User talk:Primefac

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

A little help, if you don't mind???

Hi ::@Primefac: !

You have been kind enough to respond to two of my previous inquiries to other users that I contacted about AFC and on your last advice about a week ago, you said the draft I created would likely be reviewed in just a few days but it still hasn't. I learned from your last message that there are only 200 or so reviewers for new articles so I realize it must be a monumental task to sort through all the new content created daily but still I have seen many articles that were written well after my draft was written and many of those are already approved or declined. Since I wrote my draft back in November and it is still sitting idle I was just hoping that perhaps you can give me a little help and push it forward for a faster review. I would really appreciate any assistance you can give. The draft I wrote is at the following link and it has been worked on by a few others in the Wikipedia community as well. Thank you very kindly in advance for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ian_Erix

Best Regards, Stefan 07:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruinsects (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bruinsects, I do apologize, I misread the submission time on your draft - the backlog is currently about two months, and your draft was submitted just over a month ago. Thus, it is likely to be a while before it is reviewed. Thank you for your patience. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again ::@Primefac: :) As you may remember, we have chatted a couple of times while I had been waiting for a draft article I wrote some time ago to be reviewed and you were quite helpful in offering reassurances to me that it was not forgotten about and would eventually get looked over. After 8 weeks of waiting, it was finally reviewed yesterday but unfortunately declined. I do not believe this was a fair decision at all as the reviewer, by their own admission, only looked at 5 of the 43 cited sources and declined then declined the article for lack of notability that I believe is clearly established. I see that there is a possibility to resubmit my draft after making alterations to it but since I believe it clearly meets all the notability guidelines as it is, I would like to have it reviewed again if possible. I have already written to the Wikipedian who declined it just a few moments ago but wanted to reach out to you as well to see if there is any other appropriate measure I can take now. For your reference, please find the note I wrote below to the editor who declined my draft. Any help you can provide with this would be greatly appreciated.

Hi MadeYouReadThis - Thank you for your review but it does not seem fair at all for you to decline this submission with having admittedly just reviewed 5 out of the 43 citations. I waited for nearly 2 months after submitting this draft to have it looked at for approval and it is simply not right to have it declined after all of this time for not meeting notability guidelines when the vast majority of sources were not even checked, as you yourself have stated. It is true that you state that the Vanity Fair article does not mention Erix directly, but that particular reference was specifically included only to back up the claims that were written about Pearlman in this article. Pearlman was mentioned since his professional relationship is relevant to Erix's career and references to this were also cited. In regard to Broadway World, All Music, Daily Star and Talent Monthly, in my opinion, these references do seem to clearly support the claims in the article and the notability of the subject. Nevertheless, if you for some reason feel differently, there are 38 other cited sources that also seem to clearly establish notability of the subject in my opinion as per the notability guidelines that you cited as part of WP:MUSICBIO . Erix specifically meets the Criteria for musicians by matching the following 8 out of 12 Criteria for musicians and ensembles listed in the Wikipeida guidelines for what constitutes notable musicians. I copied the 8 criteria he matches below. 1-He has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and independent of the musician himself. 2-Has had a single on a country's national music chart. 3-Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 4-Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 5-Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels. 10-Has performed music for a work of media that is notable 11-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12-Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

With the above in mind, I kindly ask that you reconsider the decline and review this article again more thoroughly if you have the time or alternately please ask another Wikipedian to take a look at the article as I have spent a lot of time trying to perfect this and follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I do believe it should be passed through based on it's merits and the fact that it does meet all the applicable thresholds. Thank you very much for your consideration. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bruinsects, funny you writing today, because about 12 hours ago I was looking at the decline on your draft and wondering if it was the right call. I see that another reviewer has marked your page as under review, and they're a solid reviewer, so I would wait for their response (which I expect to be much more fair). No guarantees as to whether it will be accepted, but it's very likely you'll receive better feedback. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey ::@Primefac: Thanks so much for your reply. I wish I was writing to you with the situation resolved but I have to say I am even more perplexed today than I was yesterday. It seems like the draft was edited significantly by the other editor you mentioned who put it under their review yesterday. He or she removed over 20 of the sources I had cited and I thought that editor was still working on the draft so I did not contribute at all in the last 24 hours as I wanted to be respectful and wait for them to finish what they were doing. However, I see now that another Wikipedian has come along and submitted the article for review and then another one declined the article yet again. The reason given, once more, plainly does not make any sense at all. I understand fully that Wikipedia must have strict guidelines and policies in place because otherwise people would write all sorts of untruths and nonsense that would go unchecked. I love the contributory nature of Wikipedia and respect the democracy of it all but that said, it seems totally unethical to have a clearly established set of criteria published on Wikipedia as a guideline for notability at WP:MUSICBIO and then have those very specific guidelines totally thrown out and ignored by multiple administrators. The subject of my draft clearly meets 8 of the 12 criteria for notable musicians and this has been established by reliable and independent sources, some of which have now been removed by the last editor who may or may not have been finished making adjustments to the draft. All and all, this has been extremely frustrating as I have been making an honest and sincere effort to contribute to Wikipedia in a proper manner and it seems as if the actual guidelines of the site itself are not being followed by admins. All I am looking for is a fair shake but my time and efforts keep getting dismissed with reasons that fly in the face of logic and reason. Any further help you can offer to resolve this would be so very appreciated. Thanks again. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac:--Common sense is increasingly becoming uncommon.IDOH alone knows why he choose to remove the under-review tag, given that I was actively cleaning-up the draft and even by the wordings of the template, 12 hours has not passed from my last edit.I was actually preparing a detailed reply as to my removal of a chunk of sources along with some additional comments on the state of the draft when I noticed IDOH's de-marking and Chetsford's subsequent review.(I don't blame C at all:)).Anyways, the draft looks like borderline stuff to my eyes.Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bruinsects:-- Your re-insertion of the bunch of near-worthless source(s) will further hamper the prospects of the draft, for no fly-by reviewer will wade through fifty non-reliable half-spammy sources to find one/two rel. source(s) and accept on the basis of those.Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@Winged Blades of Godric:, I did not reinsert sources as an affront to your efforts but as you know another editor came in and declined the draft after your revisions, before you were finished, and I didn't even know if you were going to come back to the article at that point so I thought it was best to undo then. I've just read some of your notes though and I am taking them into consideration and trying to improve the draft based on your criticisms. I do believe there are still at least a few sources you removed that are valid and prove notablity. I hope that perhaps with the shortening of the article that will become more clear and succinct and I will address it as best I can upon my revision. Thanks for your help. Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood the motivation behind your re-addition of sources:) But as I said, that was unhelpful.Anyways, feel free to list the sources that you feel were wrongly removed and I will be happy to give an explanation.Happy editing! Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 11:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@Winged Blades of Godric:! Oh gosh, I can hardly see straight after all the time I spent on this. I've tried so very hard to fix this properly to the very best of my ability using your recommendations and criticisms as well as those from previous editors. I have added a few new sources that I was able to find and I did also put back a few others that I feel are still relevant and believe should be able to stand up more closely to scrutiny since the draft is shortened and much more concise. I hope you will agree and I'd like to thank you for all the time you must have spent on your last edit. After reading through the WP:MUSICBIO very closely again, I submit that the subject of this draft should meet the notability guidelines on the following merits:

1- Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

2- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

3- Has received coverage of international tour in at least one sovereign country.

4- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.

5- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film

6- Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

7- Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Kindest Regards and thanks for all your help, Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again ::@Primefac: Sorry to keep bothering you but it feels as if this review process is dragging on for an unusually long time, unnecessarily. I know you restored a deleted article from several years ago for comparison to my draft as per the request of Robert McClenon and Mr. McClenon was kind enough to create a teahouse discussion about it atthe Teahouse but it seems to just be sitting there idly now without much feedback at all. I wholeheartedly agree with other editors that previous versions of the draft and previous articles may not have been up to par but I maintain that the most current draft I wrote now does clearly show that the subject meets several of the WP MUSICBIO thresholds so I truly do not understand why this is not an easy pass? Any assistance you can provide in getting a fair and speedy decision here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Stefan. Bruinsects (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bruinsects - At this point I have to advise you to read the essay advising against bludgeoning the process. You appear to be forum shopping in continuing to filibuster. It isn't "taking an unusually long time". On the contrary, reviewers have been extraordinarily patient in providing you with timely comments on your draft. You say that the discussion at the Teahouse is just "sitting there idly without much feedback at all". No. You may be saying that because you don't like the feedback, which criticized the quality of the sources. By continuing to go on and on, in repeated lengthy posts (and you have been advised to be concise), you are just annoying multiple editors. The review process is not so much "dragging on" as being dragged by your persistence. I may comment more later, but you are getting many timely responses, and continuing to bludgeon the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Mclenon,User:Robert McClenon Your accusation that I am blungeoning anyone is simply untrue and disingenuous. I reached out to [User:Primefac]] for advice because he had been kind enough to give me some tips in the past as I have been trying to learn all the ways of Wikipedia. I was eagerly anticipating impartial replies from other editors at the Teahouse discussion you created but it's been over 48 hours and nobody new has participated. The only one initial reply came from Chetsford who already declined an old draft that was since replaced and his commentary was actually critical of your judgement in asking to have the previously deleted articles restored in the first place as he stated "the AfC criteria specifically excludes reviewers from acting on information other than that which is contained in the draft". I may be persistent in my belief that the subject of my draft clearly meets WP MUSICBIO but I have always been respectful in my replies and have not blungeoned, filibustered or forum shopped. In fact, this is the ONLY place I have posted since the first review of my draft and I dont believe it's inappropriate to courteously have asked a more experienced editor like Primefac for some advice. Bruinsects (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, my commentary was not intended to be critical of User:Robert McClenon. This is the version [1] of the article I declined and I stand by that decline of this version. I can't speak in depth to any past or subsequent versions as I haven't looked at them closely and am unlikely to do so. However, just on a very cursory glance of the references listed in the current draft, there are clearly issues as I just see a wall of demonstrably non-RS sources like axs.com and zip.fm.co.jp. If this band does meet one of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, I'd suggest re-submitting the article as a two or three sentence stub that simply establishes that fact, with adequate reliable sourcing like major news outlets, scholarly journals, published books, or official charts (not iTunes copyright notices, blogs, fan sites, press releases on Broadway World, etc.).
The reality is that reviewers are humans, not robots or computer algorithms, and spend most of their time declining articles from garage bands and weekend novelists. When you submit a thousand word article - 90% of which is unsupported by anything resembling RS - it just looks fishy and is likely to get declined, even if there may be a sentence buried deep inside of it establishing its acceptability under MUSICBIO. That may not be fair or judicious but at the end of the day this is Wikipedia, not the European Court of Human Rights. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. User:Chetsford Everything you say makes perfect sense and I get that all reviewers are only human and can only spend so much time doing this work. It must be unimaginably frustrating declining trivial drafts over and over again that don't meet notability guidelines or even come close in many cases. I do get that this is not the European Court Of Human Rights, LOL, thanks for the chuckle! But that said, this is a democracy of sorts and nobody is being forced to volunteer their time on Wikipedia to be a reviewer so I feel that if you are going to voluntarily take on this righteous task, and someone like me waits for 2 months to have their first draft reviewed, than you should at the very least receive the courtesy of having your writings fully reviewed and the sources checked, even if it is long-winded. Again, I know this is not a court of law but could you imagine if a person was convicted after the defense only presented 1/3 of their case and called 1/3 of their witnesses? I know it's not the same but I am sure you can get where I am coming from with the analogy. In this situation, my draft could even potentially be dismissed erroneously by an editor like you, who seems like a perfectly reasonable and fair minded person. But since you don't recognize some references, you mentioned Zip FM at your cursory glance, you like many others will assume it is fluff. However, Zip FM is a major national radio station in Japan. One of the biggest in that country with millions of listeners. I wouldn't expect you to know that off hand but I imagine there must be some guidelines in place for editors to check what references are notable before they are just nonchalantly dismissed. Billboard Magazine has plenty of articles about Zip Fm in particular. See here: https://books.google.com/books?id=HwoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA66&dq=zip+fm+japan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4uZDrlITZAhWywVkKHW5QDlAQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=zip%20fm%20japan&f=false and here https://books.google.com/books?id=vwcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=zip+fm+japan&source=bl&ots=g3cMj5PCNx&sig=hXUmbePBM1DKT5GNCTcDYfHUPRo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq0airmITZAhUFk1kKHXMoAd8Q6AEIWzAH#v=onepage&q=zip%20fm%20japan&f=false - And the subject of my draft had a #5 song on their charts in August 2017 which I cited in my draft and thereferoe he meets the threshold of being on a national radio playlist as per WP:MUSICBIO. While I realize that some sources I have listed on my draft are stronger than others for proving notability, I read that it is okay to use secondary, supporting and auxiliary sources to establish some content that has been reported about the subject in the article even if that specific content does not go toward establishing his notability as long as other sources do merit the subjects inclusion in Wikipedia. Again, the fact that he has had a gold record, been on national radio playlists and music charts, has had his music featured in a major TV show, released more than 2 albums on a major label etc. should be enough to establish the notability according to WP:MUSICBIO. Have I understood this wrong? Bruinsects (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at this draft more times than I can count, and quite honestly it's such a borderline case that I'm going to take Godric's cue and accept the draft. I make no guarantees how well it will go, but at the moment we're getting precisely nowhere. For what it's worth, I don't think that Bruinsects has been bludgeoning the process, but they definitely should have been slightly less verbose in their replies (in various locations) and less... persistent... there is no rush to get drafts accepted, and honestly I think if they had stepped back for a week or two, let the air clear, and then asked about improvements we'd all be less anxious about the whole thing. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Bruininsects - I'm sorry I didn't read your entire reply, however, vis a vis Zip FM ... the website of the Japanese radio station to which you're referring is zip-fm.co.jp. That's not what you referenced. You referenced zip.fm.co.jp. We can only review what you've written, not what you meant to write. Zip.fm.co.jp is not a reliable source. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PFac's accept.Have reverted to a better-version.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

My deepest apologies if I have been too verbose or overzealous at times User:Primefac. After nearly two months in the draft queue, I was simply eager to move on from my first draft subject and I am sorry to all involved if I advocated too strongly for anyone's liking. In response to User: Chetsford that was just a one letter typo in the reference title, the url did link properly to zip-fm.co.jp but your point is well taken. Thank you User: Primefac for passing the draft through today. I am a bit confused though by User:Winged Blades of Godric who it seems reverted back to a previous version after the articles acceptance. The current article is now missing sources and says "citations needed". Is it safe to assume it is okay for me go back in there now and insert the citations? Thanks. Bruinsects (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You may choose to source the statements to rel. sources.But be reminded that since this is in mainspace, it will be actively worked upon, subject to our rigorous quality-control measures and your preferred version will get no preference.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

197.211.32.0/19 block

Hi Primefac. Thanks for reblocking the range. Since you aren't a CU, I think you should use something other than {{CheckUser block}} as the block reason. Also, a hard block with ACC ignore doesn't make sense. Accounts created by ACC wouldn't be able to edit without IPBE, which we don't (and most can't) grant. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The edits were a continuation of the previous CU block, so I figured that the original block reason was sufficient. I'll ask around and see what the others think. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Primefac (CC: @JJMC89:, I just got pointed on to this from ACC. Honestly, I could care less about the CU block as you modified it, not made it, my major concern is the introducing of the hardblock. There appears to be a crapload (to put it lightly) of collateral damage that will be hit by this. If there is a legitimate reason, then I understand, but I have to admit I'm curious what reason that would be. My email is open if it's private info. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, when I was making the block it felt like there was too much collateral for the OS-related issues I was finding, but I couldn't find a small enough range that would adequately cover it. I think single-IP blocks will be used on this range when it happens again. I've unblocked. Thanks for the input. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 2

I'm placing this here because I can't comment at User talk:Diannaa. I seem to be locked out there for some odd reason. I had never used that template before, and when I saw what it produced I immediately modified the offending link so it wasn't visible or would work. When I checked the results of that edit, I saw that there was still a huge template and immediately decided to just delete the whole thing. I did that, saved my work, but when I checked, you had just done it at exactly the same time. Now it's gone, and that's what I wanted. Sorry about that, and thanks for doing it. No offense intended. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I figured that happened. Sometimes people copy the template and don't remember to comment it out with either <nowiki> or {{t}}. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought I had, but then realized I had only done it with the one in the text. The actual template was still working very well, even creating its own separate section. I realize now why I can't access those edits. You did that too. Cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitteh for you!

Favrite kitteh is here to thank you for your work clearing out Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. Kthxbai ~~

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wikidata icon

Hi! Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_16#Template:Wikidata_icon, you wrote that

This template is contrary to some of the guidelines set down by Wikipedia (including WP:EGG and MOS:ICONS), and those advocating for keeping it did not address those main points when discussing the issue.

However, I directly addressed the MOS:ICONS point in a response to James Allison:

According to MOS:ICONS "Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox" is considered an appropriate use. That probably also extends to lists, by analogy. It might also have uses on talk pages and project pages, which MOS doesn't apply to.,

which nobody made any come-back to. As for WP:EGG, that is specifically about textual piped links taking a reader to "somewhere other than where they thought it would", and to somewhere that does not make sense in the context. Neither of those two was the case here. As Doc James pointed out, there is little surprise induced by the icon:

When you hover over it, it says from Wikidata. Thus not seeing it as a significant concern.

Since the number of opinions for and against the template were otherwise more or less balanced, can I put it to you that a more appropriate close would have been "No consensus", with an admonition that the template, if used at all, should only be used in the circumstances permitted by MOS:ICONS ? Jheald (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, you make some valid points. I'll amend my close. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Target change

Hey, Prime. What's wrong with my edit? I changed the target for privacy reasons. Some editors who renamed have also done the same. — Zawl 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, mostly it's an improper cross-namespace redirect (user pages should really only redirect to other user pages). You're welcome to U1 the page, which will redlink any non-custom sigs you've placed using the old account. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect log

Hi Primefac, Greetings. I saw you have closed some of the redirect discussion and wonder you could assist me. I tried to look for redirect log on "Public log" page and cant find "redirect" there. Is there a log page, I could find the redirect log based based on search on editor to view page redirect and the date or redirected. Thank you in advance of your assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I do apologize, but I have no idea what this is in reference to. That being said, there is no "log" for redirects - just page creations and tag logs (search for "redirect" to see the various filters). Primefac (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The only redirect discussion is WP:RFD and there are logs like this..link to log should be on the talkpage of the redirect..dunno whether that's what you're looking for though Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking that could be a possibility, but I haven't closed an RFD in ages. I'll wait for their reply. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefac and @Galobtter:, Thank you for the reply. 2 incidents made me asked the question. (1) when working on the counter vandalism on Huggle yesterday, I found out there are a numbers of pages created, without much content and events future, and immediately redirect to a related general namespace. As a new page reviewer, I reverted the edit and tag AfD. While I was doing the reverting, it was redirect back without I notice. And since I was a redirect tag, I withdraw the AfD - see here Super Bowl LVII which will be held in the year of 2023 redirect to Super Bowl - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl LVII. (2) I also know that editor example here is User:Rickyc123 created a page without content / only a few words and redirect to a general related namespace and when other editor create the page, the Rickyc123 redirect again which involved copy and delete and the creator of the page became his for his has create such no content redirect close to hundreds of them - see his page creation log for his has previous copied and pasted draft content from other editor to make his page while the draft page being waiting for review (evident is collected and proved). We could know the page is redirect by which editor by view the contribution page but I am not sure we could know the page being redirect to other pages have a log. And also, if we dont know which editor doing the redirect, how would we find out which editor did the redirect? Could a log could find redirect to and from a page to another? All this redirect pages with much content and fails GNG and they are not on WP:RFD. I have another question as well, could a page redirect without even sits on the review log? I chain of thoughts is that because the redirect page is not a reviewed page but is a name page which sits aside where the nobility is not meet. As I dont know all the policies or process in Wikipedia and might even misunderstand some for such I seek your advise. Thank in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I'm a bit unsure as to your exact query but WP:WLH may be of some help.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if I can pick this apart.

• Huggle sometimes gives you a "vandalous" edit that is actually reverting the vandalism (yesterday an editor mistook vandalism for an actual edit and self-reverted). It happens.
• As I mentioned, there are a number of Tags that relate to redirects. Some of them tell you when a redirect is removed, some tell you when a redirect is created./
• WP:RFD is indeed the venue to request deletion of redirects. If you're using Twinkle it will automatically send it to the correct location.
• Future events that will definitely happen in the next few years such as Super Bowls, Olympics, etc, are perfectly acceptable to create as redirects (assuming it's not something silly like Super Bowl C). While mass-creation of such redirects isn't exactly desirable, it's not strictly prohibited (but that's also what RFD exists for).

Hopefully I covered the majority of what you were concerned about. If you have other/further questions feel free to ask. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primefact, Thank you for the explanation. I have further questions

1. If an event would eventually happen, then a editor (say editor A) COULD create an article and immediately redirect to a general related article. What when another editor (say editor B) remove the redirect tag and created the content with all the WP:RS as the event is on the news now, and submitted the article. The attribution of that article should be editor A or B?
2. What happen if editor create an article and immediately redirect to another general related page - say this time is about footballer which "might/with potential" be drafted to be one of the club, but the nobility has yet to be meet during that time of editor A creation, could this allow to be done? Thanks in advance of the assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

More template stuff

Hey- I had a go at clearing up the header of the AfC feedback page. The link inviting users to leave feedback from Template:AfC talk currently uses: {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}, whereas the link on the feedback page itself uses {{leave feedback|format=link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation|feedbackpage=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/feedback|text=click here|plain=yes}}. What's the difference between Template:leave feedback and Template:leave feedback/link? As far as I can tell, the second code (from the feedback page) wikilinks the user's talk page in the section title and the first does not. Am I missing something or am I good to replace the first with the second? Sorry if this doesn't make much sense. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I haven't forgotten about this, but I've been putting out fires and this is a little lower on the priority totem pole. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Kineso tape

Hi - you asked to reference the company re Kinesio tape - I can only find "leading US Brand" don't know if this will suffice. If not happy for you to delete again! Hellinadustcart (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bea Miller

Good morning Primefac, if today is February 1, 2018 in some parts of the world, then Spectrum will not be released in January 2018. Can you please change this back to 2018 at Bea Miller, or something other than January 2018? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. I think the addition of the month got caught up in some other stuff I was reverting; wasn't my intention to have it in there. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A suggested task for PrimeBOT

Would you please have PrimeBOT find all of the pages that are in at least two of Category:Vermont stubs, Category:United States election stubs, and Category:Vermont elections, put them in Category:Vermont election stubs, remove them from the parent categories, then do the equivalent for the other 49 U.S. states, as well as the territories? Vermont doesn't have to be first. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 04:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

​If you create a list for me, I would be happy to do just that. PetScan will likely be helpful for such a task. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I got the PSID, but I can't figure out how to add it to the subcategory, and even when I do, it would be exhausting to manually run the search and such 149 more times. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

16:13:05, 1 February 2018 review of submission by Dean.Connor

• Dean.Connor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dean A. Connor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Primefac,

Thank you for the feedback. We have resubmitted our profile page for "Dean Connor" and have added reliable sources from external websites. We are creating this page for our CEO at Sun Life Financial. Please let us know if we need to add anything else to his profile.

Thank you!

Dean.Connor (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dean.Connor - Read the conflict of interest policy. Wikipedia is not a directory or social medium and does not have profile pages. Also, who is "we"? The policy at Wikipedia is one account, one person, one person, one account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

For your messages at my talk page, even if certain users won't be swayed from their line of thinking that making large contributions in a page history isn't worthwhile if your name isn't first. It's nice to know there are some out there in the WP community who think the same! Ss112 03:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Some folks have crazy ideas/demands:) And, I expect from now-onwards they will just move-over-redirect.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting Content on Chatham Area Transit Page

Hello,

I am the Communications Coordinator for Chatham Area Transit in Savannah, Georgia. The Marketing Department is trying to update the Chatham Area Transit page with our current information, which is consistent with our website, www.catchacat.org. All information being added to the Chatham Area Transit wikipedia page is information we are allowing. Please stop "editing" our content out, do to fear of copyright. If you have concerns about this please contact us in the manner which is easiest for you. Contact information for CAT can be found at http://www.catchacat.org/contact/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 912cat (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Already answered. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2014 Winter Olympics

I dont't think those 2 articles should be tied together. And making a redirect from "Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2014 Winter Olympics" → "Independent Olympic Participants at the 2014 Winter Olympics" with no connection to Russia at all seems really wrong. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Pelmeen10, the naming of the Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games has never been consistent, and they have represented a half-dozen different countries - some containing mixed teams, some because their NOC was suspended, some both. In the case of OAR, they are effectively independent/individual participants, and thus we should link between the related groups of participants (even if, as stated, they represent a half-dozen different countries). I have added an extra note to the infobox to hopefully make this a bit more clear. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clubs_of_football_world_champions

Hello, I created this draft but it is not published, I'm not very expert, this is normal? you can help me? i want tie it to other languages but I can not...--188.153.157.246 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Templates for discussion of "Template:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map"

Hi Primefac. You deleted "Template:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map". However, you forgot to delete the associated module: Module:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map which i also nominated in the same discussion. Thanks. Tradedia^talk 08:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Absurd edit

The change made in the initial sentence of the article in this edit makes no sense. At best this is inattentiveness. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, all it did was change a c into a C. It's not inattentiveness, it's just the coding not considering that as a valid exception to the rules I've programmed. I'll update the bot code to avoid such changes in the future. Thank you for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: : That is not all it did. Look again. At any rate, clearly lower case is called for. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Same thing here. Is this to be done in every place in Wikipedia where category theory is mentioned? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It's very possible. And yes, that is all it did. [[category and [[:category result in exactly the same link. As I said, thanks for the update. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

olympic numbers

Sorry, I was not trying to be contrary, I am very appreciative of your work. Like I said, the first big nation that I checked had an error so I was reluctant to trust the numbers, but it was one of the few errors that I have found. And really not a big deal at all. There are some other strange listings in long track speed skating, and luge, but I think they will work themselves out.18abruce (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Aye, no worries; I was kind of rushing to get it done so I wasn't really paying attention to the finer points. Nice to see there's someone checking my work! Primefac (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Block request

Thanks for revoking my AWB access. As I feel I am not ready to use AWB, I am not going to ask for it back. However, per my personal request, I would like to request to be blocked for one week so that I can have time off Wikipedia. I feel that I should have one week off completely from editing Wikipedia so that I can work on other Wikis. If desired, I might come back to editing Wikipedia once I feel ready. However, for now, the best solution I feel is that I should be blocked for a week and then come back to editing Wikipedia (when I want to). As before, I will not ask for my AWB access back straightaway but I probably might ask for it back in three months time. What do you think? Genuinely, I feel that I want to be blocked for a week so that I can have a week away from Wikipedia. I want to stay away from Wikipedia for a week but I don't want to be blocked indefinitely. Can you please block me for a week as a user request. Otherwise, do I go to WP:AN if I want to request to be blocked. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I might use the Wikibreak enforcer. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikibreak enforcer used, no admin action needed. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made some Wikipedia edits today. Can you please check them and tell me how you feel about them. Can you also please tell me which edits are the most helpful and which edits do I need to work on and improve. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you where or how to edit. I only ask that when you do edit, you are paying attention to what you are doing and are making constructive changes. Nothing has to be done "right now," so just take your time when you're doing things like WCW. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

However, doing projects like WP:WCW are easier with AWB. And... this is why I got my AWB access revoked. I haven't been checking my edits because I don't know how to preview an article after making the changes without saving it. Because, I haven't been checking my edits so I couldn't tell whether my edits are correct. So, how can I preview the AWB edit in the article without actually saving the edit? I need to do this next time I use AWB. Also, I thought I was being bold while I was trying to fix the deprecated parameters and the first thing it says in the rules is

"Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing

. I thought of saying 'I was just being bold to make these edits' as soon as you gave me the confirmation that you revoked my access on my talk page and then I just read the rules of AWB... I just didn't pay enough attention and I should have done that. I also shouldn't have took a risk to do all these pages. In January, I looked at these pages and didn't want to take a risk. Then, I decided to take a risk in February to complete all 2,000 pages in Category:Articles using Template:Infobox ethnic group with deprecated parameters and it costed my AWB access. I am not taking anymore risks. I just learnt another lesson like I do everyday when I edit Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Without AWB, making general fixes is becoming more difficult. I would like my AWB access back under these terms and conditions:

• I will not go for it. Originally, I asked AWB to make fixed like WP:WCW easier. I am not going to bother looking at Category:Articles using Template:Infobox ethnic group with deprecated parameters because I don't have the knowledge to fix them.
• I will preview my edits before saving them.
• I was thanked for lots of edits I made on AWB. I don't have AWB access so I stopped being thanked frequently.
• This is what is going on for me at the moment. Without AWB, I feel depressed editing Wikipedia.
• I will tick the box that skips cosmetic edits. This is to avoid violations of WP:COSMETICBOT.
• The sole purpose that I requested AWB is to make fixing WP:WCW and typos easier. This is what I will use AWB for.
• I will limit my edits to 300 edits per week for the first three months. This is in order to avoid flooding watchlists.
• I will seeks consensus if I need to modify more than 500 pages at once.
• I will pay more attention to the edits I make with AWB. I don't rush with WPCleaner so I won't rush with AWB.
• I will use AWB occasionally but not often.
• Finally, if I ever get stuck, I will ask for help on my talk page. I will not perform any task on AWB unless I am 100% sure that my edits will be correct (even by being 100% sure, I will still check my edits).

Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

AWB module

Hi.
I created this module (mostly, it is a modified version of one that is provided in man pages). But this module adds new lines above, and below {wikiproject organized crime}. Is there a way to remove {pb} above and below the banner, and add only a line breaker (br /) after it?

  public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
        {
            Regex header = new Regex(@"\{\{{WikiProject Organized crime|{{WikiProject Organized Crime|{{WikiProject Fictional characters|{{Comicsproj|{{WikiProject Film|{{Film|{{WikiProject Video games|{{WikiProject Television|{{WPTV|{{WP Fictional|{{WikiProject Novels|{{WikiProject Anime|{{TelevisionWikiProject|{{WPFILM|{{WikiProject Songs|{{WP film|{{WPBooks", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
            Summary = "Adding banner for [[WP:WikiProject Organized Crime]]";

            Skip = (header.Match(ArticleText).Success || !Namespace.IsTalk(ArticleTitle));
            if (!Skip)
                ArticleText = "{{WikiProject Organized Crime}} \r\n\r\n" + ArticleText;

            return ArticleText;
        }

Also, are these modules case sensitive for skipping parameters? Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 22:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already tried a few different combinations (before posting the first comment), but I couldn't get rid of the lines above.
ArticleText = "{{WikiProject Organized Crime}} \n" + ArticleText;
seems to do the trick for lines below, but it gives me following diff:
+
+
+{{WikiProject Organized Crime}}
Any suggestions? —usernamekiran(talk) 05:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Never mind. I just clicked "append" in "more". I am such an idiot! —usernamekiran(talk) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to be a sounding board. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it feels like you are not even listening to me anymore.
Do you think a bot would be approved at BRFA, for adding only maintenance tags to articles? If you look at my last 250 contribs, the orphan tag was added on 158 articles. There were few unref tags as well. This task could integrate these orphan articles into encyclopaedia. What do you think? —usernamekiran(talk) 12:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You asked a question, then answered it before I even saw the first message. Not much I can do there.

Adding maintenance tags to articles would definitely not fly as a bot task, mainly due to the super-low priority adding "orphan" and "unreferenced" actually holds. In other words, if AWB does it automatically as part of genfixes, it's not appropriate to run a bot task for it. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

yes, AWB does run it automatically. But again, everytime hitting save, or ctrl+S is irritating. And there is no scope for errors either. I didn't understand "mainly due to the super-low priority adding "orphan" and "unreferenced" actually holds." But assuming we do it (either through bot, or automatically), then the outcome would be good. I mean, all these articles tagged with orphan, would show up in the orphan category. And when de-orphaned they would get integrated. Currently most of these orphaned articles are like "forgotten" ones. Do you think I should file a request for the task at BRFA? My previous request was too much open ended, and rejected. Current requested task is not open ended, but there has been radio silence.

By the way, my previous comment (you not listening to me anymore) was supposed to be a joke :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Views..

Is a G12 warranted over Angshuman Kar per this conversation? Regards:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that Integer has taken care of it:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help? I guess I should revdel what's appropriate. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People tend to see a massive score on Earwig and race for G12 like their name's Kid Cisco; forgetting that lists, proper nouns, etc., are exempt. "Yeah man, way to edit war over a tag, man" :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have that beef with a certain admin who has (at least four times) deleted a G12 out from under me whilst I'm in the process of trimming it down. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Oooh I love guessing games  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll give you a hint, they've deleted some G12s since I was deleting them yesterday, and it's not Diannaa ;) Primefac (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think that there's any need to revdel.The copyvio score was so large, since it consisted of publication-lists and a huge quote (that was way unnecessary), things which are almost-always exempt under G12.And, additionally, the person being pretty-notable, some extra-work barring tag-smashing is clearly very well-deserved.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi i just thought I'd add my tuppence worth as I am the one who is being accused of edit warring. As I tried to explain the article creator was blocked for sockpuppetry and in a recent conversation involving yourself and others at NPP, User:GiantSnowman suggested that sockpuppet's articles should be deleted even if there is a suggestion of notability as part of WP:DENY. As this sockpuppet had also copied 87% of the article word for word I really do not see what the problem is with deleting this article. The suggestion that the high score is because it was a copy of a list and proper nouns and a quote is misleading. I know what is exempt but a very large part of the article was copied word for word and was not a quote from anyone but the author. WBoG says he is "pretty-notable" but I don't think he comes close to WP:NACADEMIC, the remaining sources are his profil from a university where he is only an associate professor, a passing mention in a very short article about someone else, a blog that just has a copy of a poem or 2 and a link to a book for which he was one of the editors. there is no in-depth coverage of any sort. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The questions a deleting admin needs to consider when dealing with copyvios are these:

1. Is there copyrighted material that needs to be removed?
2. Is there anything left in the article worth keeping (i.e. "is there anything left other than Joe Bloggs is a guy who does stuff")?

If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then the page shouldn't be deleted. I'll grant you, removing the longquotes and other stuff was necessary, but there's enough left afterwards that a G12 isn't appropriate. Subjects with questionable notability should be nominated for PROD or AFD. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks for that, these are all points I understand I was more interested with the possibility of using the WP:DENY logic as suggeted by GiantSnowman. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis:--The problem is that bengali Sources is that they are very difficult to retrieve over an online search.Winning an annually awarded one-man-award from one of the two regulatory bodies of Bengali Language is pretty significant.I am collecting offline sources at my sandbox.Anyways, we weren't edit-warring:)As to G5 and DENY, that's a pretty valid line of thought and I generally concur on the sentiment.But, exceptions apply:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Eh... DENY isn't really about sockpuppetry, but more for G3-worthy vandalism/hoaxes and talk page decorum. I see where you're coming from, but we have AFD for that sort of thing (i.e. no need to bend the G12 rules just to delete a page). Primefac (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok that seems fair enough. I'll let WBoG work on the sources and I'll come back to it when he's added them. Cheers to all. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Good morning I would like to ask for your help in editing the draft: Israel lucas Gois, the article is very good, could you help me put it on the air? I waited for return — Preceding unsigned comment added by André Luiz nogari (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi I've removed some copyvio from this article Cleared Hot is there an easy way to request revdel? cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a script to assist in revdel requests. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Bots and....

Is there any way (and benefit) in writing a bot, that will notify the particular AFC acceptors of any XFD process on mainspaced drafts? There's AABot which currently maintains a list but that is for the whole AFC Project.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So, basically AABot but for posting things on someone's talk page? Kinda like how there's a G13 bot that notifies users when a page is eligible for G13 deletion? Primefac (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.... based on the info at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing, it sounds like pretty much anyone can set up AAs for whichever projects they're interested in, they just need to have a dedicated sub-page to put it on. I suppose that page could then be transcluded somewhere like a userpage (I know plenty of admins who have {{Admin dashboard}} on their userpages). Primefac (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

But, that's project-specific, not user-specific.For example, any reviewer ought to be reasonably quite-interested/bothered in the event of someone taking an article accepted by him at AFC to XFD but may not feel the need to be informed (and/or) keep a watch over all XFDs on all articles generated from the entire AFC workflow.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you mean "be interested in former AFC pages". I think if you were to post this at BOTREQ you'd get a "well just watchlist the page" reply. From a technical standpoint, I'm not sure how you'd be able to implement such a move, since you'd need some sort of category handling to determine who gets notified. I suppose if we had AFCH create some sort of "Accept Log" like with the CSD/PROD logs, then you could check it regularly and see when/if anything is nominated/deleted. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Watchlisting the page is not a good idea. At least, I don't have enough interest to be bothered by the day-to-day edits at my accepts.Is there any current tag available to filter only those cross-space-moves which is executed by AFC?

On a side-note, can you revoke the AWB-Access from this account and add it to User:Winged Blades of Godric (AWB), with the EC-flag?~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is that without either creating a bot to do the work (which would probably require some form of consensus at WT:AFC) or creating a category for every reviewer who reviewed a draft, there's not much other than watchlisting that will (easily) work. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC) P.S. Request done. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Primefac. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Zawl 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Zawl, I was in the process of writing out an email to you, but I think this is an important enough issue to post here "for the record".

There is nothing wrong with deleting a redirect to move a page. Hell, that's half of what WP:RM requests are asking for. There is also nothing wrong with creating an article on top of an existing redirect. If in the past you had simply created a bunch of sandbox articles and then asked for them to be moved on top of a redirect (which happens every day at AFC as well), I would not be typing this out now.

The issue, and what kicked off this whole thing, is your intentions throughout the process; you were knowingly and intentionally moving those redirects so you could "get credit" without anyone noticing. It also didn't help that you did this almost exclusively to one editor's creations, giving them a reason to think that you might have been "targeting" their pages (this is unlikely, since you both work in music-related areas, but still plausible). This also included petulant creations using non-standard characters in what I see as an attempt to game the system. In other words, it's not necessarily what you did, but why and how you did it that ticked everyone off.

And that brings us to your email request. The page you asked me to move might have had unnecessary disambiguation, but I see no evidence that this was done specifically to "get credit" for the page creation - it's likely that they saw the page existed and thus went the DAB route. It is also possible that they didn't even know it was a redirect, or that you could edit a redirect (they've only been here since Oct '17). Regardless of their motiviations, I've moved the article over redirect as an unnecessary disambiguation.

In summary: editors are welcome to create or improve pages in whatever way they see fit, as long as it follows the accepted practices and guidelines. At the end of the day, no one really cares about edit counts or page creations; we're all just volunteers working to make Wikipedia better. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with your decision, but I created the 2U (David Guetta and Justin Bieber song)) page with good faith and you histmerged it claiming I did it to get around the redirect, which is not true because originally the song credited Justin Bieber as a primary artist, thus putting him in the title is in accordance to the music naming convention. Could you at least delete that initial revision (a redirect by another editor) to be fair? — Zawl 07:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A template needing substitution checking

Hello, my friend. Please see the bottom of Template:Stock versus broth. Nobody at IRC has a clue what it means, but you were recommended. Many thanks for any help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the template is explained here: Talk:Broth#New stock versus broth template

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Substituting the template works. I have tested it here. However, I would like to know which redundancies you want sorted out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pkbwcgs. I do see that the template works because I added it to two articles. I'm just not sure what to do with that cat.

As for redundancies, I'm not sure. I just pasted the two sections together. If they look okay like that, then fine. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, to answer your question directly, the reason the template is in the hidden cat is because of the {{cn}} template; it attempts to check whether the template is being subst because when you subst cn it can seriously muck up a page.

As much as I hate to muck about with your hard work, I feel that labelled section transclusion is actually better for these sorts of situations. This is mainly because it keeps the text on the page and makes it easier to adjust/modify. If you really disagree with that I'm fine reverting to the template, but I thought I should let you know. Primefac (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, Primefac. Anyway you think is best is fine with me. Will your way always make identical content at both articles? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And sorry about forgetting the attribution. It never occurred to me on this one. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, LST takes text from one page and ports it directly to another. It's been around for a couple of years but not many people know about it so it's not widely used, but this is pretty much a textbook case of why it was developed; keeps editors in the Article space and makes it easier to update things (instead of having to go to and from the Template space). Primefac (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. Maybe the shrimp prawn template is due for a change too. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, haven't really looked at it in depth but I suspect a TFD is in order. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Please let me know if you would like me to handle it somehow. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped McGeddon a note, will wait for their reply. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 23) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

ta. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Setting Preferences

I went ahead and removed the "thanks" setting from my preferences.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon#Nikon_Metrology - recent edits

Primefac... I am not familiar with this Talk system. Sorry if this not not the correct method to reply to your previous message. I am an authorized agent for Nikon / Nikon Metrology and will be re-posting the edits I made recently. Please tell me the best way to cite the text that you removed. Please limit the options to the suitable cases for this situation, I don't need to read the entirety of Wiki terms please.

CrashN8 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

CrashN8, the text on the Nikon site is copyrighted to Nikon, and thus it should not be directly copied to Wikipedia unless it has been released for free use (see WP:DONATETEXT). Otherwise, you'll have to just write it in your own words. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I reverted Everett Stern Edits

Hi, I reverted the Everett Stern edit that you changed when you stated that none of the sources had said he was employed by the CIA. But my edits never stated he was employed, only that he was a Candidate for the CIA program, in which I cited the minutes on the Netflix episode stating that, and another interview article from an international news source. So I don't think I was wrong in my edits. Discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherjohn (talk • contribs) 02:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Being discussed at the article's talk. No need for split discussions. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental edit, I was on my laptop and I am guessing my mousepad put the cursor on the spot that I accidentally edited. Won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherjohn (talk • contribs) 03:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks for coding and carrying out this bot task to fix those broken CWGC URLs, it is much appreciated. For completeness, the edits the bot carried out were: these 50 edits and these 1108 edits? From looking at the current totals, I see that they are 3,214 vs 66 and 1884 vs 47. Most of those 66 and 47 are just in non-article namespace (as expected). There are just two broken links left in the article namespace, at Robert Anthony Maurice Palmer and Bromley Cemetery, both are broken URLs of a syntax that the bot would (correctly) not have picked up - I will fix those myself.

While I am here, I have a couple of other questions if you have time to answer them: (1) At the bot request I pointed out that there are some links using the https protocol (specifically 165 and 84). Am I right to think that it doesn't matter which protocol the links use, and is there an easy way to find both sets of links without having to search separately each time? (2) Is it possible to find out which of the now-hopefully correct URLs may still be malformed (either formatted wrong or using the wrong ID) and returning 404 errors? (3) There are other broken CWGC URLs, all ending .aspx. Twelve examples are on the current Commonwealth War Graves Commission. They will be of the form http://www.cwgc.org/ [...] .aspx They will need manual checking, but is there an easy way to find all these links across Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance for any advice. Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Revdel req

Coventry United F.C. (2A02:C7F:2206:3300:18B3:E8E2:58F:BE9 edits) please. Thanks, Nzd (talk)

 Done, ta. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)