User talk:Primefac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Je suis Coffee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:PrimeBOT)

Template:Infobox aircraft[edit]

On seeing your response on Infobox Ship above, you might be the person to handle converting Template:Infobox aircraft begin and its daughters to a single infobox, probably at Template:Infobox aircraft It was originally built using the ships infoboxes as a guide. Another user had discussed doing this at Template talk:Infobox aircraft begin#Why does this exist?, but they appear to have lost interest in the project. If this is something you'd be interested in doing, please make a proposal at WT:AIR so we can get some input from the other project members without having to do a TFD. I have some ideas on some improvements that can be made to some of the parameters, but that can be done at a later date if necessary. Personally, I prefer a modular infobox system, but I realize I'm probably in the minority on that. As to when, there is no deadline, so even if it takes a couple of years to get done because you have other projects, that's OK. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm happy to implement whatever consensus arises, but I'm honestly not sure why you're asking me to start the conversation when it sounds like you are already familiar with the situation and interested in its outcome. Personally I would go the TFD route to get other opinions, but if you think AIR would be better then go for it. Primefac (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was mainly asking because you're more familiar with what it takes to do the conversions, and could better answer any questions that would arise. I was also hoping that not going the TFD route would be less confrontational. But what ever you think is best. BilCat (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(just as a note I re-threaded this, feel free to move back) Fair points. My only concern with posting to AIR is that it doesn't look like a super-active project, and if I post there I might only get a reply or two (in addition to yours), and while WikiProjects generally have a big say in what happens with templates and pages in their purview, I have found on a few occasions (This and that for example) a reasonably strong local consensus can still be overruled by the community. While I do not expect that to necessarily happen in this instance, I would rather not go through the hassle of converting the template, only to find out after implementing that for some reason the community as a whole disagrees and I have to undo everything. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that makes sense. BilCat (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Yes please fix infobox aircraft. Fixing it cleans up one more template for MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#Infobox.) Izno (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
siiiiiigh Fine, I'll file a TFD after breakfast. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) Off to bed for meeeeee Izno (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primefac, I want to say that I do appreciate your input on the TFD, even if we disagree on the optimal solution. I tried to be upfront about what the problems might be with getting WPAIR to support a new infobox. You went against my request to discuss it first with the project, which is your right. I hope you understand better now why I made that resuest! :) Anyway, I hope you don't take any of our disagreements personally, because I don't. I also do not think that you were hostile, and I've said that in the TFD a!so. My comments about hostility were not directed towards you. Again, I do appreciate your work on templates, and so do respect you and your opinions, even when I disagree with them. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't taken anything personally, and I figured any pushback from AIR would be along those lines anyway, which would have been a non-starter for me, which is why I went straight to TFD. I don't mind disagreeing with folks, as long as we do it nicely :-) Primefac (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving me to inactive[edit]

Hi, Primefac - this diff is why I'm here. I was doing my routine checks, and a long AFCH error dropped down which was a bit of a shock. I am not completely inactive - just not working as hard as I used to, and while I have slacked off at AfC because of things I've been trying to get done at NPP, we should probably keep in mind the fact that NPP reviewers are also reviewers for AfC. If the need arises for me to comment at AfC, I will not hesitate. Is there suddenly a specific amount of pages we have to review to be considered active, and what actually is expected of a volunteer to be "active"? Do they have to claim an article for review, or can they just review what is going on with batches of articles as I do? When I am teaching, AfC is sometimes part of the lesson for obvious reasons. My NPP tutoring activities will resume in February, so you are liable to wear yourself out removing and restoring me as active. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 11:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current yardstick is "at least one review in the last six months", a check which I really only do every six months anyway. I go off the AFCH review history; yours shows no reviews since 2020 so you were moved to inactive. I do see that you made two comments in the middle of last year (tick the "Commented" box) but those are still outwith the 6-month window. If you wish to remain on the project that's totally fine (indicating an interest in participating is the first step towards participation, after all), just let me know. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please? I do check AfC, and contribute when I see a need. I think there still is an ongoing discussion about "offing" (is that the right word?) NPP reviewers who are just hat collectors, but then they actually have tools to turn in. AfC does not. I also occasionally get requests from other editors to look at their drafts and I visit with them on UTPs. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 23:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFCH list for admins[edit]

A few days ago you removed my name. I don't know why--I'm supposed to be automatically entitled as an admin, but for some unknown reason the purge function doesn't work that way for me, and I've said that before. I remain an active reviewer, tho less active than in the previous year. --I have restored my name. Please do not remove it again. I suppose I should point out that, by removing my name after I added it, you overrode an admin action by another admin without their consent. If you still object, please take it to a suitable admin board or do whatever is the necessary purge so it does work, and let me know. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't assume malice, I simply forgot. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked user[edit]

Primefac, I will defer to your experience, but was it really necessary to block User:Anonymous Elementary Schooler for a name violation? The name looks fine to me.

I read the username policy again, and looked at the name -- I don't see the problem. Would "Anonymous Gas Station Attendant" also be not OK under this policy? I don't think either one implies shared use, for example. David10244 (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, it was a soft block, but you also revoked TPA, which I think is unusual. Tganks. David10244 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a duty of care to protect the private and personal information given inadvertently by users editing Wikipedia. Most often this presents itself as phone numbers, email addresses, and the age of editors who are under the majority (which the WMF classifies as anyone under 16). By having a username that implies that the user is well under that age, it broadcasts to the world that they are a youth, which immediately presents problems from a Child protection standpoint. Since the user in question had not made any edits that were necessarily suppressible under WP:OSPOL, I did not feel that an OS block (which is what we normally give in these situations) was appropriate. They are more than welcome to edit Wikipedia, just not under that username.
As far as pulling TPA goes, the user has no need to request an unblock, and thus there is no reason for them to be editing their talk page; they should create a new account if they wish to continue editing. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Primefac, you are absolutely right, I wasn't thinking about the age thing. And the TPA block makes perfect sense. I should not have doubted you (but I just missed the age issue). David10244 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. I'm always willing to explain my actions, especially if they are non-standard. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you help me out at ANI?[edit]

Hello! I filed a complaint at ANI and I was hoping that you could take a look. The user is causing a fair bit of damage quite quickly so thought I'd ask to speed things up. Many thanks! Cpotisch (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks to have already been dealt with. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, just saw. Thanks anyway! Cpotisch (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I have a proposition regarding the Olympics by country navigational boxes for the Olympic Games from 1912 to 1936. I think it would be better to place the countries alphabetically after continent and names which they have. For example Egypt competed under the African continent or Germany under the European continent or Japan under the Asian continent. Or Brazil under the American continent. Or New Zealand under the Oceanian continent. Yours sincerely, Sondre (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given how few countries participated during that time period, I don't see it as strictly necessary, but you are more than welcome to make the change. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that during the games in 1912 it was only 29 nations which participated it was also the case in the 1920. In 1924 it was 44, in 1928 it was 46 in 1932 it was 37 and in 1936 it was a 49 countries. But per continent the number of nations was much smaller than it is today I think Europe had more countries participating than the others and an America also had many nations which participated. Africa only had two or three nations and Asia only had 5 at the most and Oceania only had two. That change would be possible to make if there were more nations present but by now it is not a necessity. (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian Olympic Committee flag[edit]

The Russian Olympic Committee flag at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. What happened to it when it appears for Russian Olympic Committee athletes at the Tokyo Olympics 2020? (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was deleted (three times [1] [2] [3]) for not being free to use. Primefac (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it because of controversy when Russia invading Ukraine in 2022? And they they will not used the flag of Russian Olympic Committee? Tell me more about it in the details. (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is apolitical. The images were deleted because they are non-free content, and so using them could constitute a copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm sorry about that. The flag of Russian Olympic Committee will not used that like at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, right? I understand the copyright according to laws. (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The flag is not being used, because it was deleted. Primefac (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Primefac, hope you are having a great day. Could you ECP protect Kongu Vellalar per WP:GS/CASTE. It has a history of POV pushing by different socks and another user has come up now. Thanks. - SUN EYE 1 19:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

???? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filer messed up the filing, and when I fixed it the subst dropped my name everywhere. Clearly I missed one! Primefac (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Clerk fixed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Best Damn World Tour[edit]

Re this (maybe I should have explained it in more detail), but basically The Best Damn Tour was created yeeears ago and then was deleted/redirected. However, years later it was later recreated as The Best Damn World Tour, but the name of the tour is actually The Best Damn Tour, so The Best Damn World Tour should be moved to The Best Damn Tour, but I think that the history should still be kept, hence the merge request. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's a name change, then it's actually WP:RM/TR that you need, but since I'm already informed of the request, I can move it. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB access for my bot[edit]

Hello, mind moving my bot from the "enabledusers" to the "enabledbots" section of the check page? That way my bot can run the task. Thanks. Sheep (talkhe/him) 14:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have assumed that AWB would work regardless. Shows you what I know. Done. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Can I query why I’ve been removed from the AfC review list recently per [4]? It’s somewhat confusing because I’m currently a somewhat active NPR. It’s also somewhat annoying to not be notified of the change, even if just through a ping in the diff. Could you explain why I’ve been removed from the list? Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NB: I forgot that probation has slightly different rules, however it would be nice to know why I’ve been removed from the list. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Active reviewers are those that have made at least one review in the previous six months, and you have not made any reviews since June '22. Being active in other areas of Wikipedia, even NPR, does not mean that one is active on AFC. I generally assume that probationary members that stop being active are no longer interested, so I simply remove them from the list outright.
Regarding notifications, there is not an easy way to ping the 50+ individuals that get shifted to inactive/removed when I do activity checks. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, that’s funny, I directly recall making reviews late last year, does the tool you use to determine the review count account for reverted reviews, because it’s either that, or I never finished the reviews. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as I believe it goes off edit summaries, but it does not look at deleted contributions. You did review a draft on New Years' Eve, so I will re-add you to the list since that puts you into the active group. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bot running amok[edit]

There's a bot currently going absolutely insane doing no-op edits to old talk page comments, for which I have left a comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#User:MalnadachBot_is_running_amok. The user running the bot pointed out that you apparently approved this at some point: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SheepLinterBot. Can someone clean up this mess? –jacobolus (t) 00:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MalnadachBot and SheepLinterBot are two different bots, with separate bot tasks and approvals. I will respond at the BOTN thread later to avoid decentralised discussion. Primefac (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.



  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfC on my Mobile[edit]

Hi, I was just reviewing a draft on mobile and I found that you've moved my mobile account to inactive reviewers. Though I've not reviewed very much articles on mobile but this is sometimes helpful to me and convenient when I'm not on my system. ;) ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. Shifted back. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Canadian party colour[edit]

Template:Canadian party colour has been nominated for merging with Template:Party color. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with modules[edit]

Hi Primefac. I've a question related to moduling. Hope you can help me with.

What would be a better way to check if a module exists? (In the context that I'm checking if exists and then loading it for data, else falling back to load template since not all datasets aren't moved to the module [subpages] yet.) I'm using this:

local function moduleExists(m)
	if package.loaded[m] or package.loaders[1](m) or package.loaders[2](m) then
		return true
	return false

And then doing mw.loadData(...) Thanks for your help! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going off of the code in Module:Main if exists (lines 14-15), it looks like if you make a call, and then check to see if title.exists, that will return a boolean that you can then pass to your if statement before you loadData. That being said, I'm just basing this off what others have done - give it a try and see? Primefac (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the tip! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've one more question. Is there an API to query the Module invocation status, like the transcludedin for pages ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No clue, I don't really do anything with the API so I wouldn't even know where to start. Primefac (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK, all Mediawiki features that apply to templates also apply to modules, i.e., replace titles=Template%3AInflation with titles=Module:Section_sizes to get results for the module, as most things are symmetric across these two namespaces, if not all of them. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 11:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @CX Zoom. That seems to work :) Altho I don't understand why says it was transcluded in the same page, but that's not a problem for me [atm] — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I randomly chose some modules and this is common to all of them. I suspect that is because of the way MediaWiki shows documentation on modules. If you click edit on Module:Sandbox/CX Zoom/TestPage1 (which is completely empty), and go to the "Templates used on this page" option at the very end of edit window, you will find that there is one self-transclusion, and one transclusion of its /doc page (which is not even created yet). CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 16:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it might be because the code is displayed on the modules? (I think that's what you meant by documentation?) Thanks for your help! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]