User talk:Primefac/Archive 46

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

I need either your help, (or a talk page stalker's help) with deciding how I should proceed with an IP editor who I've only dealt with on one occasion who has accused my character publicly on an article's talk page.

I reverted an IP February 18th on the basis that their edit was puffery/vandalism here as "He [Vyacheslav Molotov] is considered to be one of the greatest diplomats in history" is non-neutral language and triggers "according to whom" questions. "Anderson" is not a clear or understood reference. I warned them as vandalism L2.

I'm not comfortable with their public accusations of me and my character on the article's talk page, especially since it was our only interaction.

Their complaint on their talk page, while also a bit forward, is not as problematic and is tolerable (but close).

How shall I proceed if any? And is the article talk page section problematic and valid for a revdel removal request?

Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have given them a vandalism warning, because that's not vandalism, but that's neither here nor there (though I do agree the "Legacy" section doesn't say that specifically so it should be removed). Being accused of having bias on something like this is not really surprising, though. Just engage in a neutral and non-threatening manner and you'll be fine. Angry people are more than capable of digging themselves into holes without help from others. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I read it as them adding

Puffery without a valid source. Briefly wondered if they were quoting themselves. Seems I read their intent wrong. I'll neutrally reply and hope things go well. Thank you for the words of wisdom, and giving a third party view of this. I appreciate this. Zinnober9 (talk

) 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for teaching me about the adjective definition of myriad in that undo! - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 21:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Any time. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

And a glass of milk.

Thanks for all you do around here Primefac! S0091 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I was needing that. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that was the civil reply, i'd been working on an email that was...uh..."more articulated" in its use of "creative" language for around 60 minutes before finally trashing it altogether because it was extremely unpleasant. This one didn't have any profanity or any suggestions about where to shove the email. That being said, I won't argue that it sounded harsh - although some times harsh things need to be said harshly for people to get the point (And that includes people saying things to me). In any case, thank you for correcting me, and have a good morning. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. Have a good one. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

I was checking up on an editor I have concerns about and found my way to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants where I see that you almost single-handedly manage the approval process of onboarding editors into the AFC review process. I saw your acceptances and declines and agreed 100% with your decisions and just wanted to thank you for taking this task on.

I spend a lot of time reviewing AFDs and I regularly come across fairly new editors who just plunge into the deep end of taking on more responsibilities after they have only been editing a month or two. I'm sure I'd run into this at PERM as well. I get antsy about editors who rack up thousands of edits in their first month or two editing but without evidence of socking, I feel like all I can do is keep tabs on them. But I'm glad that such a competent admin+ is managing the AFC approval process. The last thing we need is edit-heavy but content-inexperienced editors advising newcomers to the project.

While I'm here, over my 10 years on the project, you have sometimes come to my user talk page to point out oversights or mistakes on my part as I went about my daily tasks. While criticism can sometimes be hard to hear, I always thought you were fair and, of course, accurate about policy and seemed more concerned with making sure I didn't continue making mistakes rather than scolding me so thank you for that as well. I think the best admins, and editors, have a solid knowledge of policy but also an ability to communicate with others about problems without animosity and I think you have both in spades.

As for the most recent noticeboard disputes, it's not really my place to advise but I think being honest and forthcoming about your decision-making process goes a long, long way. I have confidence that won't be a problem for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. While we may not always agree, I know that you put in a lot of time and effort here and that is genuinely appreciated; it ain't an easy job but someone's got to do it, right? Primefac (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this, I'm wondering if something recently changed on the MediaWiki side that's causing this problem. <> have been used in arb section headers for a long time without causing this problem, and I don't see any recent changes to Module:Anchor that look suspect. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It is

THURSDAY... Primefac (talk

) 20:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Just stuck a note at VPT: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Anchor issue with LT/GT symbols GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't emphasise enough that this is not personal and done out of a loss for what else to do, and fearing that if I didn't do this, somebody else would have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn't think it was, but thanks for the reassurance. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: yeah, maybe better. Page One is that you name as few parties yourself as absolutely necessary. Hence, everyone—arbs and peanut purchasers commentators—begins the discussion within narrow parameters, and the case and the parties to it broadens as it goes along. Or maybe doesn't, and even finishes within three months. As opposed to naming multiple parties, all of whom are alleged to have 'done' (apologies, Primefac) completely different things, which could—and to some extent has—muddied the waters from the beginning. Remember the immortal words of Aone: 'Keep it nice and tight, people'. ——Serial 21:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the protection of Deadmau5’s page should be removed. He’s barely talked about anymore at all making his page less of a target for vandalism and

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your tolerance for people picking nits every. single. time. you. do. something. is likely much higher than mine. It's a reason I gave up being an arb, and it's a portion of the reason I don't do much around here anymore, but you seem to be handling it well. But in case it's secretly dragging on you, this is just a note to say - whether or not everything you do is perfect - I'm glad you have the tools you have, and you have my trust to exercise your judgment whenever necessary. Thanks. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. This is genuinely appreciated. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am going to plus-one this. I completely realize I am a (much) smaller name than Floq... heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you need to remind yourself who I am. Still grateful for this; the follow-up needed for making a change you personally opposed speaks volumes more than a single incident :)

And more to the point, as you have personally noted (in the past year, at least at least thrice) Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with holding advanced permissions. Sincerely: thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It is still appreciated :-) Primefac (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_American_Dad%21_episodes&diff=1198224470&oldid=1192637443 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't check any other edits. Have a good one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Sdkb The Night Watch East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• requests for adminship process
  .
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Hello, I have replied to your comment on my application for becoming an AfC reviewer. Just writing to let you know. If you could please review it, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Antny08 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Antny08 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Antny08, I'm going to reply here because there is no reason to keep this private. I marked those images as copyright because they are copyright. Commons does not allow copyrighted images (nor does enWiki), and without clear indication that the images are CC-BY-SA (which they are decidedly not) they will be deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, this has absolutely nothing to do with your request at

WT:AFCP, and everything to do with the fact that I came across your draft with three copyrighted images on it, and then went looking through your Commons contribs to see how many more there were. Primefac (talk

) 14:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. They are not copyrighted, but I may have accidentally put the wrong labels on them. Thanks for letting me know. I will see if I can fix it and if not I will remove them. Antny08 (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please move Chitral to Chitral (city) page now chitral is a city.103.19.48.96 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That is an unnecessary disambiguator, so there is no reason to move it. The page has plenty of hatnotes. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

please unprotect this Chitral page user's are waiting for make edits.103.19.48.96 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not usually one to overrule another admin's indefinite protection of an article. I will ping Ivanvector to this discussion to get their feedback, but otherwise I suggest you make your edit requests on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No thanks i don't have anything to add in this page.

Best of luck!

103.19.48.96 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo. Request declined. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Spiffy. Ta. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Can I have a draft-page copy of the {{Sight and Sound Poll}} navbox which was deleted last June. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Primefac,

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

per

[[Springfield (disambiguation)|Springfield]]

-> Springfield

To link to a specific section on such a page, it would be nice to be able to use the section link template for markup. Its version of a piped link uses the "display" parameter:

{{section link|Springfield (The Simpsons)|Shelbyville}}

-> Springfield (The Simpsons) § Shelbyville

{{section link|Springfield (The Simpsons)|Shelbyville|display=Springfield (''The Simpsons'')}}

-> Springfield (The Simpsons) § Shelbyville

Unfortunately, markup like the italics in the example above is currently the only change the parameter permits:

{{section link|Springfield (disambiguation)|Fictional places}}

-> Springfield (disambiguation) § Fictional places

{{section link|Springfield (disambiguation)|Fictional places|display=Springfield}}

-> Lua error: Display title "Springfield" was ignored since it is not equivalent to the page's actual title.

As far as I can tell from looking at the section link module code, making this work would be a simple matter of adding an "elseif" block to check whether the only difference between the actual and display titles is the dab qualifier.

Unless I'm overlooking reasons why this wouldn't work, or would work but be a bad idea?

Sorry to trouble you with this, I gleaned your name from the page histories. :)

- 89.183.221.75 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe? I don't think I've really done much with that module, so I'd have to dig into the code to check. I also wonder why you would want to suppress the disambiguator, it's not something that we would be using in the article space so a "clean" link probably isn't necessary. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, deliberate links to sections of disambiguation pages happen mainly in two types of hatnotes in article space.

One is at the top of a regular article with a title like "Springfield (city)" and says "for other cities named Springfield, see Springfield § Cities" - a variation on the standard "other uses"-type hatnote when the title does have a partially disambiguating qualifier. Personally, I'm not really a fan of that entire approach, and would prefer having "Springfield (city)" as a redirect to the disambiguation section whenever there is more than one. Current policy is to do it like that when one of the cities is much more notable than the others, though, I believe.

The other crosslinks one disambiguation section directly with another corresponding one. For the sake of argument, say there are separate disambiguation pages for "Field" and "Fields", and there are a bunch of articles titled "Field's (...)", most of which are about the same general type of thing and so get links in the same section of "Field", which would typically include "Field's". It may then be a good idea to have a "see also"-type hatnote at the top of the corresponding section of "Fields", because that's the highly specific wrong place in which people unclear whether the "-s" suffix is possessive or plural are going to be looking for the links. (Sorry, clearly not a great example, but hopefully good enough to illustrate the idea.)

Hatnotes are generated by other templates, which can usually handle both piped links (using {{!}}) and section links fine by themselves, just not when put together like this. Those templates usually have a "-text" version or "text=" parameter for more complex cases as well, though, which {{section link}} can be nested into. That's the cleanest solution I can think of, thus my question.

As for the reasoning for using "(dab)" redirects, and for hiding them, pretty much all I know is that the guide says that it's good practice. I'm happy to ignore that if you tell me it's not worth the trouble in corner cases like these, though!?

- 89.183.221.75 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, just came across an example of the first kind in which trying to apply the guideline resulted in accidentally uglifying the link: Halcyon (album).

Also came across one of the rare cases of the template in multi-section mode (Template:Section link §§ Usage​ and Multiple sections (autological examples FTW)), which made me think of a workaround:

Springfield {{section link|Springfield (disambiguation)|Fictional places|nopage=yes}}

-> Springfield § Fictional places

Not a precise match, but maybe close enough.

- 89.183.221.75 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, given your previous oversight related action here, could you do this again after my revert of this? Cheers and thanks. - DVdm (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Blablubbs already took care of it. Thanks for that. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that my editing is disruptive rather than adding context to an article where the sources don't indicate or confirm his death. 88.98.216.101 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's disruptive because it's edit warring; the matter should be discussed on the talk page (which I do notice is happening now). Primefac (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Admin sir, the Ahir/Yadavs are traditionally warriors community^[1] 2402:8100:258E:A5AC:0:0:2B11:7CEB (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, Could you RevDel

Yes, ish. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

As I cannot edit the template, and based on the editor

Replied at the talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Dead @Primefac, I have seen you have recently responded to some requests, some more recent than mine. I was asking you when my request will be evaluated. Thank you so much and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It will be evaluated when I have time to read through the dozen threads in a dozen locations about some of your previous permission requests. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I add user boxes on my user page? paytonisboss (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

General guidance on userboxes is at

User WikiProject Physics}} to indicate that I am a member of that WikiProject). Primefac (talk

) 15:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In removing some posts on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), I wonder if you accidentally removed the 03:43, 12 March 2024‎ post by User:WhatamIdoing . My question is because this 03:43 post is on a different subject ([1]) from all the other removed posts. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not; the content is in exactly the same place as when WhatamIdoing initially placed it. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that is strange. I see the text of the post by doing an edit search for the time (it's a long thread), but the history[2] shows it with the double strike through. Other displays of that post also show it with the same strike through, such as WhatamIdoing's edit history. Quite possible that I am missing the obvious somewhere, but this looks like a technical glitch. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The redacted text was added in Special:Diff/1213266411 before being removed in Special:Diff/1213352999; all text between that contains the redacted text, so those diffs must be suppressed as well. It is not a technical glitch. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was confusing to me to have all those double strikethroughs apparently indicating a raft of deleted posts – but now I know the solution. Without that knowledge it appeared a whole discussion had gone off piste. Thanks for the explanation/education. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seeing OS'd content for the first time can be a bit confusing. Glad I could help sort it out. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, just because you don’t like me doesn’t mean you have to target me to delete my images. Second of all, where does it say the image of Christopher Del Borrello is copyrighted. Third, how do I get an image of him to add that will not get deleted for copyright? How do other people get images? Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

PS, I did not mean to come off as rude, but it definitely seems like you don’t like me and are purposely checking all of my images just to find ones that are copyrighted to “get back at me”. If this is not true, please correct me. But please provide me with information of how to get photos without copyright restrictions, or help me find some. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

First, I did check all of your images last week after I came across your draft; we established that in the thread above. I had the draft on my watchlist because of it and when I saw you uploading a nearly-identical image to the one that was already deleted I knew that it was also going to be a copyright violation. I am not stalking your contributions, nor targeting you, nor do I dislike you (nor do I have any reason to "get back" at you - you've done nothing to me), I just saw a diff.

As far as uploading an image goes, the first step is to determine if it has a license. If it does not list one assume that it does - in the USA pictures are explicitly copyrighted to the photographer unless indicated otherwise. Images on Facebook, 99.9% of the time, will not be released under a compatible license. You need to contact the photographer (or copyright holder) and ask them if they are willing to upload it; if the image is already online we have a form for that, otherwise they will simply need to create an account at Commons and upload their image there. If you cannot find a compatibly-licensed image, or cannot find someone to upload it for you, the unfortunately there's not really much that can be done (unless you want to track down the subject and take a photograph yourself).

I am more than willing to help out and answer any questions you may have, and I apologise if I came across as harsh or vindictive, but I assumed that you had read the copyright notices I left after last week and would not simply return to uploading more of the same. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. I was just confused before, but I understand now. Thank you so much. Have a good day. Antny08 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know if Twitch or Twitter profile pictures count as copyright? I am assuming it may be a yes based on what you said earlier, but I am trying to make an article for CaseOh, a Twitch streamer, and I was wanting to use his profile photo for an image of him, it just a selfie of CaseOh. Also, what if the owner of the image writes to you and tells you that you have permission to use it? Antny08 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Profile pictures will likely belong to the person who uploaded the image. If someone has a logo it could potentially be uploaded as

non-free, but you would need to wait until the draft is an Article as non-free files can only be used in the article space. If the logo is a photo of them, though, it would need to be freely-licensed. If the owner of an image says that they are willing to give permission, then they should upload it themselves. Primefac (talk

) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Although I didn't post links, if I could post links, why can't I refer to content in the links? I won't link to it or refer to it because you've redacted it, but I don't understand why you redacted it, and it's hard to comply with a rule when you don't understand what the rule is. I don't understand exactly what the issue was, why some things fall outside this exception when others don't. Levivich (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your second bullet point is what everything hinges on, and that second bullet requirement (in this instance) is not met; there is no statement that the RL name is their username. Primefac (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's an interesting case for you to reason over: User:Rachel Helps recently connected User:BoyNamedTzu, whom she taught how to edit Wikipedia, with a real name, with whom she is professionally acquainted. Does this fall under

By a strict reading of policy, yes, though I suspect you already knew this... and yet you still proceeded to post the information in multiple places instead of contacting the OS team like you should have done. That could have been fixed with a simple revert, but now we're looking at over 50 revisions needing to be hidden across three different pages. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of emailing the OS team if they just remove the COI evidence without blocking anyone for the undisclosed COI it evidences? Levivich (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless it becomes a habit, we prefer to warn first about outing. In this latest instance, I'm pretty sure they didn't realise they were infringing upon the rules. Exposing a COI does not absolve someone from breaching the outing policy. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, unless I am mistaken, having a COI (disclosed or otherwise) is not a reason in and of itself to block someone. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Yes I was asking about the second thing.) Why would undisclosed COI editing not be blockable? And again, what is the point of saying "email it" if emailing it doesn't lead to any kind of enforcement of the COI/PAID?

This is a serious issue that is really coming to a boil. You've been doing various things to impede on-wiki discussion of this particular undisclosed COI editing by AML-affiliated people, but you're not doing anything, AFAICT, to stop the undisclosed COI editing. What gives? And what do you reasonably expect the rest of us are going to do? Just ignore it and move along? That ain't going to happen. Let's get on the same page here about stopping the undisclosed COI editing that you know involves multiple editors (not just those at arbcom and ani right now), and I can't say who else it involves because you'll redact it. Which is fine, but if you're going to redact, you need to act. You can't just hide the evidence and then sit on it, that's not cool, and I'm sure you agree in theory that that's not cool, not helpful and not what anybody wants from the OS team or from arbitrators. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

emailing it doesn't lead to any kind of enforcement - and yet, because HEB emailed me about a user's editing and COI, I had a discussion with that editor based on that content and encouraged them to disclose, which I will note they have now done. That is, I believe, the end goal of everyone searching for people with hidden COIs, is it not? To have them disclose? We need to do it in the right way, the policy-supported way, otherwise we will never have people disclosing, because even those who disclose will end up topic-banned from participating in those areas because they fear the repercussions of disclosing. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

OK I'm glad to hear that, thanks. I can't really reply on wiki with any specificity so I'm going to email you a reply that has links to stuff. Levivich (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Just popping in to say that I agree with this approach, at the end of the day the point is to get editors to disclose and comply rather than to play a game of Gotcha or Survivor. Although I disagree for the most part with the argument that we need to be particularly lenient in order to ensure that more people disclose. As a regulatory scheme that just doesn't hold water, the issue is that people don't fear the consequences... Hence they argue that they can ignore the rules because "A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule." which would suggest that the way to get people to follow the rule would be to actually enforce it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that starts getting to the philosophical differences of opinion between us. COI disclosure is a way for editors who might have an unconscious bias to indicate to other editors that their edits might need a closer look. If a COI editor cannot maintain neutrality, and they insist on adding their content, they could be blocked for being disruptive, but not simply because of the COI itself. There is no rule to enforce here other than

WP:NPOV. Primefac (talk

) 08:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the trouble. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a log jam developing at the Editor of the Week accepted page. I'm considering doubling up the awards for next week so that the holdovers from last year are cleared up by the end ot this month. The only problem I foresee is at the Hall of Fame. I would need to add an Awardee for mid-week on March 20, 2024. I hope that's not too much of a problem or time consuming. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 17:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Easy enough. Done. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. You have falsely marked my photo as copyright and caused me to get blocked on Wikimedia Commons. The photo I uploaded specifically is in the public domain, as 1. It was taken before 1957, 2. The Imperial War Museum says it is allowed to be used on sites like Wikipedia 3. The site I got it from listed it as public domain. I don’t understand why you took this down as this one is obvious that it is not under copyright. Please review this. Antny08 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I realised my error and corrected myself; it is still there. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am still blocked for it, my account has been blocked, even though I did not violate any copyright. Antny08 (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the wrong call, obviously; I'll see if I can help with the unblock. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it very much Antny08 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac, although I don't disturb admins on asking whether they have reviewed my RFP or not, I have a question if have the AFC reviewing right:

1. What is difference between Probation and Active in terms of how many drafts we can review and duration of time?

2. If I receive this right, how will I review the draft? (A tool must be there in case instead of manual process)

Thank you ☮️CSM269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In order:

1. Nothing. Probation is just a way for admins to more easily remove members if necessary.
2. Reviewing instructions are at
   WP:AFCR

Primefac (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. ☮️CSM269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 10:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I more thing, I feel shy to say but I had applied for WP:AFCR rights. Four days passed no one commented yet. I see most of the request at this right are reviewed by you. Can you please see my request if possible? ☮️CSM269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I usually do review requests on Sundays, but I was busy yesterday, so I will likely get to them today. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac, after this conflict, I want you to remove my AFC rights. I will not ask for a long time. I have also revoked my PCR and rollback privileges. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 16:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, the reason I requested a history merge, instead of a normal merge, was because this

So can I just double-check (too many pronouns). From the history it looks like Eastern Palm University came first, and recently Kingsley Ozumba Mbadiwe University was written. It also looks like Kingsley Ozumba Mbadiwe University is the new name of the university, yes? If that's the case, then I would suggest simply redirecting Eastern Palm University to the new page, because there is almost nothing at the old title to merge (though if there is missing information by all means copy it over). Primefac (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, KOMU is the new name and yes that’s what I had in mind. I’d just redirect then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Aww, thank you for doing the merge/redirect already! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Why try and cover for a fascist and argue their page is too negative...theyre a nazi 2601:243:1D80:3FA0:E020:94A8:E490:55EC (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

G10: Biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced

Why use this when the subject is a Nazi and is sourced. Why cover for a nazi? 2601:243:1D80:3FA0:E020:94A8:E490:55EC (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

G10 is the closest we have to

WP:RD2 (BLP violations) so it wasn't perfect but it fit the bill. I'm not sure what you mean by "covering", I'm just enforcing policies. Primefac (talk

) 13:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to delete Hitler's page for being "too negative"? Do we just need to wait for this guy to die in order to read about him? 108.26.153.4 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read his article recently but I suspect that it is written from a neutral point of view, and thus is not "too negative". I would also like to note that I did not delete an article, just a redirect (i.e. there was no "content" on the page). Primefac (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Primefac, how are you?
In this discussion you had mentioned having a bot run the task, could I get an update on that? I have the now tested regex ready for you if you want to just put that in.

Since the page list is rather large, I think a bot is really necessary.  Thank you very much! Geardona (talk to me?) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I said since the list was large, a bot would be a good idea over having someone with AWB do it manually. I honestly haven't looked at the discussion for a while, but I could probably handle it. Also sounds like there might be some context issues to keep an eye out for... the discussion is rather fragmented. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It is, this was not fun to test, I figured this was something that PrimeBOT could handle? The context issues don't seem huge at least to me but im not sure if you are thinking of a context issue im not. The discussion is rather fragmented after my little mistake of running JWB on potato wifi (see my talk for more link). This would need a new BRFA, correct? Geardona (talk to me?) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be, I just have to write up the proposal after figuring out specifically what needs doing. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey

MarioGom, that is fair; ArbCom obviously knows more about the situation than the general editing community here, and as I said at ACN we have done our best to indicate to the user of the expectations of their participation in the Arbitration process. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, just a heads up that your edits like this one are causing red links in the categories. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Super. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An
  contentious topics procedure
  .

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

I have explained my rationale for the explicit piping at ill talk page. Your feedback is welcomed. Fabrickator (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup, have it on my watchlist, haven't had a chance to read through it yet. Will do so at some point. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting I have not replied there, as others have done so and made (more or less) the same argument I would have. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you just reverted my deletion request and I want to explain my intention to you: the redirect behind

Just to clarify, the name of the article should be Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis but it exists at a different location. Is this correct? Primefac (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what this is all about. Tobiasi0 (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:SWAP is the more appropriate action then.  Done. Primefac (talk

) 07:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Good to know that this template exists. Thank you very much, it was a pleasure to meet you :) Tobiasi0 (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful when doing "clean up post move" on TV season articles that have been moved from "Such and Such (season 1)" format to "Such and Such season 1"? The thing is that the page move affects the page, but didn't change the page's eponymous category — but if you do an indiscriminate search-and-replace on the season number in the page's text, it also changes the category and thus moves the page from the category that actually exists to a non-existent redlink (e.g. from Category:Brooklyn Nine-Nine (season 1) episodes to Category:Brooklyn Nine-Nine season 1 episodes — and on the last two runs of redlinked category cleanup, I've literally had to fix several dozen of these.

So when you're doing that cleanup job, it's really important that you take greater care not to mess up the "(season #) episodes" category in the process. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, in the open Conflict of interest management arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

no idea if i'm reading this right, but it looks like you intervened on Talk:Prachi, Gujarat in the past to remove some edits. the same user is back, now with an account, and, i imagine, now adding the same edits again [4] [5]. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, sorted. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

you're a star! thank you!

the user that added the text also added the same text to their user page, albeit with the contact information (if that's what was being scrubbed out?) in Gujarati numerals. i have no idea if that's important too. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I did wonder about that. I saw the lack of western numbers and assumed they had (rightfully) figured out that's what the issue was. I'll take care of it. Thanks again. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, something went wrong in 1217197913 where you removed a visible pipe character (not a whitespace) from a table cell in the middle of the article (not in shortdesc). – MwGamera (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Well that's odd... I'll double-check everything before I run it again. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, this edit removed a slash from the short description at Thin space. Tea2min (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Well that's a weird one... thanks. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#AFI templates. However, as this was a recently created template and previous consensus was to delete, shouldn't a "no consensus" outcome result in the status quo? i.e. there is no consensus to re-create the template? --woodensuperman 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I hate to admit it but I did not notice that the template names had changed and since everything at the older discussion was redlinked I assumed these were just missed the first time around. I will revert for the moment and re-read the related discussions. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The Keep !voters seem to be both in the majority and on the side of the film angels. Keeping seems a valid close, but your no consensus to delete seems like the least that can be decided given the editor's comments. Remember, the older discussed deletion was in 2012, 12 years ago, and these are valid new navbox which, as you aptly decided, have no consensus to delete. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

6 "keep" !votes against 7 "delete" !votes is not numerically in the majority. --woodensuperman 13:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

true, my mistake. Just that the Keep reasons seem to overwhelm the "I don't like it" delete comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks for re-opening, I'm still surprised that this was not speedied in the first place. --woodensuperman 13:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac - did you get another chance to look at this? --woodensuperman 08:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look at {{

I think the documentation for each template could definitely be expanded; just having places the image in dated subcategories doesn't say how it does this, i.e. that it needs a date parameter to be passed to it. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for giving these a look. I see if I can figure out how to enhance their respective documentation pages a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

I realize you have a lot of responsibilities on Wikipedia and this one is probably way, way down on your list of priorities but is there any way this page can be brought up to date? I was looking for when a certain editor received AFC permissions and this page was where I directed since they didn't come up on the search feature. But the table only goes to February 2023 so it is a year out of date. And then, when I clicked on some names, they were actually requests from February 2024, not 2023 so I'm not sure how those wires got crossed. This definitely seems like a task that could be delegated to some AFC helper who is knowledgeable about tables and updating them (which is definitely not me!). But since on the Participants page, editors are directed to go to this one page, it seems like it should be kept up to date as much as possible. Yes, it's not urgent but I do think it's important when trying to get background information on an editor one has questions about. Many thanks for any help you can supply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Liz, meanwhile, this may help you search. I have only one edit, so presumably, I was given the right a short time after I made that request. If you're looking about Shewasafairy, they have zero edits there. So, they didn't request to join AFC. Another way to get AFC is to get NPR, which can be veiwed from their user rights log. It shows that they were granted NPR here, the same day that their AFC log started populating. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It is up to date. I just borked a number. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Primefac! I want to post a request to resign as an administrator. No great problem or anything, it's just that I haven't been very active in recent years and have taken almost no adminship actions. When I do post it is in articles, and I intend to keep doing that, but I've almost forgotten how to be an administrator. That is why I am posting here: I think there is a board where I should formally request to have my mop withdrawn, but I can't remember where it is. Directions please? Thanks! --MelanieN MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BN is the place to make such requests. Primefac (talk

) 20:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/@NickWhite this is a popular youtuber. I decided to edit a currently useless page with accurate information. NickWhiteArmy (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to

the criteria for inclusion and it would thus be a waste of your time. Primefac (talk

) 07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Popular influencers do meet the criteria for inclusion. Just because you dont like them doesnt mean they cannot have their own pages. NickWhiteArmy (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Popular influences might meet the criteria for inclusion, but this influencer does not (as of the time of your last attempt at making the page). Primefac (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes he does. He is very popular and is also tied to another popular influencer known as Ice poseidon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Poseidon NickWhiteArmy (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"Very popular" is not a metric we use. Ice Poseidon has 48 references. Your last attempt at writing the page had one (and it's not even a reliable source). Primefac (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

He DOES meet the criteria. Therefor you LIED.

What you meant to say was I didn't add enough references. NickWhiteArmy (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you had references you would have added them. You can still write a page about White, but to badly paraphrase Semisonic, you can't do it there. Primefac (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... A lot of similarities between these two user's "drafts" today: KFCOp's edit and NickWhiteArmy's edit.

Only differences are KFCOp's first paragraph that they seem to have accidentally included as it got removed a minute later, and of NickWhireArmy's inclusion of an infobox. Text otherwise is identical. Zinnober9 (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some form of meatpuppetry or off-wiki discussion going on, but KFCOp hasn't edited since so it might just be a burner account. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you (or a talk page stalker) redact this edit summary (for

(talk page stalker) All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and Zinnober9, please check when you're restoring what an IP has removed, especially if they've provided their reasoning on their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Very true, my error. I've retracted my IP warning, and replaced with a welcome constructive. I had seen that the IPs and Bruce1ee were starting to have an edit war, and I've known Bruce to have good judgement some past things, so I had gotten the sense he was correct on my initial read of the situation. We both erred it seems. I appreciate both actions you took in regards to this article. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I've done it a few times myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The Arbitration case to which you were a party, "Conflict of interest management", has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee requests that a new
  WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP
  ). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.
• For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—
  harassment policy
  . Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.
• For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that so promptly, seems to be resolved now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you are doing well. On mrwiki, where I am admin too, there's a category "files not in use" with around 8,000 files in it, all of which need to be deleted. Is there a way to automate the task if it was here on enwiki? Maybe some script, or AWB, or maybe I will need to come up with pywikibot script. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle has a d-batch function that allows for mass-deletion of a list of pages, that's probably your best bet. If they're all from the same user Special:Nuke is available but it sounds more like this isn't specific to any one editor. Primefac (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

yeah, I dont think meta:User:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal/Preferences has that. I have created a rudimentary program in pywikibot, I hope it works. I couldnt test it, I have asked my bot to be granted temporary admin rights. I hope the deletion works. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:WikimediaNoLicensing.

digital_me (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

I deleted this page as an orphaned talk page before seeing that you were directed to go to it. Here is the content of the page:

What has gone on here? I’m suddenly receiving an alert that I’m mentioned on a talk page about a template for deletion that I don’t have any recollection of.

Let me be clear: my intention has always been that my contributions are in the public domain.

I can’t see the deleted template so I have no idea even what it said.

I understand that Wikipedia adopted a CC license _after_ I stopped actively editing. Legally this does not matter, I am free to license my contributions as I wish (as long as the license is less restrictive than that which Wikipedia uses). Apparently I’m not supposed to edit the TFD page but otherwise how will I get in contact with the admin who said OK? I don’t even have time to edit anymore, generally.

Also, have y’all heard of the GPL? Seems like a pretty good license to me…

Please hit me back via email

digital_me (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I also directed the editor to come here to talk to you rather than created orphaned talk pages but I can see they already made that attempt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

digital me, please see this discussion for more information about this the now-deleted template; editors determined during the discussion that the template no longer had use and should be deleted as being potentially confusing at best and void at worst. Primefac (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Please reverse your close. On March 20 you relisted the discussion to obtain a clearer consensus. This clarity was achieved with three 'Keep' !votes and one 'Delete'. You then, after obtaining the requested clearer consensus, closed as 'Delete'. Please reverse on common sense alone, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes, so counting them does not give a result. I will also note (see #AFI Templates which you participated in) that I re-opened because I had not considered some things (not that I was "waiting for a clearer consensus"). I finally found time to give the matter more consideration, and came to the conclusion I posted. Primefac (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The March 20 relisting specifically says "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." At that point three more editors appealed to "Keep" and one to "Delete". This one seems an obvious Keep. Or at most No Consensus (and no, "no consensus" does not mean "Delete" as argued in the discussion you linked, the revert to status quo would Keep the page which was last deleted many years ago). This one has been run through hoops and enough reasoning and editors decided it was a good Keep, please reverse your decision and keep the useful navboxes, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like an obvious keep to you before I relisted and re-opened the discussion (see previous discussion where you miscount the !votes), so you'll have to forgive me if I do not take your opinion as the "obvious" result. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I forgive you, and without reading it again your analysis may or may not be correct (which is why I don't close discussions,

my thumb would sneak over onto the side of inclusion for interesting things that do no harm to the encyclopedia and impart information to the readers) but let's get back on subject. My concern: in a relisting in order to get a clearer consensus, three more 'Keep' comments and one 'Delete' comment appeared. Then you closed the nom as 'Delete'. If you relisted it to get a clearer consensus, and a 3-1 Keep emerged from editors who by that point had the entire discussion to read as weight for their opinions, who came to it with fresh eyes, this seems like a legitimate point to raise. Would hope this makes sense to you in a moment of reflection and taking the messenger out of the equation, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk

) 10:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, it comes down to the quality of opinions presented and not just the quantity. Two of the keep !votes simply agreed with your rationale (and the third repeating the "old TFD" argument), while the delete !vote gave a lengthy explanation of why they felt it should be deleted. In other words, after the relist there was more "new" information on the side of the deletion !votes to consider, with only a numerical weight being added to the keep side of things. Even considering all of the above, it still took me +2k of text to explain my close, which is something I haven't needed to do in probably three years, because of the complexity of the situation. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation. I won't follow up with a review request, although I view keeping such navboxes as beneficial without doing any harm to the encyclopedia. When a group of established editors agree to a Keep because they perceive value in the navbox, then I believe that readers should be given the opportunity to experience the same value. Many good navboxes have fallen to very thin margins. Thanks again for the interesting back-and-forth. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)