Hello, can you unprotect the redirect Template:Film name please? It has only 13 transclusions, so Template Editor or any protection is unnecessary considering the very low transclusion count. Srf123 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need the redirect unprotected? The protection level of redirects should generally match the protection level of the target template. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this redirect while doing other edits. I don't need to edit it right now, but I thought general wiki practice is to keep as many pages open to as many editors as possible? There are lots of low use template redirects which do not have the same protection level as target template. Srf123 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Wikipedia:Protection policy, it doesn't say that template redirects should match the protection level of it's target. Srf123 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're awfully insistent on dropping the protection of a page you say you don't actually want to edit, and likely does not need to be edited. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not needing to be edited isn't really a justification for protecting a low use redirect right? I would have submitted an edit request if I wanted some change. Anyway I came here because Twinkle suggested it, won't bother you further. Srf123 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suppose it doesn't, I am just extremely twitchy when it comes to out-of-the-blue requests to drop protection on out-of-the-way redirects to templates; that's how you get seriously vandalised. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before editing my homepage, you need to verify that you are human first. Swede the Great I (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While some measure of silliness is welcomed on Wikipedia, please make sure that you are always keeping the main goal -- Improving Wikipedia -- in mind. As I said on your talk page, bots are indicated as such, so there is no need to ask every user if they are a bot. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the "*" is commonly used in reporting sports stats to denote a result that is controversial for one reason or another. This allows the result to stand, but informs readers there is further discussion in the sports community surrounding the result or want to suppress the controversy. In either case that controversy does not go away. By removing the "*" you demonstrate you are ignorant of the controversy surrounding the result. You're partially blocking me does not make the noted controversy go away. In fact the former team mates have recently filed suit in US court against U Penn concerning the very issue you are actively trying to suppress. I will be appealing the partial block on the grounds you are targeting me unjustly for mearly adding additional context to a sports stat that is in fact controversial. Good day to you. AbelVannay (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to put in an edit request to have the content re-added along with a well-sourced statement that can be added. Of course, one should note that her status as a transgender individual has already been established further up the page. By all means appeal your block, indefinite does not mean infinite. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the 138 links to the 'unused' IPA-xx template you just deleted so that they both display the IPA and generate the ISO error category. There are 140 articles that need an ISO code, and only 2 of them now display in the error-tracking category, and those 2 don't display the IPA. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I fixed it.

This template should be deleted -- just as soon as the articles linking to it have actually been fixed, i.e. by someone who knows what they're doing. [That dig isn't aimed at you, but at the editor who keeps adding the wrong ISO codes because they can't be bothered to do it correctly.] — kwami (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait (again) for the transclusion count to hit zero. Apologies for the hassle, every time I looked it wasn't transcluded so I assumed the task was complete. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We've cleared out 80% from the first time, and many of the remaining are pretty obvious, so hopefully it won't be very long — kwami (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​ Transclusion count shows zero again; is this finally sorted? Primefac (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's still 105 articles. User Gonnym gave them all wrong ISO codes again. That after people at wikiproject languages told them it was the wrong code, and that repeating someone else's error was not a valid reason for doing it purposefully.

Someone objected to the 'fix' tag that IPA-xx now uses, bu they can change that if they want. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all cleaned up. For the last one I just deleted the IPA; it appeared to be wrong anyway. — kwami (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and the work on this. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac, could you please review my request on WT:AFC/Participants if you have the time to. It's been around 2 days since I requested TNM101 (chat) 03:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only do AFCP reviews once a week, so please be patient. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure no problem! TNM101 (chat) 15:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Primefac. Just a question about AfC, if drafts have been declined multiple times and have been resubmitted without improvement, is it possible to just reject them? In my first ever draft that obviously wasn't notable, some other editor came to the draft and submitted it for no reason. There, DoubleGrazing mentioned Resubmitted without any improvement, previous decline still stands. Fair warning: next time I will reject this outright, if evidence of notability is not provided. I was wondering if doing this was allowed TNM101 (chat) 16:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the submitter is not showing any serious interest in improving the draft, specifically by resubmitting without making improvements, then rejection is not entirely unreasonable. Given that this was what appears to be a drive-by IP resubmitting without making any changes, I would probably recommend that DoubleGrazing reconsider the decline; outright removal of the last AFC template is probably reasonable here given that it is there only edit in the last two years. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Wouldn't it be better if this was mentioned at Reviewing instructions#Rejecting submissions, so that new reviewers would also know TNM101 (chat) 17:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth discussing. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why do I need to reconsider the decline? All I was saying was that nothing had changed since the previous decline, ergo that decline was still valid. Which it was.

Or if it's my "fair warning" comment that is being objected to, then I'd be happy to strike that, alas I cannot. Besides, that comment was just pointing out that tendentious resubmissions (whether by drive-by IPs or anyone else) aren't a good idea as they will eventually cause the draft to be rejected outright. Which is true. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that since it was a drive-by resubmission clearly not intended as a serious resubmission, just removing it outright would be reasonable. I'm not saying you have to do that, just saying that's what I'd do, and that as the reviewer you'd be the one to ask if that was a reasonable thing for you to consider. "Start the discussion" etc. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ali Niknam. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Spokeoino (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]