Hi Primefac.

I couldnt help but notice you reverted your own nomination for deletion of oliver emanuel. I expect you will delete this post and I will be reporting you for abuse of admin priveleges for not allowing consennsus to be reached on a G12 copyright infringement nomination. Did you even read the nomination before deleting it, throwing allegations around and branding it nonsense. I believe a discussion should take place. An editor recently tried to make the first constructive edits since 2019 when the ENTIRE edit history was revdeleted for copyright infringement. Your response on the talk page is arrogant and dismissive. Do you believe copyright infringement is not an issue with the article or do you have an undisclosed connection with the author, in which case you should step back and let people who know what they are doing, do their job.

i request you reinstate your rfd tag and reopen the discussion. I have a number of accounts that I have openly disclosed and use for administrative tasks, that makes me a sock in your eyes, only because you have the arrogance to believe you are above the law and your own socking is ok. see you later dronebogus. 81.158.213.72 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are so many problems with this post that I am not even going to attempt to respond to them. Feel free to bring me to ANI, I'm sure it will just go swimmingly for you. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Primefac,

Thanks for enacting the lock on this band page. It was probably about time.

Please note, the issue arose from a potentially misguided Move of the page. I was reading about the bands in that scene, discovered the article and dug into citation. I found that "Common Dead" is a single artist, and a dead alias, and the existing citation show this was a man named Andrew Larenson.

While it's been explained to me that WP:COMMONNAME should persist no less, it's strange that a fellow Wikipedian has reverted other edits not relevant to the Move dispute. These edits included restoration of dead links (archived) and a few articles I found professing the identity of this subject/person and they primarily operate under their natural name.

While it remains to be seen if valid sources are found to prove that "Common Dead" is no longer their common name (no pun intended), at the very least, we shouldn't be hasty to wipe out all constructive edits. I'm a bit confused at the rampant reversions undoing valid investigative work on the subject.

How do we fix this? Metlurg (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From my reading of the page's history, it sounds like Prax disagrees with you on the substance and reliability of the provided references, and that said references do not do enough to demonstrate that Laurenson the person is more notable than Laurenson-as-Common-Dead.

The next step is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page - is there enough to demonstrate that Laurenson should have an article about him, with Common Dead as a small part of it? Should Laurenson's bio be expanded while still keeping the page about the band? Should we have separate articles about the two? Discussing these questions and the references that support (or refute) the answers will determine how this gets "fixed". Primefac (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the bulk of this. I again retort on the nature of edits that don't obstruct the conversation of person v.s. work as that name.

Much how notable artists have their intro sentence at top introduce their natural name first (and then followed by "known as" or "performing name"), that is the core of what I'm trying to highlight. We have demonstrated evidence, in current sources, to reveal it's a single person with alias. At the very least, the article's body and intro should reflect this. The current structure is misleading.

Alas, I can't edit without admin designation to restore even this small fact, and resign efforts to expand on the person's outside efforts from the context of Common Dead. Even leaving the Move page issue out of it, the text right now doesn't accurately reflect the subject. Metlurg (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page is protected to encourage discussion; it has existed on Wikipedia since 2011, so a few days without this information will not be the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Primefac, can I ask you to make an addition at Template:Family name hatnote? It would be very helpful to have a "Medieval" entry. This would be for names like "Konrad von Würzburg". I would be looking for a text that reads something like this:

In this medieval name, the personal name is Konrad, and von Würzburg is an appellation or descriptor. There is no family name. This person should be listed alphabetically under Konrad.

I wouldn't want to make the hatnote too long, but what we are really needing to get at is that after the first reference, he should be referred to for short as "Konrad", never as "Würzburg", which is the town he was born in. See here for more: https://worcestercathedrallibrary.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/whats-in-a-medieval-second-name/ This would be very useful for medieval English, French, German and Dutch authors, among others. I would be very grateful if you could help here. Doric Loon (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. It might be a bit wordy (though I do realise some of the others are very wordy) but otherwise I don't see any issue. If Konrad is the only one, though, it might not be worth the extra effort. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm taking the liberty of posting here since you were the admin to act on this issue previously. Not long ago you rollbacked and oversighted edits by Prohoshka, a relatively new account, at the TP of Ivan Katchanovski, a page I was involved in editing. I do not know what was on those edits, but I assume it's the same stuff Prohoshka just posted to his talk page, where he is repeating what I believe is a tweet outing four wikipedia users, among them @Bobfrombrockley, @My very best wishes and @Volunteer Marek. I believe this probably warrants nuking the edits plus an indef and removal of TP access for the user. Pings went to those outed users who I have interacted with in the past, in case they want to take their own measures with regard to this issue. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker)suppressed. @Primefac I'll leave it to you to decide what to do about the editor, or to undo my suppression if you think it was incorrect. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning left, OS looks good. Thanks both. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate this BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, thank you and Doug for acting. Ostalgia (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]