I noticed this and your post at BOTN. I wouldn't mind working on this. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Primefac (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've written most of the code for this, just waiting on phab:T361367 to be resolved. I'm also going skiing for a week (starting today), so I'll try to get this done around the end of next week. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! Primefac (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example of what the emails would look like (my email address is qwerfjklwikipedia@gmail.com, if you want to forward one to me)? Are multiple changes on the same page grouped together? Would you only want emails for edits, or also for log actions, category changes, etc.? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarded. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, unfortunately filtering edits has the same problem as filtering for bots (hopefully will be fixed sometime soon, but who knows). — Qwerfjkltalk 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blargh... thanks for checking though. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be pretty easy to email for every edit made by a bot to a page on your watchlist (I could do a quick & dirty fix of treating editors with "bot" in their username as bots); wolud that be alright? It would send multiple emails if there are multiple bot edits to the same page, and I don't think I can check whether you've viewed the page or not (apparently the watchlist feed doesn't care either way). — Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, on the one hand multiple emails might get annoying, but on the other hand gmail is pretty good at merging them all together. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got this working, try toolforge:watchlistemail. From trying it out myself, most of the edits are sigmabot archiving pages, so I could filter those out if you want. Let me know if it works. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bots archiving is one of the reasons I want this! Will give it a go. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────┘
FWIW I've encrypted the token i.e. so that the data is stored as:

{
    "Qwerfjkl": [
        "Z0FBQUFBQm1IcWxrV1VQamw2TWZHY2xYSVFrSFhiTTYyNHRGUi1MeWlKcVoxTWx2b05Jd0Y0SDlWczVfaEp0NEtJbk01Zl9DRW9UV0lRMWRtN1B6VTdtaXZFMWxQUGxRX2VqWVVlT3UzbzljQ1VodHdvd0ZUTDNjUkE0XzFIZTNYVDBwaWdaUmhvYzI=",
        "qwerfjklwikipedia@gmail.com",
        "2024-04-16 16:52:46"
    ]
}

— Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, you just reverted my deletion request and I want to explain my intention to you: the redirect behind Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis stores a history that another user wanted to keep - even though its contents are already merged into the multiple sclerosis diagnosis article. My primary idea is to move that history to Diagnostic criteria for MS to move the multiple sclerosis diagnosis to diagnosis of multiple sclerosis afterwards. That way we could keep the history of diagnosis of multiple sclerosis for now and can possibly decide later what exactly we will do with it. Tobiasi0 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

WP:SWAP is the more appropriate action then.  Done. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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 [1] [2]. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look at {{di-missing article links}} and {{di-missing some article links}}? There are two parameters (|date= and |articles=) that probably should be filled by those using these templates, but neither parameter is mentioned on the templates' documetation pages. The |date= parameter seems to add files tagged with these templates to Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files, which is used by file reviewers and bots to check on files with WP:NFCCE issues, while the |articles= parameter allows those tagging files to or those trying to cleanup such files to identify the exact article or articles not complying with WP:NFCC#10c. I've always used these parameters when using these template, but just noticed there's nothing mentioned about them of the files' documentation pages. I'm not sure if that's intentional or just an oversight; so, I thought I'd ask someone else to take a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

WP:BN is the place to make such requests. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

You're welcome to create a draft page, but as far as I can tell they do not meet the criteria for inclusion and it would thus be a waste of your time. Primefac (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could you (or a talk page stalker) redact this edit summary (for RD2 reasons)? Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with 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—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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