Where has the Revision Delete been discussed before?[edit]

I searched extensively and found no mention of talk:Manchester High School (Virginia) anywhere. 27.33.119.160 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the article itself, but the subject matter that was being discussed. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

So the issue I brought up, being not about whether to mention someone on Wikipedia but that revisions had unjustifiably been deleted, has not been addressed at all? 27.33.119.160 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There are times when revisions are deleted or hidden that have absolutely nothing to do with the edit that caused the original content to be removed, but because they were present in the diffs where the offending content was present, they must also be hidden. There's nothing we can really do about that (i.e. we cannot revdel specific section). Primefac (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Please try to be clearer with your justifications; your first two comments were alluding to an issue which I have zero interest in that presumably lead to what I was mistakenly complaining about, hence why I asked for clarification twice. 27.33.119.160 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, and apologies, though I genuinely thought you were more concerned about the CWC stuff and not the revdel issue itself. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tennis cleanup BRFA could use you[edit]

Are you up for this one? See Wikipedia:Bot requests#Case cleanup task for nearly 17000 tennis articles and the associated BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5. ProcrastinatingReader says he's too busy to take it on. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping to be able to dedicate some time tomorrow (Sunday) to going through BRFAs, but no guarantees. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm having a relaxing weekend in Maui. I don't mean to eat into your weekend. Thanks for all you do. WP can be a lower priority, really! Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Now, another weekend in Maui. Not so relaxing as I have to fly home today. I hope you can get back to looking at this bot approval. I provided a bunch more examples with some comments. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't login to AWB[edit]

Hi, please update my new username on the AWB tool approved users check page because I can't login or use the tool. I renamed my username from M-Mustapha to Em-mustapha. Thanks User:Em-mustapha ^talk 00:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk pages[edit]

Hi. I hope you're doing well. I noticed some of your edits such as this one: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2620:101:F000:700:0:2570:E7FD:6FBE&diff=1071295873&oldid=1071281703>. I'm not really sure what you're talking about, we delete user talk pages all the time. Based on a quick look, in 2022 so far, we've deleted 1,589 user talk pages. If you exclude subpages, we've deleted 589 user talk pages. Some examples are User_talk:Ferdymotow or User talk:PiratesAreReal or User talk:2.197.244.24. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Having a number of deleted pages tells us nothing other than the number of deleted pages. In your three examples, the first was a very clear G11 that was an article in the user talk; it could have been blanked, but I'd say there's some discretion allowed there. The latter two examples are mass-deletions from blocked users, which means someone went to Special:Nuke, input the name, and then deleted everything there; the fact that there were some user talk pages in there is immaterial. 99% of the time there is no reason to delete a user talk page, even if the only content is silly non-harmful vandalism; blank it and move on. Primefac (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I was responding directly to your comment "we don't delete user talk pages" with hundreds of examples of when we've done exactly that just this year. That doesn't "tell us nothing" as you suggest unless we choose to deliberately ignore hard evidence disproving the claim. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? Of the 9 declines I made, I left out "generally" from one of them. I honestly don't remember why that one didn't have it, but I'm guessing late-at-night me realised that pedantry would get the better of me and we do occasionally delete pages for reasons other than "someone created this page but it's useless" (which I still maintain is not a valid CSD reason). Primefac (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Insults, but nothing new[edit]

Hello, as per AE report for the whole Balkan area and per decisions of multiple admins on March 20th 2021 [[1]] per indefinite ban of 2 editors, it was also decided that a strict rules are going to be applied against any editors who are misusing rules of Wikipedia. This editor [[2]] has been indefinitely banned 2 times already for using multiple accounts see here, please [[3]], [[4]], also they were indef blocked as discovered to be Joycewood [[5]] this 2 are is still blocked, also the block log of both MF/Crovata is pretty huge MF being blocked 7 times [[6]] for edit warring, 3RR rule violation and personal attacks, the same thing as Crovata who has been blocked 9 times (?) [[7]] and what is interesting Crovata was already under 1RR rule which they could not follow. What I do not understand how is this editor even allowed to edit anymore on Wikipedia, and yet they reappeared again few days ago doing the same thing (personal attacks, pinging other editors[[8]]per WP:TAGTEAM disruptive editing as you can see only on Serb related pages - i.e this one [[9]] where linguist Czerwinski deals with linguistic consistency and inconsistency of Dubrovnik area [[10]] and he definitely does not make conclusions provided by editor, it is way complicated then that (abstract is in english, last page). I am pretty sure that this last edit was against me on TP [[11]] which was not a first time [[12]] even though I did not remove the text but only over excessive quote that can be traced as illegal copy edit [[13]], on this page [[14]] I posted reliable sources of international scholars but the editor decided on talk page to tag team again the editors with whom they cooperated in the past [[15]], one of them already indefinitely blocked [[16]], the other one defended them on Sock investigation [[17]] and today another editor with whom they hope they are going to go on their side [[18]] another example of WP:TAGTEAM it is obvious that the behaviour of the editor has not changed, exampling the same behaviour of insults, cherrypicking of sources, tag teaming etc. Therefore I ask that this editor should be indefinitely block again, for the 3rd time. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 12:16, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

Also it would be note checking that during indefinite block time this editor was probably editing under different IP [[19]], this one use the same behaviour pattern like the MF edits the same pages like them [[20]] and uses the same "language" like they do, [[21]] and here is example in same editing ip [[[[22]] and [[23]] Theonewithreason (talk) 14:34, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

I've attempted to parse this out a few times now, and I have no idea what you're asking me to do. You state this editor should be indefinetly block again but you've linked to a half-dozen editors. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: No I have reported the fact that the editor this one [[24]] has been previously indefinitely blocked as you can see on their block log page [[25]] and I have noted that they have been previously blocked indefinitely several times per spi check [[[[26]] and that they have during block time also edited [[27]] all in all it is the same person using multiple accounts for which they have been indefinitely blocked already. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:24, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything blatant enough to feel comfortable dropping a unilateral block; if you think this matter needs attention I would encourage you to copy it over to WP:ANI or similar. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi @Primefac:, Can I use two Wifi networks for editing Wikipedia? Vary from place to place. Fade258 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I genuinely don't understand the question. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I generally use two Wifi networks for editing Wikipedia. Can I do that? Fade258 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Fade258 that's generally considered fine. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. Fade258 (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you for your help at Bix Biederbecke 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Is there a reason why you moved Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Koppie foam grasshopper nymph (2) to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Koppie foam grasshopper nymph? They were two separate nominations, with more than two years between them. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Saw the month and not the year. I'll fix in a min. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

PrimeBOT task for UTM parameters[edit]

Hi Primefac, PrimeBOT's user page currently lists the UTM parameters task as "stalled". Is it still active? I'm planning to run a version of Theo's code, but wanted to ask you in case your task is still running. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. Never really liked that regex anyway; kept finding more exceptions than rules. Primefac (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Shipping company[edit]

Hi Primefac. You undid my edition in Shipping company to decline G6. I guess I edited the page wrongly. What I am trying to do is ask for deletion of that page in order to move Shipping line there. It's more adecuate as it is the main article of Category:Shipping companies. Can you help me ?. Thanks.--Banderas (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that there was an RFD on the matter a little under two years ago, I think an WP:RM would be more appropriate than a unilateral move. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Why’d you remove the criminal section from Joshua Boyles biography?[edit]

It seems like people with prior connections to Wikipedia tend to get preferential treatment. I think his page should be detailed with the current information we have access to. It’s Wikipedia, but the admins and moderators biases are becoming obvious and almost embarrassing for a “community” oriented website. You should think about why your protecting some individuals while also disparaging others. 2603:3015:E1A:600:2177:97E2:559:9D (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not Boyles' biography, it's an article about his kidnapping. While some biographical information is necessary, we do not need to give an entire recount of his life before and after the incident. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A question.[edit]

This is just out of curiosity. While editing some pages, I came across the user User:Walrus_Ji. The user is blocked but there is no thread about it anywhere. The block log states just blocked without any link. Is there any link? Why was the user blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaypatill (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

When a user has been blocked via {{ArbCom block}}, it means that it was because there was private or otherwise off-wiki evidence that was used to determine some sort of behaviour or activity that required a block, but since this evidence is private it cannot be linked and thus the templated block reason is given. If we declared the specific reasons(s) for an ArbCom block it would largely defeat the purpose of blocking under that rationale. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Unblocking of Fairy Bliss[edit]

Dear administrator, thank you for the quick review of my unblocking request. Was my request accepted or do I have to create a new unblocking appeal? Thank you for your answer and precious support. Fairy Bliss (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, and apologies for the mistype on my part; the unblock requests pre-load a decline message and I forgot to remove it before accepting your request. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Two Olympic favours / gauging opinion[edit]

Hi I have two favours to ask for:

• 1) On the Saudi Arabia at the 2022 Winter Olympics, all Winter Olympics minus 2022 are shown in red "Winter Olympics appearances", shouldn't these all be greyed out from when Saudi Arabia started competing at the Olympics? I believe the same issue exists for Timor-Leste.
• 2) Not sure how to proceed here, gauging your opinion. For closing ceremony flagbearers is it necessary to have a second article? If so, I think the opening should be moved to 2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony national flag bearers (and similar name for closing). Otherwise, we can have two sections on the current article 2022 Winter Olympics Parade of Nations. If the latter, the opening ceremony link needs to be redirected. Let me know what you think! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

First one is done (not sure what you mean about TLS though, they started in 2014). If the closing flagbearers can fit reasonably well in the primary article, then I don't see a need to have a separate page. I think it will likely come down to size, though. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for TLS, I should have clarified I meant this template [28]. We will double the size essentially of the parade article if we add in closing ceremony flag bearers. If you think the size will be okay still, then I agree, we should leave it as is. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sorted. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and your final thought on the flagbearers? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really, size discussions sound like something that should be dealt with when someone complains; if you start with one article it's a lot easier to split than the reverse. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Great, only thing left then is having the opening/closing ceremony link in the infobox to link to the parade of nations article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there was a separate article in 2018 [29]. Will follow that format. Have you had a chance to take a look to the links ? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Not sure which links you're referring to, but the templates should all be up-to-date. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The link in the infobox where it says Flag bearer (opening) should go to the parade article, while for closing it should go to closing ceremony flagbearers. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any regularity with the naming conventions; some are named after the flag bearers and some are after the Parade of Nations. Standardise first, then we can sort out where the links should point. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Want a user right.[edit]

Hi I want to edit on Wikipedia from my account when I'm connected to VPN so I read all the policies and found that I need to contact a checkuser. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 22:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a few steps down the way; initial requests are described here. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Revdel at American College of Surgeons[edit]

Hi! I see that you've removed almost all of the content at American College of Surgeons and revdelled the history of the last 10 years. I can see that different parts of the text have been contributed at different times by several different editors. Was really all of it copyright violations? I had a look at the article in a Wikipedia mirror and I tried googling a few different sentences from it, but the only results I got was other Wikipedia mirrors. What am I missing here? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

100% copyvio? Of course not. However, if one paragraph in an article is a copyvio, the entire revision containing that paragraph needs to be hidden; at this point in time there is no way to selectively revdel sections of an article. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought in that case the procedure was to remove only the text that violates copyright and not everything else as well. I'm not querying so much the RD (from the last AN thread it's clear that admins are happy with such large-scale revdelling of intervening edits), as the removal of the text from the article. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I see what you mean and I think I misinterpreted your statement. The content that was removed was not a 100% copyvio, but probably somewhere up near 80%, with almost every paragraph having at least half of its content copied from the ACS website or similar locations. In this case leaving the non-infringing content would have been awkward at best, with no context to provide the details of said statements, and the rest close enough paraphrasing to merit removal anyway (I am guessing that any not-copied content were later additions attempting to shoehorn in more content). I was trying to find redeeming content to save, but there just wasn't enough to keep, and so I had to revert back to the older version of the page. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you help me[edit]

Please check my talk page an IP continously disturbing me trying to act oversmart. Mainly wants me to get blocked from editing and has something with Ayan (an actor whose draft I'm creating) ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 21:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this got dealt with, sorry I couldn't be of more assistance at the time. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Have a question about a PrimeBOT notice...[edit]

PrimeBOT posted a Wiki Education Foundation Notice several months after the coursework (by the way, no coursework edits were ever made by the assigned editor but anyway...). Anyway, could you tell me why PrimeBOT placed this notice on Talk:Aunt Jemima so long after the fact? Just wondering... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

All it did was move a banner notice from the top section to its own - you'll notice that it never actually changed the content and still states the original times of the course. Primefac (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You have helped me several times with your user rights. Thank you. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Protection level anomalies[edit]

1. You reduced the protection level of Module:Find sources to ECP in November 2021 per Special:PermaLink/1055869020#User:Wikmoz, however the sole edit to the page since was by a Template Editor. This suggests to me that the page should be restored to template protection.
2. In 2018, you template-protected Template:Storm colour. That template was converted to use Module:Storm categories in December 2021. I requested the module be protected to match the template, which was declined by Bbb23, implying that they did not think that template-protection was warranted. In that case, the protection level of Template:Storm colour should be reduced to ECP.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely out of curiosity, because I can't remember when this was discussed or where to find it, but is there a huge issue if there is a mismatch between the protection of a very-stable template that is calling a dynamic module? Primefac (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A template calling a module with a lower protection level renders the protection level on the template effectively security theater and therefore pointless. The original context for these is User talk:Primefac/Archive 17#More bad protections * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so no technical reason. I fixed your link and #2, but am still (genuinely) mulling over #1, because I don't want to raise the protection level only to have them return from whatever area they've hidden themselves in and suddenly realised they need to edit this template again (i.e. I don't want to protect-war with myself). I will give it a good think, though. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Dependencies should always have a higher or equivalent protection, as they will always have more or equal transclusions. Izno (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Primefac (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So, are you going to do something about #1? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Stable but on 1.5mil pages... up it goes. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi @Primefac:, Can you tell me from which IP address that I created my username (Fade258)? Fade258 (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No. It's been too long. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Please explain in short about IP Block Exempt. Fade258 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, to quote verbatim from WP:IPBE:

Primefac (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't use any VPN service. Mainly I used this IP address (103.104.30.144) whose ISP is First link communication but this IP address always changes where as I already requested here and they granted me a GIPBE and I use my mobile data when I am not in my home or traveling somewhere. Fade258 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about holding cell entry removal[edit]

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_22#Template:Sclass

Hey, why did you remove the sclass- templates from the holding cell? Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because the close result was to merge, and the nominated templates had been redirected to the target templates. Generally that means that the merge has been completed. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The close was very clear in how it should be done, as it said Along the lines of Trappist and Gonnym, which reading TTP and my comments was to replace x- templates with the normal one and delete these redirects as they were always meant to be temporarily. This wasn't a normal "merge and redirect" result. Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue orphaning the redirects but it wasn't super-clear that was the requirement. Also, coming right out and stating "this shouldn't have been removed because they're supposed to be orphaned" is a lot less likely to annoy me than playing coy. Primefac (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, coming right out and stating "this shouldn't have been removed because they're supposed to be orphaned" is a lot less likely to annoy me than playing coy ... but that was exactly was I wrote here, which you removed with the comment -2. Seeing as how you saw my comment and removed it anyways, I came to ask why. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, now I feel like an idiot, and have nothing to explain my actions. My apologies. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, nothing personal :) Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. In case it wasn't obvious, I'm in the process of replacing all of those redirs. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about SAG template TfD[edit]

Hi, I saw the changes made to the SAG award templates and saw you did some merging with the edit reason "TfD", but didn't link a TfD and I can't see one at the talk page - do you know where it is, I would just like to see the reasons for one of the changes (very bizarrely removing actors' names - it is an award given by actors to actors, they're pretty important). Kingsif (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There were two discussions regarding a merge of the subtemplates to the main; since it wasn't directly listed it did not receive an {{old TFD}} notice. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Primebot come-hither signal[edit]

I occasionally find irregular WikiEd assignment templates that are not converted, on a page where Primebot has been by to convert other templates. Recent example: at Talk:Interpersonal communication, where I added an {{unsig}} template to a stray template (it's also above the ToC). Would it be useful to add a flag of some sort to it, either just a ping to Primebot, if that's enough, or a flag of some sort to "come look at this one and convert it" (perhaps something like, {{ping|Primebot<!--user=Foo&ts=TIME-->}}). I don't want to belabor your Talk page with this each time it comes up. Or is it just not worth bothering with? Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely out of curiosity, but have you not seen Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Results? The template is no longer subst-only, and Sage is working on converting the WikiEd tools to properly add the template for new uses. Other than implementing anything on a technical side, I no longer have anything to do with the dashboard template. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

👍[edit]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For all the work you do behind the scenes making the English language Wikipedia a decent place for the ordinary hobbyist editor FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly copyright violation(s)[edit]

Hi. Can you look at the history of this page? The copyright vio detector has detected a lot of similar results as well. Thank you. --Victor Trevor (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem with a page like that is that it has been around since 2009, so even if there is a bit of copying to Wikipedia, there is almost guaranteed to be a ton of copying from Wikipedia, which will mess with the copyvio check. In other words, I can't on a quick look make any sort of determination about its status, so you'll have to either file a copyright investigation or determine which parts of the page were copied (and from where). Primefac (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Live from Here[edit]

The show is canceled. I changed the description from 'Live from Here is', to was. You changed it back. How come? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuchulain9 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Live from Here[edit]

Disregard my prior. I see that seems to be a convention, so ok. Cuchulain9 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of hiding tools[edit]

The table is a "Comparison of hiding tools" as self described, therefore all hiding tools shouuld be on it. Plus, the initial list is also a non-OS thing. Naleksuh (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to discuss the matter on WT:OS, but I do not see deletion as a "hiding tool" (as we do not actually have a tool to do that). Primefac (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Wilfrid Oswald Jose copyvio[edit]

The draft was a word-for-word copy of an essay by the submitter; we talked about it some more on my talk page. When I tried to decline it again with that link in the URL field it didn't show it on the decline template for some reason, so I've left it as a comment. I probably just didn't look carefully to confirm the decline went through correctly the first time. Rusalkii (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, if you attempted to add the URL and it didn't put it in the template, that's an issue with AFCH. Thank you for the followup and sorry for the hassle. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)