User talk:Primefac

This is Primefac's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47: 15 days

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Houymet

Good morning,

I'm new with Wikipedia and would like some help with the soft delete of this page. Sorry if it took months before I reached out but It took a while for me to realize that we had trouble with the page. Could you help me in understand the exact reason behind the deletion?

The following reasons were written in the talk page of the article -

As near as I can tell, this person has no great significance other than being the "first of his name", i.e. someone who has a lot of descendents. I don't even know for sure if he was a farmer, or just someone who owned land. The provided references seem to indicate that the only research done into this individual was done by his family members; any non-relations giving reference are from primary documents directly connected to the subject. I will admit that I make this AFD after taking a hatchet to the article (see Special:Permalink/1222951438 for the previous version) but there is no usable content in the older version either (most of it is editorialising, OR, or speculation). Primefac (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: A family biography project is not suitable for wikipedia. Interesting local history, but not meeting inclusion criteria here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm writing this on behalf of a friend who did all the research about Jean Houymet and all his descendants. If the main issue is that Jean Houymet is not an important figure, we have found that many famous people are related to this Jean Houymet, the most famous one being Francis Desales Ouimet, the father of amateur golf in the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ouimet

I think it would be interesting to keep this Jean Houymet page and link it to all these famous people.

I do have to agree that a family biography project is not suitable for Wikipedia. If we rewrite this article in a more encyclopedic way and link it to all these famous Ouimet, would it be something accepted by Wikipedia?

Please get back to me on what's the best way to un-delete this page and modify it ton a Wikipedia worthy article. Thank you very much for the help you will give me,

Pierre-Alexandre Planglois012 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a phrase on Wikipedia called "notability is not inherited", which basically means that being related or otherwise connected to a notable individual does not make that original individual notable themselves (see also WP:INHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO). You state If the main issue is that Jean Houymet is not an important figure... - yes, that is the main issue. I think it would be interesting to keep this Jean Houymet page is also not a valid argument to make for keeping an article on Wikipedia.

The long and the short of it, as I said in the original nomination, is that if the only people who have done any extensive research into the individual are his family members during the course of a genealogy project, he will not meet our requirements for inclusion, no matter how many bluelinked/notable relations he has on Wikipedia. It's not about linking to other Wikipedia articles, it is about linking to reliable, independent sources that talk about the subject. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me quickly with this. I forgot to subscribe to my message and never saw your reply.

I will consult with the writer of this article but unfortunately, I think this is the end of Jean Houymet on Wikipiédia.

Thanks again,

PA Planglois012 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could possibly have an article about the Ouimet family, but you'd need sources discussing the family as a whole first to establish the notability of the family Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of star systems within 20–25 light-years for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of star systems within 20–25 light-years is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 20–25 light-years (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hekerui (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests

@Anomie: fyi, the changes to {{editrequested}}, {{editrequest}} are populating the tracker tables (e.g., User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable) with a hundred-some old completed requests. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. For the record the base template is {{edit protected}}. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation Expert, I'm pretty sure this is a cache issue; the table has been slowly decreasing in size since you posted. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was caused by the lack of declaring Template:Edit protected as a wrapper for Module:Arguments that Special:Diff/1234470812 fixed. Without that it ignored the |answered=yes and so rendered as an active request, which AnomieBOT dutifully listed in the tracker tables. Once it was fixed and MediaWiki reparsed the pages, AnomieBOT removed them from the tables. Anomie ⚔ 20:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite LSA

Do you have a list of articles that used to have it by chance? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't say for sure, I thought there were a bunch but all I know is the edits made by Jonesey95, listed here, but I suspect this is last-roundup cleanup rather than the sum total. They might know more though. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably have to look in a database dump. This page says that it was used in about 4,000 citations (I think that is what is being counted, rather than pages) as of the 1 July 2024 dump. I did a few dozen manual replacements of {{Cite LSA}} with {{cite journal}} and similar templates, as appropriate for what was being cited. All of the articles were in the realm of paleontology and geology, not anything to do with linguistics. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll go through the last dump. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afsaneh Salari

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Mr.izadpanah#Draftification of Afsaneh Salari? I'm not going to draftify it again, but it does seem like it would've been better for the creator to re-submit it to AfC for another review given their declared COI, and the fact it was declined once and wasn't significantly improved thereafter. FWIW, I'm asking you about this after seeing your posts at ~~WP:ATC~~WT:AFC and thought you'd be a good person to ask about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC); edited -- 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they've "contested" the draftification by moving it back to the article space, then really the only venue left is to send it to AFD. Primefac (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would AfD be warranted in your assessment? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, it looks like most of the sources are about her film, and there's not really even much in the prose to indicate notability (some nominations but no "big" wins). Primefac (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assessment. I'm trying a bit more WP:BEFORE myself and also asking at some relevant WikiProjects just in case. If neither I nor anyone can find better sources, then I'll start a discussion about it at AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your controversial move of template:GBP

What ever made you think that that would be an uncontroversial move? "GBP" is the ISO 4217 code for the Pound Sterling (no such thing as "British pound", by the way, "adding insult to injury"). Specifically, {{GBP}} is used when an editor's keyboard doesn't have a pound sign. Thus {{GBP|1,000}} produces £1,000. What would make you believe that your long-winded version is an improvement on that?

Please revert your move and propose it properly if you seriously believe it has any merit whatever. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:31:44, 22 July 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Keise004

Keise004 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Camden Heide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the consideration on the perhaps too soon submission on Camden Heide. I considered this when creating the submission but there are many similar players that are not playing on as prestigious or successful of teams that have been approved. Seeing that Heide is a key player on Purdue which made the national championship game, his submission seems appropriate. Similar pages of players in the same conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Klesmit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Tschetter, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braden_Smith_(basketball), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Hawkins.

There has been much significant coverage (all noted) of Heide and I will continue to edit the page. Thank you again for your consideration.

Keise004 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing editors

P, I understand there's a better tool to compare editor interactions and/or similarities, available only to CUs (admins?). Do you know if using that requires probable cause like CU does? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better than what? Not being snarky, just trying to figure out where your baseline is sitting. Personally I find the Editor Interaction Analyser to be quite useful. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no worries at all. Better than that interaction analyser, yeah. Some years ago, I'd come across another tool, perhaps cos it was being developed then, which could be used to compare actual content of the contributions, check stylistic similarities and such. To the best of my knowledge, no such thing is available publicly, but I remember reading about something like that recently, apparently in use among functionaries. I just can't remember at this moment where I read that. So, wondering if you know. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Usedtobecool might be talking about Masz which Moneytrees references here at an ANI discussion in his response to Star Mississippi. I had never heard of it until then. S0091 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, masz. At the moment it is (as far as I am aware) only available to CUs, but it does not require quite as much probable cause as running an IP check. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, wow, yup, that's it. I guess I didn't take in any beyond thinking, "hey, I'd heard of that thing before". Thanks! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I have a case that I have good reasons to want checked sooner rather than later, but of course not enough for an SPI. I'll mail you the details if you'd be interested. I don't expect to be told the results; I'd feel better just knowing it's been checked. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIV helperbot14

Hi Primefac. Thanks for your work approving AIV helperbot14. I was just wondering whether you perhaps intended to also add the bot flag? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Thanks not sure why I thought it had the flag already. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated tool

Hi Primefac, I hope you are doing well. I have a question about an automated tool. Is the tool at [1] compliant with enwiki policies? It allows anyone to make replacements and carry out other automated tasks. This tool uses its operator’s main account to edit pages and we can’t check who is actually making the edits. I have tested it here. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster, you'll probably be interested in this conversation, given your conversation with that tool's creator two weeks ago. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fuck. Absolutely not a good thing. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer, can I just check that you made Special:Diff/1237001770? Primefac (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some tools are available for MdWiki and others, like fixing references, infoboxes, and translations, for Wikimedia wikis. These tools don’t require login authentication, making it impossible to track who made a particular edit. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 here, I used the tools after DR showed them to me, [2] and [3] were caused by me. Sohom (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooft. Blocked. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that it allowed others to edit under a different account, or I wouldn't have unblocked it! ... discospinster _talk 17:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack yourself, as you did on WT:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Please comment on the contributions and not yourself. If you make any further self-attacks you may have to report yourself to yourself, which may result in a self-block. Thank you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]