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, 49: 15 days

Sorting out the Railway accidents templates

Hello there, I noticed you sorted out the 1950s railway accident templates, which looks neat. If you have a chance to sort out the remaining history merges, that would be great. I've just checked and the situation is as follows: all templates from {{Railway accidents and incidents in 1979}} to {{Railway accidents and incidents in 2021}} inclusive require a history merge with their corresponding predecessors {{1979 railway accidents}} etc. Thank you. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Been working through them slowly when I have time and interest; I do plan on working on a few more decades until they get too unwieldy. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to change the format of the existing decade templates too, adopting the current list format used for year templates (based on the {{vad}} template, and using the article's title as link text instead of generic place and date), in case you feel like implementing such format in any new decade template. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the way you're going to go, then I'll step back; I dislike that arrangement and think it is not well-suited towards a full decade worth of entries, but I know that's just my personal opinion. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't managed to get the new entries layout (with the {{vad}} template) to work acceptably with the decades template, so I think I'll leave the decades templates as they are for now. However, I'm going to move them and change the template header format from "XXXXs railway accidents" to "Railway accidents and incidents in the XXXXs", for consistency with the rest of the new templates. Furthermore:

I propose we leave the split between decades and years templates as it is, i.e. decades templates up to the 1950s and years templates afterwards, for now.
From the last discussion on the topic, the preferred (and more meaningful) way of linking to articles is to use, as link text, the article title, not the location where the accident happened (as it's still the case for the decades templates). This should ultimately be adopted for the decades templates too.
The year templates from 1979 to 2021 still require a history merge, as mentioned above. I'd be happy to do it but I think I lack the required admin privileges.

-- Deeday-UK (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have finished the histmerges. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User rights

Hi there @Primefac, can I still request user rights (Page Mover and New Page Patroller) even though I'm partially blocked? 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to make a fairly compelling argument for why your sanctions are unrelated to the permissions you are asking about, but you probably can still apply. I would mostly ask yourself whether it is really a route you wish to pursue. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know that I still can and yes in a couple of years I will pursue those two user rights I mentioned above. Thank you. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Technical news

Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTP

Re: [1]

Maybe you'd see it more often if it were mentioned in places like that. I use it all the time because:

It's concise. I don't use two or three words when one will convey the same meaning.
It's precise and clear. There is no way it can be misread or misinterpreted.

I've yet to have an editor say, "UTP? What's that?" I guess they've been able to figure it out in context. It's also listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations#U.

I also use "ATP", for the same reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find fault in your argument that if it were used more, it would be seen more, but putting it on that page somewhat places the cart before the horse from my perspective. I have no issue discussing the matter further on the guideline's talk page to get a broader feedback. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one of us doesn't think it's confusing, doesn't mean it isn't, per WP:ARGH!. I think it is better as a redirect, than as a (potentially confusing) example. Noting also that WP:ATP doesn't point to "article talk page", but I'll admit that finding out the actual target made me chuckle : ) - jc37 20:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	A barnstar for you!
	As an admin, you are truly doing a great job. That’s why it is my duty to appreciate your work. Besides that, every editor should be appreciated who wants to make Wikimedia even more beautiful. Baqi:) (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello 🙏

suppose, I have concerns about an editor who writes Wikipedia articles and may be receiving payment for their contributions.

If such an editor applies for AFC reviewer rights and is granted the permission despite having poor AfD (Articles for Deletion) statistics—primarily because they attempt to protect their own articles at any cost.

I am particularly concerned that if such editor creates new articles using a different account or IP address and then approve them using their AFC reviewer rights. This could lead to conflicts of interest and a compromise in content quality and misuse of permission.

In such a scenario, what measures are in place to monitor such activities? Additionally, how can other editors report potential misuse of AFC reviewer permissions? Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have demonstrable evidence about UPE, you should report it. If there is no private evidence, please file at the appropriate noticeboard (and if there is logged-out editing, file at SPI). If there is private evidence, please email me or paid-en

wikimedia.org so that I can evaluate it. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for detailed information. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice, please?

I e-mailed you today about a sensitive situation, which has since escalated. Any advice you could offer would be very much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your email approximately an hour ago. Please check your spam folder, but if it did not show up I will re-send when I get home later tonight. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be unprotected?

Hello, can you unprotect the redirect Template:Film name please? It has only 13 transclusions, so Template Editor or any protection is unnecessary considering the very low transclusion count. Srf123 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need the redirect unprotected? The protection level of redirects should generally match the protection level of the target template. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this redirect while doing other edits. I don't need to edit it right now, but I thought general wiki practice is to keep as many pages open to as many editors as possible? There are lots of low use template redirects which do not have the same protection level as target template. Srf123 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Wikipedia:Protection policy, it doesn't say that template redirects should match the protection level of it's target. Srf123 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're awfully insistent on dropping the protection of a page you say you don't actually want to edit, and likely does not need to be edited. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not needing to be edited isn't really a justification for protecting a low use redirect right? I would have submitted an edit request if I wanted some change. Anyway I came here because Twinkle suggested it, won't bother you further. Srf123 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suppose it doesn't, I am just extremely twitchy when it comes to out-of-the-blue requests to drop protection on out-of-the-way redirects to templates; that's how you get seriously vandalised. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify that you are human in my talk page.

Before editing my homepage, you need to verify that you are human first. Swede the Great I (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While some measure of silliness is welcomed on Wikipedia, please make sure that you are always keeping the main goal -- Improving Wikipedia -- in mind. As I said on your talk page, bots are indicated as such, so there is no need to ask every user if they are a bot. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* are commonly used in sports reporting stats

The use of the "*" is commonly used in reporting sports stats to denote a result that is controversial for one reason or another. This allows the result to stand, but informs readers there is further discussion in the sports community surrounding the result or want to suppress the controversy. In either case that controversy does not go away. By removing the "*" you demonstrate you are ignorant of the controversy surrounding the result. You're partially blocking me does not make the noted controversy go away. In fact the former team mates have recently filed suit in US court against U Penn concerning the very issue you are actively trying to suppress. I will be appealing the partial block on the grounds you are targeting me unjustly for mearly adding additional context to a sports stat that is in fact controversial. Good day to you. AbelVannay (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to put in an edit request to have the content re-added along with a well-sourced statement that can be added. Of course, one should note that her status as a transgender individual has already been established further up the page. By all means appeal your block, indefinite does not mean infinite. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPA-xx

Please fix the 138 links to the 'unused' IPA-xx template you just deleted so that they both display the IPA and generate the ISO error category. There are 140 articles that need an ISO code, and only 2 of them now display in the error-tracking category, and those 2 don't display the IPA. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I fixed it.

This template should be deleted -- just as soon as the articles linking to it have actually been fixed, i.e. by someone who knows what they're doing. [That dig isn't aimed at you, but at the editor who keeps adding the wrong ISO codes because they can't be bothered to do it correctly.] — kwami (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait (again) for the transclusion count to hit zero. Apologies for the hassle, every time I looked it wasn't transcluded so I assumed the task was complete. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We've cleared out 80% from the first time, and many of the remaining are pretty obvious, so hopefully it won't be very long — kwami (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion count shows zero again; is this finally sorted? Primefac (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's still 105 articles. User Gonnym gave them all wrong ISO codes again. That after people at wikiproject languages told them it was the wrong code, and that repeating someone else's error was not a valid reason for doing it purposefully.

Someone objected to the 'fix' tag that IPA-xx now uses, bu they can change that if they want. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all cleaned up. For the last one I just deleted the IPA; it appeared to be wrong anyway. — kwami (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and the work on this. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFC helper script request

Hi Primefac, could you please review my request on WT:AFC/Participants if you have the time to. It's been around 2 days since I requested TNM101 (chat) 03:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only do AFCP reviews once a week, so please be patient. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure no problem! TNM101 (chat) 15:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Primefac. Just a question about AfC, if drafts have been declined multiple times and have been resubmitted without improvement, is it possible to just reject them? In my first ever draft that obviously wasn't notable, some other editor came to the draft and submitted it for no reason. There, DoubleGrazing mentioned Resubmitted without any improvement, previous decline still stands. Fair warning: next time I will reject this outright, if evidence of notability is not provided. I was wondering if doing this was allowed TNM101 (chat) 16:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the submitter is not showing any serious interest in improving the draft, specifically by resubmitting without making improvements, then rejection is not entirely unreasonable. Given that this was what appears to be a drive-by IP resubmitting without making any changes, I would probably recommend that DoubleGrazing reconsider the decline; outright removal of the last AFC template is probably reasonable here given that it is there only edit in the last two years. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Wouldn't it be better if this was mentioned at Reviewing instructions#Rejecting submissions, so that new reviewers would also know TNM101 (chat) 17:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth discussing. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why do I need to reconsider the decline? All I was saying was that nothing had changed since the previous decline, ergo that decline was still valid. Which it was.

Or if it's my "fair warning" comment that is being objected to, then I'd be happy to strike that, alas I cannot. Besides, that comment was just pointing out that tendentious resubmissions (whether by drive-by IPs or anyone else) aren't a good idea as they will eventually cause the draft to be rejected outright. Which is true. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that since it was a drive-by resubmission clearly not intended as a serious resubmission, just removing it outright would be reasonable. I'm not saying you have to do that, just saying that's what I'd do, and that as the reviewer you'd be the one to ask if that was a reasonable thing for you to consider. "Start the discussion" etc. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]