User talk:Primefac

This is Primefac's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48: 15 days

Draft:Cercle d'Études Scientifiques Pierre Rayer

You were kind to a new user (in your edit summary). That was a truly good thing to do. No good deed goes unpunished, I fear.

However this new user is a (presumed) good faith sock of Inspiringflow, to whom JBW has made a strong suggestion that they desist. I've moved the article back to Draft, warned both about UPE, and left each {{uw-agf-sock}} although this feels more deliberate than that template warrants.

There is discussion on my user talk page about the editor and the article/draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I looked at your talk page and don't think I need to comment any, seems like good advice has been given all around. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Primefac ,

I have just made changes to the article in question and I would like to have your feedback on it if it is good or not; also regarding the two accounts underlined above it was an error on my part and I have already explained myself on that, Waiting for your return, thank you Inspiringflow (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my AWB access

I don't remember when I last used AWB/JWB, and don't foresee myself requiring its use in the future. I'm not sure why I asked for AWB access first place. No point in having access, as such. Thanks! Java Hurricane 21:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reviews

Hi Primefac, I hope you are doing well. Over 1000 redirects were created yesterday as part of an AWB request. These are all easy reviews, so can I use a PAWS script to review these redirects? This would save NPPs time, allowing them to focus on reviewing other important pages. I've seen many folks using PAWS on their main accounts for this type of easy work, so I just want to confirm if there are any issues. Just FYI, the creator of these redirects, Tom.Reding, is on the redirect autopatrol list, but Danny's redirect autopatrol bot has been down for a week, and DannyS712 hasn't edited in over a month. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirects are valid, then I don't see why you can't review them. Might be worth cross-posting to BOTREQ and see if anyone wants to host a temporary backup for the bot. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to run a temporary bot for this task. I will file a BRFA soon! – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA filed since this redirect autopatrol is an important task and has the same functionality, I hope BAG will approve it quickly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems

Hi, I've reverted two entries by new user Pohanuupasse. LaTasha Barnes, this edit [1] is very close paraphrasing from [2] Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, this edit [3] is very close paraphrasing from [4].

Can I ask for a rev/del please. I've left a warning for the user. Knitsey (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Done (though why not use {{Copyvio-revdel}}?) Elli (talk | contribs) 15:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli:, Timtrent messaged me about this!. I didn't know it existed, although I had seen the tags on articles before. I'm so useless with anything techy, BUT, I've just installed it so I will give it a go next time I spot something. It's got to be easier than searching for a rev/del copywrite admin, then writing it all out.

I will probably crash Wikipedia but what the hell, right? Knitsey (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it can be a bit tricky to figure out, but it's a better general solution than poking particular admins. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knitsey You'll be fine. We all make a few errors when we start using new tools, but you can't break anything with the tool you just installed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for sorting it out. Knitsey (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this is sorted. Many thanks to my tps. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Just to confirm, obtaining permission for AWB here grants editors the right to use it on EWP any other language project, correct? — Sadko (words are wind) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, each project has its own requirements, so if you want to use it on a different language you will need to check their AWB access requirements. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023-2024 Middle Eastern Crisis

Hi. I saw that you declined my CSD of 2023-2024 Middle Eastern Crisis (though your summary referred to it as a histmerge). I was considering withdrawing that CSD anyway and draftifying the article as it's a WP:CFORK as of now and an undiscussed split (though a discussion was opened after the fact here). I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't be stepping on your toes if I went ahead with draftifying it. Thanks, estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ambiguate

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 18 § Template:Ambiguate

This is a confusing result; PROD isn't an option for templates, so its unclear how soft deletion, which exists by way of analogy of PROD could be an option at TfD. A regular "Delete" close would have made more sense. Mach61 14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a comparison, not a 1-to-1. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...several times over, for the merge of the presidential navboxes back to their original state. One example of the harm done by the longtime discussion is that nobody looking at the recent Reagan film has been able to access Reagan's presidential articles from the navbox entries. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, though really I'm just reading the consensus at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the consensus?

I'm sorry, Primefac, but I don't see how you can say that there was a consensus at any of the three TFDs (WAFLW, WAFL or AFLW) for merging the club templates, especially when there were more arguments for keep/leave as is between the three. I would have thought that if you saw this and weren't going to go for keep/leave as is, you'd at least go no consensus and let us continue the discussion at project level like some of us had asked for. There is a general consensus that convenience templates help the editor more than it hinders them... how, then, did you reach this result? Incredibly frustrating that we as a project now have to adjust (and only for some of these templates, not all) because of what appears to be a couple of editors' editing preference. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4TheWynne, two of the three template groups are already done, typically with a one-character change, contrary to "keep" arguments that included text like "create a lot more work for ourselves" or "saves time when updating the pages". The third template group is just waiting for a bot or an editor with a script to adjust affected pages with transclusions. The basic function of the templates, providing an easy shortcut method to enter team name links, was kept, not deleted, with the merge outcome, so most of the "Keep" arguments were incorporated into the TFD closure.

"Keep" arguments about the existing syntax being easy to use are honored by the three new templates, which are equally easy to use (a pipe instead of a space) and much easier to maintain (teams or abbreviations are trivial to add or remove without the hassle of creating or deleting templates). Feel free to invite me to a discussion about the possibility of merging the rest of the templates. I have created {{AFL team link}} to show a way to merge the AFL XX templates, and I'll be happy to work on templates for SANFL, NEAFL, TSL, EDFL, AFLR, and other leagues. Replacing more than a hundred templates (plus template redirects) with six or seven templates that are just as easy to use is a clear benefit to AFL article editors, template editors, and template maintainers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, I didn't ask for your input here, contributions stalker, you've already made your position quite clear. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to be helpful. No personal attacks, please. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about helping/hindering was with regard to the templates themselves; the nomination stated that the templates were taking up real estate and unnecessary, while the consensus of participants was that these convenience templates were useful for editors in those areas of interest. As far as keeping them separate, after merging was mentioned many of the keeps made it conditional on (or directly supported) merging. There is also strong past precedent from similar templates to merge multiple single-use templates into one meta template. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]