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: 15 days

Infobox school cleanup

Hi Primefac, hope all is well. I've undone your revert with explanation but mentioned I was going to post here. Basically, that discussion was on hold until the UK merge was complete. If you have a look at Jonesey95's talk page, you'll see that we're going to continue the discussion. You'll also see that I mentioned about working on merging the two lists as there is a bit of duplication which is what I've done. New subsections have been added so it makes it easier to see where things are and to comment on as we go down the list. Also you'll see on the Infobox school talk page in the collapsible box titled "Previous "Time to consolidate and simplify" section discussion..." which talks about the two lists. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I saw you had struck some comments made by DePiep and what looked like the removal of some content (as well as the often-problematic changing of headers), hence my concern. If everyone's find with what you're doing go ahead. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I should have been a bit more clearer in my edit description and yeah it was just the part about "At the moment we are merging..." which is now no longer relevant, so I struck that part out. All the comments are still there just re-arranged under new subsections but I see what you mean. Thanks for understanding and I mentioned on the talk page that you would be my ideal candidate for the bot run and per the previous ones we did, would you be up for doing this when the discussion has finished? It will require going through all the transclusions (can't remember if I've already asked you) but if not, that's ok - please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can do the run. Thanks for the clarification on the above issue :-) Primefac (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much and you're welcome :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for PrimeBOT

Hey P, the parameter updated is deprecated from {{Infobox cyclist}}; any way you could set PrimeBOT loose to remove it from the ~2,400 or so articles that still have it? Would sure be easier than my having to go in and pull it out of every one of them. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can do. Would you like me to update the template etc when I'm done? Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only the template's infobox tracking code at the bottom would need to be updated but yes, that would be great, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Primefac a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem thanks for all you do

A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 17:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Primefac a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Belated Adminship Anniversary from my part.Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ouda

I'm somewhat confused about how that WP:AN thread ca be considered outing, given that MO clearly edits under their own name and even has a Wikipedia blog article about them (complete with photo) that was obviously sanctioned by them. I was about to add some more information about the situation, but obviously won't do now, even though it might be pertinent. Please reply by email if you can't post a reply here. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It started getting into heavy "opposition research"; linking to off-wiki evidence is generally frowned upon and a few of the OSers were becoming concerned that the discussion would devolve and (either intentionally or not) reveal content that shouldn't be revealed. If the older discussion hadn't existed we'd have kept the majority of the released content suppressed. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, I'm guessing you're talking about the websites advertising articles for pay. Fair enough. I was simply going to add a comment about the location of some of the relevant sock-rings, because there's something that doesn't quite ring true there, but since MO is clearly not going to be unblocked here any time soon, I don't suppose it's particularly important. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Right now if you've got good information to pass along regarding sock rings, and it involves off-wiki information, I'd suggest sending it to the functionaries list; we're not technically the ones in charge of hunting down socks (or UPE) but if it involves private info it's currently the best place. Otherwise, I think it would be a good idea to start a new thread at AN. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fédération International de Natation Amateur flag.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fédération International de Natation Amateur flag.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

If you know the solution for the question posted by me at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser, please comment.Adithyak1997 (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, got caught up in other things and quite honestly forgot. It looks like your question got answered, but always feel free to drop me a note in the future if you've got questions. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glitches with CFB schedule conversions

There appears to be a glitch with PrimeBOT's conversion of CFB Schedule templates. I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but in some articles the game results aren't being properly rendered. See 1936 Fordham Rams football team and 1937 Fordham Rams football team. Ostealthy (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problem happens whenever there are characters or a space template before the "score" parameter. See my edit to 1937 Fordham. Ostealthy (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think this is an issue with the template itself and how it treats {{spaces}}. I see you fixed the issue, but I'll see if I can fix the issue on my end. Pinging Frietjes about this - Lua issue? Primefac (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another glitch can be seen here Ostealthy (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I actually found/fixed that issue when I was working on the other one. After the run is done I'll go back through and see what is still transcluding {{CFB Schedule Start}} (since I suspect there will be a few). Primefac (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A "few"? From what I can tell (see here), it's more like at least 1,026 articles spanning alphabetically from 1870 Rutgers Queensmen football team to 1990 Montana Grizzlies football team. That's at least 1,026 articles your broken bot placed broken visible code in. Please revert all of these edits. Modulus12 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, thanks for getting these conversions going. Something funny happened at 1971 Wyoming Cowboys football team. I managed to clean it up manually, might it be worth taking a look to see what went wrong. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar thing happened at 1969 Wyoming Cowboys football team. I think the issue is that these tables were using a mix of the old and new templates before the conversion was applied. @Glacier109:, I think this was your edit. Going forward, if you choose to build out more of these schedule tables, please use the new templates, e.g. those now found at 1971 Wyoming Cowboys football team. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! Hopefully there weren't too many. Primefac (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modulus12, "a few" is a relative term when there were originally something like 12k pages using the templates. I'm not going to undo those edits, I'm going to fix them. But, thanks for letting me know. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about how bots work on Wikipedia, but to me this (error rate of 1 in 12?) looks like a blatant failure of whatever approvals process there was. I guess the only redeeming factor is that nobody on Earth looks at most of these articles, so the bare template code can just stew on them until you fix it. Modulus12 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually why I run these high-volume edits on a Sunday night, because the people who care will notice and let me know but the punters won't be visiting. You are right, that is a fairly high failure rate, and I can honestly only blame myself for not doing more than my standard fifty completely-manual edits before switching to full auto, and not anticipating every possibility for the GIGO errors that I'd be encountering. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be beating a dead horse but 2010 Incarnate Word Cardinals football team it also erased the table I reverted the edit for the time being. It is a mess but hey I like the effort.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the last 50 pages, which require manual editing. Primefac (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Task 24 bug

Unrelated to the above, I just came across this edit from last month that mysteriously removed two brackets from a citation. Modulus12 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's certainly odd; there wasn't anything in that particular batch of code that would do that... I'll keep an eye out for it in the future. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]