right at the top of those older templates is enough eye-catching to make people remember don't use older versions anymore. 七战功成 19:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: Didn't see your posts before. So they have to delete the old versions to complete the change? I don't get it. The new versions work well, you don't have to delete older things. Just don't use it anymore. 七战功成 20:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your TfD close, how will the redirect work? These aren't alias names for the same template; someone using {{CFB Schedule End}} at the end of the table will create another table. I think end should be deleted as it has more potential to do more harm then good. --Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the "end" template will likely be deleted (even though it won't create a new table, just the last line of code of a table). Primefac (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, your bot has been reverted on the following pages: 1988 West Virginia Mountaineers football team, 2005 West Virginia Mountaineers football team, 2008 Utah Utes football team, 2009 Utah Utes football team, 2010 Utah Utes football team, 2017 Indiana Hoosiers football team, 2017 Michigan State Spartans football team. --Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Now 2017 FIU Panthers football team. --Gonnym (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems there are no more issues reported. Can this now follow the TfD result? --Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you take a look at edits like these? It seems like if there were any extra wiki table rows at all, it just blanked the schedule entirely. Ostealthy (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed. Primefac (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- That particular page was fixed, but similar pages with the same problem like here and here have not been fixed. Can your bot do a sweep of pages that were affected? Ostealthy (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can manually go through and find a list of "most-likely affected pages"; when the edits were made most of the proper conversions were in the -1k to -4k range. If I filter out anything <-4000 from the contribs, I should be able to make a shortlist of improper conversions. Should get rid of 99% of the problematic edits. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- That particular page was fixed, but similar pages with the same problem like here and here have not been fixed. Can your bot do a sweep of pages that were affected? Ostealthy (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You've been reverted at 2014 Idaho Vandals football team and 2016 Bethune–Cookman Wildcats football team. --Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No other issues in the past 2 weeks. Can this finally be completed? As it stands, its not listed in the holding cell so it's basically only you and me that know/remember that the TfD result hasn't been completed yet. --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm genuinely curious why this is such a big deal to you. I mean, I will, I just want to know. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm active in TfD and I've seen the results of discussion results that end up being forgotten and ignored and then needing to re-start another discussion about it (most of the deprecated templates I've nominated are a result of such things). Also, not placing it in the holding cell, "forced" me into this situation of having to remember to check on it every now and again, rather than have it placed there for all to see and remember. While I answered your question, I didn't appreciate it, as it makes it seem like I have a hidden agenda here. --Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Need to discuss
Pls talk to me Adolf bijili (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Bcoz this information not to good ,like untouchble ,pig rering stop this typ bldy word mention on pasi wikipida
You hav need update information
Many people complain this typ article
,u update information or wil i do with avidence Adolf bijili (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Adolf bijili, please provide your evidence at Talk:Pasi (caste). Primefac (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Pasi need update
The pasi are an ethnic tribe found in india. The name pasi is derived form the Sanskrit words pashika meanings one who uses a nose . [1] and other theory about word Pasi comprised two Hindi world "pa"meaning grip and "asi" meanings a sword employing there by one who possesses a sword in his hand or in otherwords, a soldier.
[2]
The term pasi clans historically associated with warriors.
[3] Adolf bijili (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ {{ |first=B.V |last=bhanu |AuthorLink= B.V bhanu |Year=2004 |ISBN=81-7991-102-0 |Url=https://books.google.com/books/about/People_of_India.html?id=4bfmnmsBfQ4C |Publisher=popular prakashan.pvt.ltd. |Page=1683 }}
- ^ {{ |first=B.V |last=bhanu |AuthorLink= B.V bhanu |Year=2004 |ISBN=81-7991-102-0 |Url=https://books.google.com/books/about/People_of_India.html?id=4bfmnmsBfQ4C |Publisher=popular prakashan.pvt.ltd. |Page=1683 ,1684}}
- ^ {{ |first=surya.n |last=singh |AuthorLink= surya narain singh |Year=2003 | ISBN=81-7099-908-1 |Publisher=krish ,mittal for mittal publications |Page =9 |Url= https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=R8As_JziO2kC&q=Pasis#v=snippet&q=Pasis&f=false
How can uplod photo
I hav photo year 1865, pasi caste by britishers ,how can i uplod , Adolf bijili (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Adolf bijili, you should read through the guideline at Wikipedia:Uploading images, which can do a lot more to explain it than I can. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Dendrobium synonyms
Hello Primefac,
Thank you for your work fixing my attempts to move all the synonyms of Dendrobium. My apologies for my blunders. My aim was to move all the articles with synonymous names (especially Dockrillia, Vappodes and Epiblastis) to Dendrobium. I made the changes around 31 January. ([[2]]). Hope that's useful to you. Gderrin (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- And thanks again. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into fixing this. Gderrin (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, it's what I do. Two tips for the future: first, if you're doing a pageswap, use User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap. Second, if a whole bunch of pages are being merged into one location, just turn those pages into redirects; I think I see what your intention was with all those page moves, but it wasn't really the best way to go! Feel free to drop by any time if you've got questions or concerns. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete question
Hey Primefac! Did you mean to delete this? (TfD) It seemed to me that it should stay, as it is currently in use. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- It has no transclusions, nor did it when I closed the TFD. Am I missing something? Primefac (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) lots of articles link to it with
{{External Timeline|Template:Timeline of the Mexican Revolution|Timeline of the Mexican Revolution}}--DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)- Also, Template:Timeline of the history of the Republic of Turkey and Template:Timeline of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk each have 1 incoming link. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) lots of articles link to it with
Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
|
|
Technical news
- In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
Miscellaneous
- Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
- As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
A page that has been recreated that you salted that I can't put a previously deleted tag for...
Barsha Raut (Actress), it looks like Barsha Raut has been salted, but I can't do a previously deleted speedy so not sure what to say! Wgolf (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wgolf, do you have the right person? I'm not seeing my name in any of the logs (and it doesn't look like anything was salted). Primefac (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Someone moved the article to the proper name (as only autoconfirmed users could create a article under that name) it appears. Wgolf (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Duh. I was looking at the deletion logs for Barsha Raut, not the protection logs. I salted because it got A7'd three times in about as many weeks. From a quick look it could probably stand another deletion... Primefac (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Someone moved the article to the proper name (as only autoconfirmed users could create a article under that name) it appears. Wgolf (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)