User talk:Primefac

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

Beaconsfield gallery[edit]

Hi, I’ve re-uploaded my edit. I riffed off of Chisenhale Gallery which is a very similar space to Beaconsfield. The gallery has been deeply underserved by the previous entry and so this is a larger update. This is non profit space and needs the support. Please do not undo. If you feel it’s excessive explain where instead of just deleting all the new entries. Thanks BeacHal1 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay a few things, in no particular order:
  • I assume you are being paid to edit the page, given your username. Please see WP:PAID and make the mandatory disclosure using {{paid}} or similar.
  • The Chisenhale Gallery page has 25 references on it, but it probably could use more and/or removal of some of the unsourced content (see WP:OTHERSTUFF)
  • Your edit removed almost a dozen references
  • Your edit also added a ton of promotional language such as "unique testbed and primary research vehicle" and "delivered a consistently challenging artistic programme -- see WP:FLOWERY
  • Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, it is a page to provide information on a subject in a neutral tone
If the page needs expanding to fill in missing information, that is fine, and I would encourage you to do so, but please make sure any additions are supported by reliable sources and stick to "just the facts" (i.e. no PR jargon). Discussing planned improvements on the article's talk page is also a good way to get feedback on proposed changes to the page. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not being paid by the gallery! The quotes are from the gallery site. The references were outdated and also dead links. That ‘flowery’ language is again taken from their website.
This is a redress from the previous article not a promotional campaign. But I take your point. However, I feel a bit aggrieved by a wholesale take down of everything I wrote up. Why is that okay?
you could always edit from what I’ve entered rather than take it all down again. Why is that okay? BeacHal1 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but you’ve done just that. Removed my edit completely with assumptions made about who I am and why I’m making these edits in the first place BeacHal1 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve edited to take out some of the flowery language! And quotes etc BeacHal1 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​ My apologies for the assumption about your status with regard to the gallery; I read your username as "Beac" belonging to "Beaconsfield" and "Hal" being your name, i.e. "Hal that works at Beaconsfield" (which is similar to some of our username examples). That and the copy/paste from the gallery's website and you can see why I might have made that assumption.
As to the "wholesale revert" - it is the responsibility of the editor who adds the content -- especially when it's many paragraphs -- to ensure the content is properly sourced. As an editor I should not be required to check every paragraph to make sure there exists proper sourcing for the content you added. When faced with "revert everything or check every single paragraph" I will choose the former every time, and then ask the editor making the addition to provide references. To that end, I highly suggest you read through WP:REFB and move the references from the end of the article into the body of the text as is preferred, otherwise the content may be removed again for being "unsourced".
As a comment on something you said on your talk page, please write everything in your own words. As I said above, we are not here to "promote" the gallery, so copying their own prose is at best unnecessary, usually removable as promotional, and at worst a copyright violation.
Please let me know if I can clarify or explain anything further. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this longer response. I was beginning to think wiki was more trolling than a place to contribute knowledge. I have only just started and am learning but tbh I now have a good mentor who is taking me through things and told me that I shouldn’t have been flagged as a vandal at any point and things should just have been explained as he has done. It’s fine. I’m now more aware as to how it works and whilst I think that certain levels of gatekeeping are fine it’s worth noting that my intentions on this site are to redress the balance of commercial arts replacing all the non-commercial artspaces and artists which is a constant. All the commercial spaces have in-house marketeers and they use wiki to elevate their status. Anyway, I’m quite pleased because I’ve just had my first page accepted! BeacHal1 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check[edit]

Primefac, would you run a SOCK check for me? A user with a nine-day-old account has created one rather heavily biased article Bouchet Graduate Honor Society, and had offered a rather biased and over-weighted set of edits to the summary article on Honor society. I adjusted that second article, but looking at the user WikiObjectivity, something appears amiss. His/her offerings were rather advanced for a nine-day-old Wikipedia newbie. Jax MN (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really enough to go on, sorry. If you can tie it to another editor who is making similar edits that could result in a check, but "this is sus" isn't quite enough for me to feel comfortable checking. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot task (presumably simple)[edit]

Would you be able to take a quick look at a pending bot task request for me? It's a new task, but it is primarily regular expressions from an existing approved task - just being used for a different template and maintenance category. New task: ButlerBlogBot task 4 to format dates in the {{Infobox film}} template |released= parameter to use the {{Film date}} template. This task uses a number of regular expressions that are already used in ButlerBlogBot task 2, just modified to check only the |released= param and to use {{Film date}} instead of {{Start date}}. Initially, I'm only looking at single dates, not ranges. But I think that could account for around 15k-20k of the existing list. I've already spot checked results in AWB, and it's ready for testing. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it next time I check the BRFA page. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else[edit]

they're probably more competent at actually editing a ^&#^@ Wikipedia page than I am. Thanks for cleanup. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, no worries. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mnkongpc[edit]

Mnkongpc who you reverted is clearly not an new editor. Their first edit was to create Template:Updated/sandbox. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, though I will note all they did was copy the template into the sandbox (so it's not like they rewrote it entirely). Not sure if there's much to do about it, though, without tying it to a style or editor habit. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R from related word[edit]

Hi Primefac, I hope you're well.

I'm curious why your bot is replacing a load of R related templates with {{R from related word}}? As far as I can tell, the whole point of the template being deleted is because it was ambiguous whether it should be R from a related word or R from a related topic. Examples like [1] look like the latter to me. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bugger. I completely misread the close. There are still ~900 uses of {{r to related}} that haven't been converted, so I'll leave those for manual cleanup. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK thanks, no harm done!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be funny, but should those bot edits be reverted? If the bot has incorrectly resolved the ambiguity for a load of redirects, à la WP:CONTEXTBOT, that seems like a potential problem -- the incorrect uses of the ambiguous rcats that the bot has replaced with {{R from related word}}/{{R to related topic}} will be harder to find and fix than if they still transcluded the deprecated template-redirects. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 21:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of them will probably be okay; it should be fairly obvious which ones need to be changed so I'll just go through the list and tweak what needs it. Primefac (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

I'm confused. The page in question is Wikipedia:Deletion process, not Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. So I would think nacd would be the appropriate usage there? - jc37 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not really sure what I misread, but I misread something in there. I've self-reverted. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Lara Booth[edit]

Hi Primefac, I have just seen the reverting of my edit. Very much open to having a discussion here with you, and I understand your point about some excessive info, but I will add some edits to the article again and we could have any further discussions about it here. Starting with that the subject is not just a "website editor" since she is a journalist / reporter / interviewer / writer / etc. for an international outlet. Thanks in advance and looking forward to any discussion for improvementsJanssenben (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that both I and Drmies are involved, please discuss the matter on the article's talk; it's not just a discussion 'twixt the two of us. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, I have to say, I have seen a lot of BLP fluff, but this one really takes the cake. Janssenben, please explain on the talk page how "Booth received special permission to establish her foundation from a district court judge due to her young age as a minor under Dutch Law" is verified by the subject's own article on the death of Olivia de Havilland. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies and @Primefac, thanks for your feedback. As was mentioned to me by an editor, it would be great to have a friendly discussion here about how my edits in the article can be expanded and improve my contributions to the subject with both of you and @Primefac to resolve this edit discussion.
I have seen information (like what Drmies mentioned) around the internet on various links over time, which now might have been on some outdated links that may have been removed, I would have to look into that. However, I can see that Drmies has removed literally almost all of the details of the subject now anyway. I agree with the removal of some of the edits, but at least a sentence can be mentioned about some of the information that has been removed (point 3).
1) For starters, I think the template message from Primefac on top of the article can now be removed, since the article has been cleaned up by @Drmies who has made the latest edits to remove most information about the subject's career now.
2) From what I have read, it is allowed to expand an article on Wikipedia with good faith - especially about a female subject who has been recognized internationally by outlets and organizations for journalism and other work. Mentioning other work and personal life in someone's background seems to be found in a lot of articles.

I have seen this for example, as a reference, with other female journalists, Diana Award winners, Forbes 30 honourees, etc. that have also mentioned personal life and any other work they have done. Some random examples I have found for reference that contain very specific details about personal lives, other work, etc. and do not even have any refs for confirmation about women in comparable fields (none have template tabs added on their articles either for cleanup):

  • Female Journalists:

- Sophia Smith Galer (an almost identical subject that has recently been created with a larger section with very specific examples of her journalistic work) - Katherine Rosman (a lot of very specific private and irrelevant information about family life, namedropping, etc. aside from journalism that do not even have refs and a lot of paragraphs about the kinds of topics she has written about and covers).

  • Female Diana Award winners and other female figures:

- Christy Zakarias (refs about music used are on a personal self-confirmed music profile for her music contributions that can not be even been found online) - Aishwarya Sridhar (various specific anecdotal personal references and films without refs). - Sophia Kianni (excessive amount of details and puffery)

I would thus like to potentially expand the article again, but I agree with @Primefac that some information in the journalism section could have been shortened without mentioning too many names, etc. - but again I can see Drmies has removed all details now anyway. I would suggest at least expanding the sections that have just been removed about journalism and at least mentioning a line about acting/film work in her background that has also be confirmed, etc. (for example the Royal Society confirmed and referred to the subject as a filmmaker alongside being a journalist, writer and humanitarian and the subject has published interview films on Mashable and other platforms that have been referenced by other media outlets and forums).
To sum up: at least a sentence can be mentioned about the kinds of topics the subject covers/has written about and the many high profile interviews conducted as an interviewer (point 3), which can be confirmed and should be allowed to expand, just like in the other articles I have found as reference examples of women in comparable fields.
3) I would like to suggest expanding at least the Journalism section again - as it now just says "Booth leads the Social Good content and publications desk of Mashable (Benelux), writing about social good, sustainability, social entrepreneurship, charities, NGOs and humanitarian work." However, Booth has also written about other content, like Entertainment, Tech and Science and has interviewed a lot of public figures as an interviewer/journalist which seems to be a focus of the subject's work (at least Forbes has mentioned some of the high profile interviews), so a sentence can be added about that the subject interviews a lot of public figures and celebrities, which seem to be a specialty of the subject, without mentioning all of the specific names of the subjects' interviews again as @Primefac has previously discussed, in addition to mentioning that the subject also covers subjects in the field of Entertainment, Tech and Science in the Journalism paragraph of the Career section.

In conclusion: I agree with your feedback and edits that you have made and the article now looks the same as comparable female subjects (although the other female subject examples do not even have references for a lot of personal details mentioned on their pages). However, I look forward to finalizing this discussion to improve the article on the following 2 points: 1) the expansion of the journalism section with a sentence or two about the fields and topics the subject has covered and 2) removing the template on top of the article now (in discussion with @Primefac who added this before Drmies' last cleanup edits) since literally all details and specifics about the subject have now been heavily removed / cleaned up in the last edits. Can I edit the article on these 2 points I have suggested to finalize this discussion to improve the article? Thanks in advance.Janssenben (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I skip over the "but this other article has that", is there anything to look at? And can you do this on the article talk page please? Drmies (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno, I've been rather enjoying the 64 pings every few minutes today... Primefac (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was there[edit]

but subsequently deleted. I think I had finger trouble. Three identical versions of the same file were updated, two to en:wp, one to Commons. Mea culpa. There is now a correct deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 5#File:Vadim Kravchinsky.jpeg where you may wish to offer an opinion either way. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if it was something like that (noting that the various F criteria were likely more appropriate anyway). Thanks for the followup. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon-Picasso Basin[edit]

I see you redirected the article Lennon-Picasso Basin to List of geological features on Mercury, I assume because it has only one reference. But you didn't include the feature in the list. Jstuby (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about alternative accounts[edit]

Hi, I'm Neuropol. I'm starting up my CVU academy program, and as a module to training, I'd like to have "live" or "hands-on" training. For this, I was wondering if it would be within policy to create an account which could act as a "CPR dummy" for trainees to interact with. I would be the only one using it, and, of course, it would not be used to vandalize mainspace articles, only interacting on its own talk page and on designated training pages within my userspace. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're abiding by WP:LEGITSOCK I don't see any reason you can't create a second account. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&oldid=1222917847"