User talk:PrimeHunter/Archive 10

Good articles

Hi! Remember when you explained to me what a Good article is? Well, I have gotten interested in the subject and promoted one biology article to good article status (I wasn't involved in editing the article, and also made my decision according to the good article criteria). I have a question for you. How do you nominate an article for good article status? Please reply on my talk page. And as always, thank you for your help. Gug01 (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

@Gug01: See Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Signatures are not supposed to have text after the time stamp and it's odd to have "Gug 01" at the end when the user page has already been linked on "Gug01". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Gug01 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

Could you mentor me

Dear sirs,

I heard you were experienced in the technical areas of wikipedia and I want to become an experienced template editor. I was wondering if you could be my mentor.NetworkOP (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: I'm not in an offical mentor or adopter program but you are welcome to ask me questions. I don't use VisualEditor and have not worked with TemplateData. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of help desk info

As we both have written almost identical information, I have simply removed my own meager duplication :). Thanks for your valuable additions to the help desk, it's great to see new editors getting so detailed and helpful information. GermanJoe (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I need your help

Could you please update this file? It is based on 2012 data. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.27.142.23 (talk)

I moved your post here to the talk page. See Help:Using talk pages. The file name says "Democracy Index 2012" so that file should continue to display 2012 data. I don't have graphics tools to make a new file for a new year. The 2012 file was uploaded by User:FutureTrillionaire. There is no newer version in commons:Category:Democracy Index. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, PrimeHunter. You have new messages at Mr. Yondris Ferguson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr. Yondris Ferguson (Leave a Comment) 17:10 20 January 2015 (GMT)

Delete a page, please?

Hi! Can you please delete the page User:Gug01/Articles created in enWP/Stubs? It is one of my subpages to my user page, and I do not need it any more. Please delete it. Gug01 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

@Gug01: Deleted. Another time you can use {{db-u1}}. Is there a reason your signature ends with "Gug 01" after the time stamp. It's confusing and can make users think something has been accidentally removed so they waste time checking the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why. I think its a glitch in the Preferences. I will have to find a way to change that. Gug01 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Small note

I don't know how familiar you are with the region of the former Yugoslavia, but relatively large percent of Croatian nationalists identifies themselves as ustashi, that could be equivalent of Serbs being called "chetniks", and many Serbian nationalists say they are chetniks, but chetniks were not nazis... Complicated topic. If you need any more info feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cheers. VS6507 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me with my question about the edit summary/explanation box. Thegreatcatherine (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Technical Barnstar
		Thanks for quickly solving my redirect question. You are great!_ Atmospheric theatre (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Atmospheric theatre (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you Prime Hunter!

Vromano7 (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Category problem

For some reason, when I open the categories for Elateroidea, Polyphaga, Elateridae, and Hemicrepidius, I see the following code in the section that is supposed to be titled "Pages in category": <a name="Pages_in_category" id="Pages_in_category"></a>. What does this mean? Can you fix it? Gug01 (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gug01: The heading is made by MediaWiki:Category header. The page history indicates an issue which was fixed 20 minutes ago, at least for that MediaWiki message. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine!

		Sunshine!
		Hello PrimeHunter! Gug01 (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Gug01 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Example?

You wrote: "Please don't place your edit summaries inside /* ... */. It causes special formatting of the edit summary and is only meant for the section heading in section edits. See Help:Edit summary#Section editing. If you edit a section then leave the prefilled part of the edit summary alone and add your own to the right of /* ... */. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)"

I think I got it, but would you give an example?

Thanks. -Capikiw (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Capikiw: [1] was correct. The grey text "Thanks for your comment. Example?" is the section heading, the little arrow to the left is a link directly to the section (also works from other pages like [2]), and the black text is the part of the edit summary you wrote on your own. Compare to your former edits at Special:Contributions/Capikiw and mine at Special:Contributions/PrimeHunter. Sorry to bother you with such a detail but for users who know the feature it's annoying when other users break it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! I hope you don't mind answering another question: What are the numbers in green and red in parentheses in each user's history of changes? -Capikiw (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Capikiw: It's the number of bytes the page became larger or smaller. See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Caracal

Hi! There is a copyright issue on the page Caracal, and it might be deleted in a week. I have no idea how to deal with the page. Can you please help? Gug01 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gug01: I don't work much with copyright. Just try to follow the links in the box if you want to try to save something. The article text in still in the edit window and page history. I haven't compared the text to sources but according to Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Caracal it may be hard to fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

MS update

"Microsoft is researching this problem and will post more information in this article when the information becomes available." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

— Anything further on this? I'm still getting daily KB 301 3455 updates that I have to uninstall. Sca (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sca: Microsoft still says the same at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3013455. I don't have more info and haven't searched for it. You can avoid the repeated installs and uninstalls. Details may vary but at a time where it's not installed: Manually start Micosoft/Windows update via the Start menu. Search for updates. Locate KB3013455 in the available updates. Right click it and select hide. It's still possible to unhide it later if you want to install it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sca (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sca: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3013455 now has a link to update 3037639 which fixes the problem. I installed it from there and it works fine in my 32-bit Windows Vista. The update wasn't offered in a normal search for Windows updates. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Sca (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sea Devil

Hi. I uploaded that pic we were talking about the other day on my user page, but I'm not sure how to add it here commons:Category:Sea monsters.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Giantdevilfish: Edit commons:File:Sea-devil.jpg and add [[Category:Sea monsters]] at the bottom. See more at Help:Category. You can also try to think of other suitable Commons categories, for example by looking at the categories of other images in the same category. You can remove {{Uncategorized|year=2015|month=February|day=22}} when it's categorized. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

moving sofa problem

"The lower-bound sofa is that sofa which can be moved through the hallway with continuous transformations, while the upper bound sofa cannot be moved through the hallway." That's how they define it word for word in a research paper here. Don't just revert it... I don't care how you want to rephrase it, but at least put some definitions on lower bound and upper bound. It's not safe to assume most readers can understand it. The article is currently a stub anyway (plenty of room for improvement, giving more related definition is a good start). 146.151.84.226 (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

better link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.84.226 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not invent anything, and I am not wrong. The source did not specifically say it, but it implies. Just because I understand what it implies doesn't mean most readers can. Again, I'm a math major. I don't think you are based on your unknowledgable talk. You yourself said: "Any size which is known to be possible can be called a lower bound, but if we say "the lower bound" without further context then it will usually be implied to be the best known lower bound, i.e. the largest number which has currently been proven to be possible." That's literally the same idea as my words. It is implied, but for most people who have no good math background would not know what the heck are the lower and upper bound. "Many sofas may at different times or contexts be called lower bounds and upper bounds," quoted by you. Your statement makes me feel like you have no idea what you're talking about. There is only 1 context, which is moving through the L shaped hall-way. And what does time having anything to do here? There is currently only 1 known lower bound and 1 known upper bound. Time will not change facts. If in the future, we happen to find a new lower bound or a new upper bound then those values will replace the old bounds, so there will always be 1 lower bound and 1 upper bound, no matter what. It's true that in general mathematics, lower bound is the highest known value and upper bound is lowest known value. Value can be anything, but in this specific problem, it can be only area.

Anyway, I added "In this case, a lower bound is the largest area that can go through the hallway, whereas the upper bound is the smallest area that cannot go through it." That would essentially clear up your concern. Let me know if you still have any objection. If there is still a debate between us, I think it's best to find a third party to mediate. This third party should have a good reputation in Wikipedia and of course an expert in mathematics. I can look for one.146.151.84.226 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been reverted by professor David Eppstein who is also a Wikipedia administrator. Stop this. I don't care whether you are a math major. You are clearly not qualified to interpret what the source says. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I need Assistance

Hi PrimeHunter, you moved my "user:ndidiokonkwonwuneli" page to "draft:ndidiokonkwonwuneli". I was wondering why you might have done that? Also, I want to publish the page but I am new to wikipedia and I don't know how to do it. Any suggestions? Also, how do I get a knowledge graph box on Google for this page? Thanks in advance :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.32.114 (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You were not logged in when you posted this and none of those pages have existed. I guess you refer to the move of User:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli to Draft:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli. I posted a message about the move but as the page history [3] shows, it wasn't me who made the move. The explanation was "Preferred location for AfC submissions". User:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli is a user page and should not be used for article drafts but to tell about the user as a Wikipedia editor, as described at Wikipedia:User pages. Draft:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli was submitted for review but was deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion, and a copyright infringement of http://www.thenextwomen.com/2013/01/24/ndidi-nwuneli-nigerian-serial-entrepreneur-global-leader-tomorrow. This section has also been edited by User:Leapsandbounds who created an article at Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli. A Google Knowledge Graph is made by Google and not Wikipedia. I have no inside knowledge of how they decide to make it or what to put in it. We have received many posts about wrong information and usually reply with the message at Template:HD/GKG. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am the user user:Leapsandbounds. I did not intend to make the Draft:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli a user page. I wanted to create a separate article. How can I do that? Also, I am a bit confused about the copyright infringement issue. I used that source in the Wikipedia article but proper credit was attributed to http://www.thenextwomen.com/2013/01/24/ndidi-nwuneli-nigerian-serial-entrepreneur-global-leader-tomorrow. — Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "separate" article? Separate from what? You have already created Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli. I wasn't involved in the deletion but maybe I will examine the copyright claim later. I only made this edit while responding to a help request at User talk:Timtrent/Archive 18#Please solve my "Oops". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Philosophical Transactions A, 28 February 2012 cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Philosophical Transactions A, 28 February 2012 cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales - Broken Link

Many thanks for fixing this, appreciate your help.Clivemacd (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Redaction on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Now obviously I won't bring up the subject topic, or ask you to, but is that really not suitable for public discussion? And if not where should it go? It's a semi-serious privacy issue that shouldn't really be hidden from users... Any idea who to report it to? Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 13:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tink (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Tink (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Gongshow   talk 01:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
You know a lot of stuff.....   Bfpage |leave a message  23:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks !

Thanks for helping me out with the language links. Ivan Scott Warren (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cluestick

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Book creator conclusion

On March 27 your response to my questions included you stating: "The book creator tool can only work on one book at a time without saving it. Click "Contributions" at the top of any page to see all your edits, including to saved books. Click "Subpages" at the bottom of that page to see a list of your userspace pages including books." So, basically a "book" is really a type of subpage? Is that correct? Swamixyz (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Swamixyz: Yes, a user book is saved as a subpage with some software features associated. Books can also be shared with others by saving them in the Book namespace and listed in Category:Wikipedia books (community books). User books are also visible to everybody but others will rarely see them. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bob Durgin page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for trying hard to get me a solution! I appreciate it! JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That was an odd issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

	Teahouse Barnstar
	I don't want multiple barnstars to go to your head, but I do want you to know that your many useful and helpful answers are noticed and appreciated. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

re host nations

sorry,those didn't write (1) coz I can't confirm whether they host one tournament or not.I will check them or you can delete the (1).--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

response to your post on my account

	response to your post on my account
	I did not make misleading edits. They were grammar. I can't find a single article on wikipedia to edit bc every age is semi-protected so I edit people's comments. Yes, my edits are all minor. Severus01 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Severus01: Click "diff" at Special:Contributions/Severus01 to see your edits. Most of the edits marked minor with a bold m do not satisfy Help:Minor edit. Please read that page to see what is considered a minor edit. And most of your edits with edit summary "grammar" were not about grammar. Less than 1% of our articles are protected. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What about semi-protected pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severus01 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Severus01: Less than 1% includes semi-protected. It's closer to 0.1%. If you keep hitting Random article at the top left then you probably have to be really patient to find a page with any protection. But pages many users want to edit are more likely to get conflicts that cause protection, so a typical user is much more likely than 0.1% of actually meeting a protected page when they want to edit something. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Apologies, that was an accidental revert, caused by trying to scroll down a watchlist on an iPhone. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem Concerning the Coconut (song) article.

An editor who goes by the name of Nikkimaria has twice reverted a recent edit that I made to this article, Coconut (song). It is under the section called "Appearances". She not only reverted the edit, but also the source that I provided to prove it. I added that the song was performed on a skit on The Muppet Show featuring Kermit the Frog on a hospital bed. The source that I provided, which I feel is encyclopedic and reliable, is from the Muppet Wiki site, who, like Wikipedia, has also encyclopedic articles and is, I feel, a very good and very reliable encyclopedic source, although Nikkimaria disagrees. Here is the article link so you can check it out for yourself:

http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Coconut

I am only reporting this to you because I don't want to risk any edit wars as edit wars are against Wikipedia rules and regulations as they can get a user's editing privileges suspended or revoked depending on how the situation is. Could you probably look into this and hopefully, make the aforementioned user see that the source that I provided is, as I feel, reliable and encyclopedic. Thanks. Frschoonover (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Frschoonover: Anyone can make an account and edit Wikia wikis like the Muppet Wiki so they fail WP:USERGENERATED. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, PrimeHunter. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just Wondering

Have you been too Nyhavn? (You don't have to answer) TeaLover1996 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, long ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sandboxes

Although you didn't make the offer to me, I'd like to take up your offer at Wikipedia:Help desk#Continuation of talkspace/sandbox issue to "provide code to make a direct "Sandbox2" link (and "Sandbox3" or as many as you want) next to "Sandbox" at the top of each page". Thanks, in anticipation - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have posted code there. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I've installed them - Initially only Sandbox 2 worked, not Sandbox 3, but having put content in No2, No3 now works as well - Thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

May I ask for your help again?

       Hello PrimeHunter. I'm doing quite well with the "NO save" editing of my User talk:Richard27182/sandbox. There are certain types of edit testing I prefer to do in my User:Richard27182/sandbox. Should I also avoid saving things there or, since it's not in talkspace, would saving be OK there. And *if* saving there is OK, does it make a difference how many times I save?
       On a completely unrelated subject, I'm considering making a change to an article. It wouldn't be my first change to an article, but it *would* be the first time I remove material as opposed to adding or slightly altering material. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. If you have time and if it wouldn't be inconvenient, perhaps you could take a quick look at it and give me your opinion. The discussion is at Talk:Kinescope#Removal of "fluid" look does not make a great deal of difference????.   As always I appreciate any help or advice you give me.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: It's OK to make lots of test edits at User:Richard27182/sandbox. They are visible to everybody in the page history but nobody will probably bother to look at them. I still recommend you get a second sandbox. If you don't want to use code to add links to your interface then you could just place a link like [[User:Richard27182/sandbox2]] at the top of User:Richard27182/sandbox. Then sandbox2 would be as easy to access as User talk:Richard27182/sandbox. All you have to do to create User:Richard27182/sandbox2 is to click the red link, write anything and save. If you do save more edits at the talk page (for example by accident when trying to preview) then SineBot may sign them since talk pages are meant for discussions with signed posts. There is already a bunch of SineBot signings in the page history [4]. In case you don't know, you can click "Contributions" at the top right of any page to see your edits. It includes links to the pages you have recently edited so that may be another way to quickly find a sandbox. I see somebody else has posted to Talk:Kinescope#Removal of "fluid" look does not make a great deal of difference???? I don't know the topic and am not getting involved. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

      Hello PrimeHunter. Thank you for your advice. I had already thought of doing both your suggestion for creating a second sandbox, and also your suggestion for quick, easy access to it. But one thing was holding me back: I wasn't sure if that would create an actual sandbox or just a regular page. Anyway since you suggested it, I did it and I now have a second sandbox with easy access. But I do have a question about it. I noticed that my original sandbox was created with the code    "{{User sandbox}} <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->"    automatically placed at the beginning, but my new sandbox lacks that code. I'm curious, what is the reason for this? And is my new sandbox just as officially a sandbox as the original?
      As you can see, I stopped saving anything to my user talk page after we discussed that that was a bad thing to do. But I get the feeling that those saves I'd already done count as a sort of "black mark" against me. Is there some way to undo them. Or if not, as time passes will they be considered less and less significant?
      As always I am most grateful for your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: "Sandbox" is just a general term for a test page for experimenting. The name is from Sandbox (software development) and not a wiki invention. There is no concept of an "actual" sandbox. It's always just a regular page and "sandbox" is merely a description of what it's used for. It isn't required to have "sandbox" in the name or {{User sandbox}} in the code but I suggest adding the latter. The software is coded to automatically add it if a user creates the /sandbox page by clicking the "Sandbox" link at top of the interface but it's voluntary whether to keep it there and whether to add it to other user sandbox pages. It's clear from the name that User:Richard27182/sandbox2 is a sandbox and it doesn't get more official than that. If you want I can move User talk:Richard27182/sandbox to the appropriate namespace like User:Richard27182/sandbox3. The page history would move with it so the edits would no longer appear as user talk edits in Special:Contributions/Richard27182. You can also move it yourself but if you haven't moved pages before then something might go wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

      Hello PrimeHunter. Thank you for your reply.
      If I'm reading you correctly then "sandbox" is not so much a technical characteristic of a page, but rather describes what you are doing with a page. And "{{User sandbox}}" is something intended to be placed at the top of a page that will be used as a sandbox; and it's use is recommended but not mandatory. (Don't worry; I'm not going to ask you for all the details about what it does.)
      One part of your reply that I didn't understand is the part about "[moving] User talk:Richard27182/sandbox to the appropriate namespace like User:Richard27182/sandbox3." What is confusing me is I thought there were a limited number of pre-defined namespaces (eg, mainspace, User:, Template:, File:, etc.). It sounds like you're talking about creating a new namespace called User:Richard27182/sandbox3. It's also not clear to me if doing so would in any way affect the way I would go about accessing my sandboxes (or anything else). Until I have a better understanding of these concepts, I'd like to hold off making any such changes.
      One issue that your reply didn't really address is whether or not, over time (months, a year, or more), the saved edits I did in User talk:Richard27182/sandbox would eventually be chalked up as mistakes made by an inexperienced editor at the very beginning of his Wikipedia "career," and more or less "forgiven."
      I do have one new question. I've noticed that you usually begin your replies with {{ping|Richard27182}}. I've looked up "ping" (as it applies to Wikipedia) and I understand it somehow notifies the referenced user that someone has written to or about them. My questions are how (generally) the notification is delivered (eg., is it by email?); and also, would it be appropriate for me to use "ping" when I write something to someone and want to get their attention?
      I realize I've been asking you for lots of help, and I do very much appreciate your taking the time to reply. I'm trying my best to learn all the stuff I need to know on my own through tutorials, looking at the work of other editors, and my own experimentation. But sometimes I come across something that I just can't figure out on my own and need to ask for help from someone more experienced. I hope you don't mind. Thanks again.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: You are reading me correctly about "sandbox". User:Richard27182/sandbox3 was just an example page name. The namespace is only "User" (also called "User:"). User:Richard27182/sandbox3 would behave exactly like User:Richard27182/sandbox2. You could add a link to both at top of User:Richard27182/sandbox if you want easy access to both. If User talk:Richard27182 is not moved and you remain active so the edits fall back at Special:Contributions/Richard27182 then nobody will probably blame you when some months have passed, but I cannot be certain what others will think or say. {{ping|Richard27182}} calls Template:Ping to make a wikilink to your user page. Such a link (regardless how it was made) in a signed post is supposed to cause a notification at the top of your screen, but I don't know how it works on a tablet. Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events has a screenshot for a desktop browser. Only the red "4" is seen at first and clicking it shows the new notifications. All notifications are listed at Special:Notifications. A notification when you are "pinged" requires that you haven't removed the default checkmark under "Web" at "Mention" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. If you also want an email notification then add a checkmark under "Email". You can use the feature yourself and for example write {{ping|PrimeHunter}} to get my attention, but here on my own user talk page it would be pointless since users are automatically notified by any edit to their user talk page. In most other situations it would be appropriate or at least not inappropriate, but it's voluntary and often omitted if the user is expected to be watching the page anyway. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

      Hello PrimeHunter.
      Thank you for writing. I'm afraid I'm still not following the part about moving User talk:Richard27182. I think I need to get more familiar with how the various namespaces work before I'll be able to understand what we'd actually be doing. Unless you feel it's really urgent to move it now, or unless waiting a few weeks or a month would make it too late to have a beneficial effect, I think I'd rather not do anything about it for the time being.
      If I understand what you've told me about "ping," it's something I can use to notify a user who I've mentioned in a posting or message, presumably to let them know there's something they would probably want to read. I understand that how successful it will be depends on various things including their account settings and even the platform they're running. And I understand it would be OK for me to use it myself if the message/posting is somewhere other than that user's talk page (because in that case the notification would be automatic). Did I get all that right? If I did, then I think I'm OK for now. Again, many thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: It's not urgent. You are right about pings, but I thought users with mobile devices would normally also get an indication they had been pinged, like a red number at the top of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

      Hi PrimeHunter. I should have mentioned in my previous message that my tablet does indeed receive the clickable (technically "tappable" or "touchable" in my case) red number at the top of the page when I am pinged. Thank you for all your help and advice; it is very much appreciated.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard 27182 needs a different kind of help.

Hi PrimeHunter. I have been having a "discussion" (if you could call it that) with another editor about a relatively small change I feel needs to be made in an article. The discussion, along with the other editor's position, can be found here: Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)#Incorrect terminology needs correction.. The discussion has been going on for some time now and has quite a lengthy talk section, but the dispute is no closer to being resolved now than when it started. He won't discuss my arguments in favor of the change; instead he just keeps insisting he's right. I believe there is no hope of the two of us working out this problem through simple discussion. And very few people seem to be interested in joining the discussion. Because I'm new at this, I'm not sure what additional steps I could take to help lead to some kind of resolution. Could you please give me some advice. (I'm thinking of the Wikipedia version of an appeal.) Your help and advice are very much apprecited.
Richard27182 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: I haven't examined the discussion. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has general help but it may be time to move on. It seems a minor issue and we have 6818781 other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. Thank you for your advice about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As a matter of fact I've been looking into that, studying how that procedure works and thinking about what I would say if I utilize it. I understand what you're saying about the issue seeming to be minor. And in some ways it may actually be minor. But with all due respect, doesn't that fact apply to Onel5969 just as much as it applies to me? Anyway thanks again for the advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. You are the one wanting to keep discussing it and bring in more editors when your side lacks support so I think it applies more to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thankyou for all your help! Azealia911 talk 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

An old issue revisited

Hello PrimeHunter.
      It's been a while since we've been in touch; I hope you're doing well.
      Some time ago we'd talked about moving some practice editing I'd done in User talk:Richard27182/sandbox over to another location (such as User:Richard27182/whatever). But I was confused and wanted to hold off. But I think I might understand it now. When you talk about moving User talk:Richard27182/sandbox, are you talking about literally moving the page itself or just the contents and edit history of the page, with the actual page remaining where it is. And if that's the case, would it basically be a matter of having that old practice editing appear to have been done in User:Richard27182/whatever? Because if that's the case then I do understand and would be ready to carry it out. Please let me know if my understanding of what would happen is accurate, and if it is, then I'll come up with the name I want to use for the new page and get back to you with it. I really appreciate your taking the time to work with me.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: You are correct. It is literally the page itself which is moved, along with its edit history. It's like renaming a file and only takes a few seconds. The edits will appear to have been made at the new name. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. And thank you for your continued patience with me. I'm still confused. I'd imagined that the way it worked was that the entire contents of the page along with its edit history would relocate to a different page, but the original page itself (at that point completely empty) would remain where it is. But it sounds like you're saying it too moves somewhere and that's what I don't understand. Does the old page become a subpage of something else; or does it remain where it is but no longer have any contents; or does it actually cease to exist? I know I must seem like a terrible bother with all this, but I really want to actually understand exactly what we're doing before we do it.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The old name becomes a redirect to the new name when a page is moved. Administrators (like me) can also choose to move a page without leaving a redirect at the old name. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. Thanks for your quick reply. To be completely honest about it, I still feel I don't really understand how the process works; so for now I think I'd like to just leave things the way they are. But if at some point you feel the move needs to be done, then please let me know and we'll do it whether I understand it or not. Thanks very much; I really appreciate your advice and understanding.
Richard27182 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The move would be a very minor routine operation with no negative consequences but it doesn't need to be done and users are given significant freedom in their own userspace so let's drop it. All the time wasted on this discussion is much worse than the issue being discussed. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter. Sorry. The last thing I wanted to do was upset you. I agree with you, the topic is not that important so I won't mention it again.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Latin phrases (C)

Hi, PrimeHunter, I noticed your edit, Cedere Nescio (I Know Not How To Yield) is the motto of the HMAS Norman. Lotje (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Revdel my IP

Thanks. Use, please remove. And here, too. Duh. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. You could add this to your CSS:

#wpSave {background-color: green;}

It will make a green background on Save page when you are logged in, indicating it is safe to press the button. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Works very nicely. TYVM. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danmark Rundt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Struer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding Dirichlet's Theorem

I see you were the most recent editor of the article on this topic. I question a statement there. It may be, but I don't think it's the case that the related density extension of the Theorem should be regarded as a stronger version of it, historically speaking, rather than merely the simplest version of Chebotarev's Density Theorem or else The Prime Number Theorem for Primes in Arithmetic Progression. Is this a place where the article you edited needs improvement, or am I incorrect?Julzes (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Julzes (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Julzes: Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes was proved in 1737. Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions was proved in 1837. The Prime number theorem was proved in 1896. Do you know when it was proved that for each arithmetic progression with the coprime condition, the sum of reciprocals of the primes diverges? When the start of the lead has only said there are infinitely many primes, and that is the usual statement of Dirichlet's theorem, it becomes a stronger statement that the sum of the reciprocals diverges. But if Dirichlet also proved the latter then the formulation may be misleading. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think you can see that I read what I expected as an error in the article rather than what it says. I haven't any idea about the sum of reciprocals, as far as when the proof regarding that is concerned. I'd guess it may fall (somewhat) naturally out of the original proof, but I can't say I know that. To me, if that's the case it would mean the article is perfectly accurate on what I was but wasn't questioning.Julzes (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that isn't what happened. I 'keyed' on the 2nd half of the sentence on 'stronger versions', then came here with too vague a question. The question is about different relatively prime congruence classes having approximately the same number of primes. It wasn't about the reciprocals at all, but I did fail to be very clear. Now, there may be some less strong versions of this that could be considered a stronger version of the theorem in question. But as no more is said about it, I do question this. But it is definitely a question, as I can only assert the asymptotic equality is more at beyond when the PNT was proved. I can't even recall what led me to look at the article, so please accept my apology for my own lack of clarity.Julzes (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC) No, that's too strong, actually. It may be that the asymptotic densities were not well defined but that the different residue classes were known close to each other. But it would strike me as a little surprising.Julzes (talk)- Calling it 'Dirichlet's Theorem' is probably a bit informal, but habit. As for what I was just saying was too strong, I think my meaning is clear that I can't say something bringing different residue classes' counts of primes close to each other was not proved until after the Prime Number Theorem. It could well be the ratios of such counts were proven to head to 1 or known to be in some bounds first. This may be what the 2nd part not dealing with sums of reciprocals refers to.Julzes (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC) It's not so good as a historical source, since I cannot make out the relationship of Dirichlet's original to it, but the proof given in H. E. Rose's elementary text (Oxford University Press) is to essentially show that the divergent sum of values log(p)/p split over the residue classes relatively prime to some modulus produces the same value asymptotically for each of these classes (actually, with bounded difference between each other and with the sum). This seems to support the article as is, perhaps. I do wonder still about it being under-referenced at that point, at least, if not lacking greater specificity in the article. Sorry my own reference point isn't as good as I'd like. Volume I of Dickson's history may even deal with it, but I failed to locate my copy.Julzes (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Note: The previous was edited to say what I meant. I came back just to remark that the proof may not really have major variants anyway, but I cannot tell from Rose (and don't already know with certainty) if his proof is essentially just a modernization of Dirichlet's original or if it's quite different.Julzes (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Found the volume referred to, but it says too little on the subject (surprised me with the fact Dirichlet apparently sketched a later-completed proof on the infinitude for quadratic forms in 2 variables, though).Julzes (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Another text in my possession, An Invitation To Number Theory by Steven J. Miller and Ramin Takloo-Bighash (Princeton University Press), treats the Theorem as Dirichlet having proved the ratio between counts in different relatively prime congruence classes has limit 1 (the Theorem essentially stated this way). This may actually be the best way to lead the article off if accurate. I see a translation is linked to. I'll look that over. Perhaps we're just in a bad habit of understating the Theorem because that would have been enough to be remarkable at the time.Julzes (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not active enough online to edit here myself these days -- aside from small things when noticed, and I can see you are probably very busy. I will look back here and at the article if I still question the status quo in the future. I can render a pretty good opinion myself over some period of time, and if I conclude there is a problem I'll do something or say more. I lack enough for much of an opinion now. Thanks for your initial response to a poorly developed question.Julzes (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I printed out a copy of Dirichlet's proof in translation finally. It's certainly not the clearest proof available and I haven't digested it yet, but he does state the theorem as we commonly know it (with nothing more than infinitude). He remarks in the intro that the primes in different classes tend to be close in numbers to each other, but scanning the proof I don't think in the initial version of his proof he touches on this. This may, of course, not be the last word on what he proved himself (or what we might plausibly construe as being his theorem on the subject).Julzes (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And since I've yet to digest it fully, I can't say I know a trivial enhancement of his proof wouldn't give a stronger theorem. If so, it seems such an enhancement wasn't of interest to him at the time, it seems safe to say.Julzes (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Composite number

Hey, thanks for your edit there; in my haste late at night, I thought that the IP editor was changing "2*2*3*3" to "2*2*3*2", hence my revert. Wow, I can't believe I did that. Graham87 01:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

An important copyright qusetion

Hi PrimeHunter .
      I'm sorry to be troubling you with yet another question, but this one is tricky and it involves copyrights, and despite extensive searching I have not been able to find the answer. I know that Wikipedia policy prohibits postings that contain links to websites that contain or probably contain illegally uploaded copyrighted material. But what about postings that simply identify the complete URL address of such a site but provide no actual links to the site. For example:

• not this:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=illegally_uploaded_copyrighted_stuff    (is an actual link)
• but this:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=illegally_uploaded_copyrighted_stuff    (is not a link)

Is the second one OK because is is not a link; or would Wikipedia consider it to be practically as unacceptable as the first? (This is not a theoretical question; I have actually encountered this issue in Wikipedia work I've done.) As always I trust and appreciate your guidance and suggestions.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly say that WP:LINKVIO also applies to displaying a url. Answers at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14#Meaning of linking? agree. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. Thank you for your reply. I will avoid displaying and/or linking to copyright-questionable URL's. (It's better to be safe than sorry.) Thanks again.
Richard27182 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Question in two places

Thanks for your help. Sorry for posting twice. Its just that I posted at help desk, and then realized village pump (tech.) might be better place to ask. --Naytz (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Naytz: I also think the tech pump was better. It's not a big deal but you should have posted something like "Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 138#edit count language" at the help desk to prevent users from wasting time if they haven't seen the replies elsewhere, and to prevent fragmentation of discussion. When there were no replies yet you could also just have removed the post, preferably with a link to the new location in the edit summary to help users who may already have been working on a reply. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks --Naytz (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledgement

Hi there PH, from Portugal,

regarding this request from me (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Crashed_links), I have already dropped a (tardy) additional note. Many thanks for your assistance and keep up the good work.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No clue

I have absolutely no clue how this happened. A mis-click, I suppose. Sorry for any inconvenience or confusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2007 Pilot Pen Tennis – Men's Singles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Blake. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Preferences-summary/en-gb

I've reverted your edit at [5]. Probably, this page should be deleted, as it's not needed. Why did you make this change? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the first time I've encountered the 3RR in over 10 years of editing! I'll restart the VP discussion in the morning... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I was going to post here with a link to the archived discussion but I saw Redrose64 had already posted the link and tried to revert you, and I don't have much time now. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_133#.22Your_language_setting_British_English_is_not_recommended..22, also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_115#Erroneous_message_on_Watchlist? Did I miss any important links? I wish I had more time to contribute to Wikipedia, but I'll try to find some time tomorrow to reply. :-( I just don't like to see the unjustified and unnecessary British English bashing, and broken grammar, here. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It comes up every few months at WP:VPT. The most recent is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Why no en-US locale in preferences?. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with changing the wording but I think we should continue to post a warning as long as we have a large number of useful en customizations which are not seen by en-gb users. A MediaWiki option to automatically display en customizations to en-gb users when there is no en-gb customization would have been nice. An admin bot to automatically copy en customizations to en-gb and en-ca would be an option we could implement here but I'm not sure what to think about it. The warning is meant as bashing our current interface and not as commenting on British English in general. I don't know other discussions specifically about the warning at MediaWiki:Preferences-summary/en-gb (and MediaWiki:Preferences-summary/en-ca), but it has only been there since September 2014. The problem with lacking customization for en-gb has been discussed many times, for example in many of the search results on "en-gb" prefix:Wikipedia:Village pump. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Check his edits

I am a new user. This user's edit summary is different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AshSkull27017

Some of this user's edits are reverted by User:Gothicfilm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gothicfilm

You decide who is right. --Action Hero 13:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert

Can you elaborate on your revert? I saw your edit summary but I still don't agree that Template:R to systematic name belongs in Category:Redirects to systematic names because my understanding is that it is a category for the actual redirects that have the template transcluded, not the redirect template itself, which is in Category:Redirect templates. On top of that, Category:Redirects to systematic names is tagged as a container cat, meaning only subcats allowed, by the current definition in the infobox. Please clarify, thanks. Slivicon (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Slivicon: Templates in Category:Redirect templates are generally the first entry in the category they populate (try some examples). It's the same for stub templates as examples from subcategories of Category:Stub categories will show. It's a useful practice for editors and these categories are mainly for editors and not readers. The example in WP:CAT#T is about articles. If a guideline appears to be written with something else in mind and goes against an established practice in an area then the practice generally wins and the guideline may need modification, or clarification about what it covers. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says: "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are pages that serve to document the good practices that are accepted in the Wikipedia community". The container cat tagging of Category:Redirects to systematic names is a separate discussion. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R to systematic name shows that {{R to systematic name}} is currently unused, but uses will populate Category:Redirects to systematic names and that means the redirect template belongs there by convention. Maybe {{R to systematic name}} should be deleted or redirected to {{R to scientific name}}. However, I don't know whether {{R to systematic name}} is sometimes used and somebody cleans up the uses by monitoring Category:Redirects to systematic names, to see whether it should be replaced by {{R to scientific name}} or something else. There are other situations where templates are by practice often in non-template categories. For example, many navboxes with a nearly 1-to-1 correspondence to a category are listed at the end of the category with sort key τ. WP:SORTKEY says: "τ" (tau, displays as "Τ") is for templates. If a reader is interested in a category then they may also be interested in a navbox which often adds some organization or information to the category. I certainly agree with the "Needs wider discussion" response at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Template categorization maintenance. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Sounds to me like WP:CAT#T needs updating by someone like yourself with this knowledge to include the established practices you're talking about. A guideline isn't much help if it leads editors into a brick wall labelled 'established practice'. It's still unclear to me when templates should be in non-template categories and when they should not. 'Established practice' isn't obvious to me, as it's not always clear how to tell the difference between what might be considered established practice and what might just be tons of mistakes waiting to be fixed. Having well-versed editors update these guidelines with their knowledge to help the rest of us would go a long way to saving people wasting their time and efforts. The needs wider discussion post I took as a long-winded way of saying "no", because there was no mention of where to go (if there is anywhere) to have such a discussion. People seem to "just know" a lot of things, would be nice if it was written down for the rest of us :) Slivicon (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:Help desk page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution for unbalanced braces in templates

Continuing our discussion from Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 August 12#Templates with unbalanced brackets and braces, I wanted to get your thoughts on a potential solution. I have used {{Ordinal US Congress Senate}} and 11th United States Congress#Senate 4 as my test case.

You will note in the article code that the table is now bounded by {{Ordinal US Congress Senate|top}} and {{Ordinal US Congress Senate|bottom}}. The top parameter is purely optional to ensure backwards compatibility; leaving the parameter blank, undefined, or defined by an unknown string will transclude the same table header. Only the parameters bottom, end, and foooter will transclude different code, and that code is, of course, |}. In this way we can have obvious bookends in the article code without contributing to the proliferation of {{end}}-clones. (I share Andy's frustration with the redundancy.) I think this is a winner, but my templating experience is limited and I'd like more experienced eyes to review this before I use it and/or take it to the pump for discussion. If you do like it or have only minimal efficiency improvements, your thoughts on the appropriate next step would be welcome. Cheers —jameslucas (" " / +) 14:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@JamesLucas: {{tlx}} supports parameters. Sorry but I don't like it. mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##switch would be simpler than all your #ifeq: {{#switch:{{{1}}}|end|footer|bottom={{!}}}|#default=(code for top)}}. But I still wouldn't support it. Many start templates already have unnamed parameters which would clash with your system (VisualEditor in particular is unhappy with dual-purpose parameters). The template becomes more complicated and error prone, substitution may leave complicated code in articles, some wiki code like table syntax needs non-intuitive replacement in parameters as you have found, fewer editors can understand and edit the template, it becomes harder to evaluate for the servers and contributes to Wikipedia:Template limits for a page. Note also here that if the same template is called multiple times on the same page without parameters then it's only evaluated once and the result is copied. If it's called multiple times with the same parameters then it's evaluated each time. I really don't see the problem with end templates. They are easy to make, understand and use. Some editors may write |} instead of using a template but that's the case for any method. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. #switch is great to know about. I'm not so worried about templates that already have parameters, since this solution, unlike Andy's solution, is implemented on a case-by-case basis—there's no major redirects—so any such table templates could be left alone. I certainly take your point about the substitution pollution, and that may be an inescapable problem. Best —jameslucas (" " / +) 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Example files

I did it because this is what Commons does, and I couldn't imagine a good reason to keep them separate. You having provided a good reason, I'll revert myself. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. Let me know if I've made a mistake, or if there's some other way to improve what I've done. Nyttend (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Just wanted to check in with you about Temporary test page, which you created last week for a technical test. I don't want to step on anybody's toes, so I've temporarily filed it in Category:Temporary maintenance holdings so that it doesn't get mistakenly detected as an uncategorized "article" by our uncategorized articles tools as long as it's needed — but I just wanted to quickly ask you whether it is still needed or not. No worries if it is, but I thought I should ask in case it is ready for deletion and you just forgot about it or something. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I expected the bug to be fixed quickly but phab:T108727 is still open. It doesn't link to Temporary test page so I have redirected it to a somewhat arbitrary target.[6] Then the test can still be found if anyone wants to, but it doesn't have the appearance of a mainspace article. I don't have strong feelings about it and don't mind if it's nominated for deletion (I might say keep though), but I don't think it would be an ordinary WP:G2. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories records

Hi Prime Hunter, thanks for your response to my post at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia records#Most Category record. There was an original numbered list (1st - 5th place), which had "List of German Monarchs in 1918" listed in 5th place! I've just added a few more categories, which should put this list-article in first place. Will this be listed automatically? Ta Steve. User:Stephen2nd

@Stephen2nd: I haven't seen a 1st - 5th place list. Wikipedia:Wikipedia records is updated manually. Special pages like Special:MostCategories are either updated automatically or not at all (unless the developers activate something). Since February it has apparently been not at all for this page. It cannot be updated by editors. But nearly all categories on List of German monarchs in 1918 are inappropriate. We don't categorize lists by properties of individual entries. Compare to the much longer List of state leaders in 1918 or even longer List of state leaders in 2014. They are only in three categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I first created this article in Oct 2012, I probably saw the 1 - 5 list pre Feb 2015, but I assure you the 1 - 5 listing was there, (I saw it!) and therefore it must have been removed. As such, the categories in Churchill and List of German monarchs in 1918, were compatible then. I do not understand your statement "But nearly all categories on List of German monarchs in 1918 are inappropriate. We don't categorize lists by properties of individual entries." With reference the missing 1 - 5 listing, (Was/is there a change of Wiki-policy? was it appropriate then, but not now?) How are the categories in the List of German Monarchs in 1918 different from the Churchill entries? If I changed the Article name to Kaiser Reich 1918, would this make any difference. Regards Steve. User:Stephen2nd

Obama template

Hi. Good to meet you. Red links on templates are now accepted (new guideline rules) if the page is likely to be written by someone soon. It's a way of attracting writers to work up an article. The template had two red-linked speeches, and someone wrote up a page for the Selma 50th anniversary speech after it was red-linked for a few weeks. The Amazing Grace speech seems to be another one that Obama will be remembered for (he doesn't have that many during his presidency). I don't know how long having a red-link up is appropriate, maybe two months is getting to the end of that limit, although I don't think anyone has discussed a time period like that (there are rules and regs being discussed everywhere here). That's why I've done the revert, many editors do not know that the guidelines have changed and the reason for the change. Thanks again, and maybe we should have a discussion of this on the talk page if you still don't think it's a good edit. Randy Kryn 4:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the red link after thinking about it. It has been there for over two months and not written, and that may be enough on a highly viewed template. Some author's templates have had numerous red links on them for years, so it might be a good change in the guidelines to talk about "length of time for red links on templates". Thanks for putting my attention on this. Randy Kryn 12:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was planning to start a discussion on the talk page. For systematic links like each book or each State of the Union a red link would be sensible but not for one of many unrelated speeches. I think the link should not have been added in the first place and I don't think length of time for red links should generally be a guideline factor but for a news event like a speech, if no article is made quickly then it may never happen. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Good points, a reason not to add a questionable red link. The best thing that came out of it was that an article was written for one of the two red links, a fairly extensive article and a good summary of both the event and Obama's speech at the 50th anniversary of the Selma march. The 'Amazing Grace' speech, which I found awkward in getting to the money-shot - before Obama sang "Amazing Grace" he seemed to me to overlean on pointing the audience to the word "grace". But one of the two or three points of historical nature delivered of the topic was that it was the first time an American president just burst out into song in the middle of a speech. I still think it's a "template worthy" event, and thus red-linkable. But on templates like this, which likely are more visible than almost any other on the site, two months without someone putting up a page does seem like an outward limit. I personally wouldn't revert if someone else puts it back, it's still a good topic for an article. I'd do it but I'd just put up a stub and not give the subject it's due, although a stub page would at least gets it started. But the overall question could make a good topic at the template guideline talk page, where guidelines for red link use on templates considerably expanded recently. Best of both worlds, this result. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fibonacci primes

Hello, can you take a look at the Fibonacci primes talk page and tell me what you think about the proposed update to the definition.

Thank you. Primedivine (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI about User:Tortle

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by User:Tortle. Thank you. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Paranoid feeling

I'm in some sort of a dispute with a new user (Thad caldwell) on a Serena Williams Battle of the Sexes section. The new editor has been editing since July 11 2015 with every edit seemingly Serena Williams related. Not surprising since Serena has a chance at a Grand Slam. New editors come out of the woodwork. But we also have editor 97.82.223.215 making the same sort of edits overlapping in the "Comeback Queen" and "Karsten Braasch exhibition" conversations on the Serena Williams talk page. And just now a first post user (TexanGal86) has injected herself into the conversation siding with Mr Caldwell. It's Very suspicious to me. Mr Caldwell started a DRN in the dispute asking for third party help (which has seemingly been denied), so I don't want to confront him about the possibility of multiple sockpuppeting. Could you or another administrator take a look and give thoughts as to how to proceed? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't want to get involved in it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No prob... I'll try another admin. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Broke the Village Pump for Myself

Have managed to break the technical village pump for myself with this edit - because I can't work captchas, I can't edit it so that the tags are fixed, which are preventing me from posting further on that page (due to the CAPTCHA problem). Could you please close the <ref> tag for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I see it has been fixed. You did the same here. I have placed your <ref> here in <nowiki>...</nowiki>. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	This Danish guy is a genius! God bless him. Amir R. Pourkashef 10:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A very important RfC question

Hi PrimeHunter.  I need help answering a question about RfC's. I'm familiar with starting RfC's about ordinary articles. But what about starting an RfC about something like MOS:IDENTITY? Are pages or sections of pages such as that appropriate to start an RfC on. And if such an RfC were to be opened, are there any special considerations or rules or restrictions that would need to be observed? Or could one just conduct an RfC on that just like any other? And if the answer is "yes," then would it be started on the article's talk page just like any other RfC? And could it be publicized just like any other RfC? Thank you for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: WP:RFC starts: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content." If you want an RfC about the content of MOS:IDENTITY on the talk page of the guideline then I don't see why anything would be different from an RfC about an article. But MOS:IDENTITY is already under discussion there. Are you sure you want to start an RfC and not contribute to the existing discussion? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter.  That does sound like good advice: rather than rushing into starting an RfC on the subject, I'll first participate in the ongoing discussion. And if and when the time comes to start an RfC on the Manual of Style, I understand now that it would work pretty much like any other RfC. Thank you for your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Message test worked

Yes, The messages badge triggered. Thank you for the test. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A question about the "charas" RfC

Hi PrimeHunter .  I have a question about the RfC about charas (Talk:Charas/Archives/2020/February#RfC: Is the detailed methods of manufacturing charas relevant?). Several days ago its RfC template was automatically removed (after the normal 30 days). I didn't see anything happening to that section of the talk page after that, so I posted a message there asking how people felt about requesting a formal closure. But even though I pinged everyone involved, no one has responded. I'm wondering if I did something inappropriate; or if something has occurred concerning that RfC that I'm unaware of. Thank you for your helping me to better understand this whole RfC process.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: Pings must be signed in the same edit to work per Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events, so [7] had no effect. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter.
 Thank you for answering that for me. I know I would never have figured that out myself. To rectify it I've redacted my original posting and then reposted the whole thing all at once (pings, message, and signature). Hopefully everyone will get the pings this time, although by now I would imagine most of the interest in the RfC has probably been lost.
 Concerning the other topic we recently discussed (the MOS:IDENTITY issue), I have taken your advice and am participating in the ongoing discussion, rather than rushing right into an RfC. (Although it's possible I may eventually open one).
 As always thank you for your help and guidance.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I need the advice of an administrator

Hi PrimeHunter.  I need the advice of an administrator. (For the sake of full disclosure, I am also checking with one or two other administrators.) I'm currently involved in a discussion ( Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Clarification on MOS:IDENTITY proposal ). We are discussing having a proposal on the Village Pump, and we've run into an issue concerning "canvassing." There was a very similar RfC not long ago, and those editors demonstrated a clear preference for one opinion. Some of the editors in the current discussion want to notify all the editors who participated in that past RfC of the new Village Pump proposal. The question is:  Would notifying those editors constitute "canvassing" since, even though some of those editors held the opposing view, the editors as a group are indeed known to have a clear preference on the subject. It seems to me that this action would certainly result in stacking the deck in favor of one side of the issue. What would be the Wikipedia-correct thing to do?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: I haven't read the long discussion but will just note that Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification includes: "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, PrimeHunter. I've written a lengthy piece on the use of ranges of related parameters in tables, a piece that I thought might go on a Help:Table page, though I don't know which one, if any. Is there some way I can send it to you privately for your comments, suggestions, or recommendations before I publish it anywhere (including even on this page) or nowhere? Thanks. --Wikifan2744 (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wikifan2744: My website [8] has an email address. If you enable mail at Special:Preferences then you can also send mail to other users with email enabled without knowing their address. Your own address is shown to the recipient. I can look at it but make no promises on the amount of comment. It's more common to work on such things in userspace like User:Wikifan2744/sandbox or User:Wikifan2744/Tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016 WTA Tour

Template:2016 WTA Tour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 333-blue 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Notes and Records of the Royal Society, March 2012 cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Notes and Records of the Royal Society, March 2012 cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A non urgent question

Hi PrimeHunter.  This is not at all urgent. But whenever you get the chance, please check *this* and let me know what you think. Am I missing something or ignorant of something I should know? Or would it be OK for me to add that information to the article?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: Just add it. It's a low profile article with around 100 monthly views and 4 watchers. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

You deserve a treat for your deft handling of the question about "Wikipedia appears to be overrun by Progressives" at the Teahouse. Thanks for throwing yourself on that grenade so none of the rest of us had to. — GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikilinks stripped in MediaWiki:Cite error references duplicate key

Yeah, crap, that's weird. Sorry about the mess, I'll look into it tomorrow. Matma Rex talk 01:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

phab:T116149. Matma Rex talk 11:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Eugh, sorry, it works now again. It was fixed on 1.27.0-wmf.2 (the version en.wp was running until today), but not 1.27.0-wmf.3 (the version it is running today). Matma Rex talk 22:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Oporto Open tournaments

Template:Oporto Open tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coming navbox

Template:Coming navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

References defined multiple times.

Hey PrimeHunter I could do with some help. I have been extremely busy with the "references defined multiple times" backlog, but I have skipped some as being too problematic to deal with as I couldn't figure them out. However on closer inspection, I'm wondering if an article that contains sections which have been transcluded from elsewhere gives an issue such that the software identifies non visible references from the transcluded section as being multiple references? Example the reference “Westfall” in this article.? Regards CV9933 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: Yes, it's transclusion of ref name "Westfall" from another article. If you click the "Edit" tab at Dextroamphetamine then the bottom of the window shows "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page". You may have to click that text to see the list which starts with Amphetamine and FOSB. Editing those articles shows "Westfall" in Amphetamine. A check shows that it's the same source with a little different wording so a possible solution is to replace the "Westfall" definition in Dextroamphetamine by <ref name="Westfall" /> to invoke the transcluded definition. It's a potentially unstable solution if the definition in Amphetamine later changes name or is removed or no longer transcluded. An alternative solution would be to rename all "Westfall" in Dextroamphetamine to something else and accept that the same source will be listed twice in the references section. A third solution would be to make the two definitions identical but I don't recommend that. Any later change to one of the definitions would bring back the error message. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, it's really appreciated, re-naming sounds sensible I'll go with that, Regards. CV9933 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Quick question for you. - Another editor performed this edit after I had completed fixing a duplicate citation. The deprecated cite didn't show as an error when I clicked preview before saving my edit, so am I missing something? Is it because I do my edits manually and this error only shows up with a tool? Regards CV9933 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: Users are always notified when you post to their talk page. There is no need to use ping there. If you enable "Show hidden categories" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering then Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters is displayed on [9]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. CV9933 (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coming navbox

Template:Coming navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2010 ITF Women's Circuit

Template:2010 ITF Women's Circuit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Tank shenanagins

Hi Hunter,

My apologies for never replying to your inquiries about my sources over a year ago. They were from a personal conversation with an author so I merely stated his website as a source... Anyways I have noticed that someone has been going through WW2 tank articles and changing the armour thicknesses from their actual armour thicknesses to their LOS thicknesses and has been attempting to state the caliber of round that each plate can receive without failing. Would you be interested in helping me fix these? I have found two so far.

Sincerely,

Shinhoto Shinhoto (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Shinhoto: Wikipedia:Verifiability requires reliable, published sources others can examine. Wikipedia content must not be based on personal conversations. I don't know much about tanks and will not edit the articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your technical expertise

Hi PrimeHunter, W.carter recommended (here) that I ask your advice about a user award template I created: User:GrammarFascist/Hilarious Username. I think I've got everything looking and working the way I want, but if you can see any ways to improve the code and/or documentation, I'd appreciate your input. I was also hoping there might be a way to put code into the template so that it would automatically add "(Tag: wikilove)" and/or "new WikiLove message" to the edit summary the way using 'automated' WikiLove awards does... but if there is, I don't even know where to begin looking for the right code to crib from. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I don't know a way to add a template to a non-fixed page with an automatic edit summary. You can made it an automated WikiLove award for your own account with this in your common JavaScript. I tested it here where I manually added "This is a test." in front of the prefilled message. It automatically gets the WikiLove tag and "new WikiLove message" in the edit summary. The message seems too specialized to make part of WikiLove for all users in MediaWiki:WikiLove.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, that looks great, thank you so much! I think I follow how to use it; I'll come back and ask questions if there's anything I can't figure out. I hadn't realized it would be necessary to edit the main MediaWiki:WikiLove.js code/page for it to add the WikiLove tag for everyone, and I'll agree that it's not an award that would be given out so often as to make adding it there justifiable. By definition it would only be applicable to a rather small subset of editors, after all. Thanks again for your coding wizardry! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nested references with identical definitions

Hmm, interesting. I filed this as phab:T118603, with a bit of explanation why it happens, but I'm not sure if this issue is fixable :/ As a workaround, I'd suggest writing out the {{sfn}} as <ref name=...>{{harvnb}}</ref> (or {{#tag:ref}}), so that you can later use <ref name=... /> and avoid the duplicate check entirely:

<ref name="Buna">Advance to Buna</ref>
{{#tag:ref|{{harvnb|Blakeley|1956}}. Cited in Advance to Buna.<ref name=Buna />|name=Blakeley1956}}
<ref name=Blakeley1956 />
<references />

(Or just not nesting references, blergh.) Matma Rex talk 21:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Signature question 2

You helped me with a question I asked here, and now I wonder if you'd be willing to help with something similar. Is there any way to get around the character limit in the signature box within preferences? I wanted to add additional font/color formatting, but doing so pushes me a few characters beyond the limit. I've been curious if I could create a subpage and have my signature itself transclude it (subst-ed, of course), and whether that would even be allowed. If it's safe, would that work if the page also includes an independent timestamp template? —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@KarasuGamma: WP:SIGLEN does not allow to violate the length limit by using substitution. If you post the wanted signature then I can see if I can shorten it without changing the rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and offer. I've worked something out for myself that's precisely at the character limit. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 04:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox equestrian event

Hi, I launched the infobox here. It's working except the parameters are not exactly appearing in the finished infobox. I thought it would look like this:

Sponsors Various

For example, but it's not appearing that way. Thanks for all your help and I'm sorry to bother you again. I realize now I probably should have started editing templates by making a userbox or something, but I want to do things that are needed by the community and improve articles, so I wanted to make an infobox. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Does [10] help understand how label-data pairs work? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Temporary test page listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Temporary test page. Since you had some involvement with the Temporary test page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help on the equestrian event infobox. ☺ It's exactly what I wanted now. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my Village Pump question

You said: EasyTimeline syntax#DateFormat says formats with day and month are not allowed before 1800, but year-only can be -9999 to 9999. If this doesn't help then please post the attempted code. User:PrimeHunter 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. User:HowardMorland 02:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC) HowardMorland (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, PrimeHunter. You have new messages at User_talk:Cacycle/wikEd.
Message added 05:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—danhash (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

An RfC question

Hi PrimeHunter.  Would you please answer a question for me. Is it permissible, in an RfC, to have the RfC question include one or two permanent URL links (ie, [[Special:Permalink/314159265|article name]] to previous version(s) of the article, assuming there is a good reason for doing so? Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: That is OK. Make it clear before clicking the link that it's an old version. A url like this version is also OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.  Richard27182 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Cannot edit in VE

I reply to your post in the disscussion, which was allready archived.

• Special:Contributions/Juandev shows two VE edits three minutes before posting here. How did you make them? --> Well, I had to open them in the normal edit and than switch to VisualEditor.
• If your problem is at another wiki or a specific page then please name it. --> No, my problem is on en.wp and I dont think it is related to a specific page.
• Also name your browser. --> My browser is FF 42.0, but I have the same problem in Chrome
• Does it work when you are logged out? --> yes
• When you say nothing happens, do you mean the url in the browser address bar doesn't change and there are no signs the browser is trying to load something? --> I dont know if URL changes, I was not paying attention to it. Basically, you can wait 10 minutes and VE is not loaing.--Juandev (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems in Firefox 42.0 and Chrome 47.0.2526.73 on Windows Vista. Does VE work at other wikis like simple:Example? How about the alternative account mentioned at User:Juandev? Maybe it hasn't changed a lot of preferences, and it has no personal JavaScript. The VE Edit tab on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example links to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example&veaction=edit. When I click the tab my address bar changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example?veaction=edit. Does that happen? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: Your Comments: Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Your Comments: The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Your Comments: Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: Your Comments: Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I got your email. Sorry for sending this to you. GamerPro64 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC) {{clear}}

File:The Artist's Possessions, F.W. Lock, Montreal, 1848.jpg

Thank you, Jens (aka Prime Hunter). I followed your instruction and the copy and paste of File:The Artist's Possessions, F.W. Lock, Montreal, 1848.jpg worked. My image is now in my article on Frederick William Lock. Thank you. Barton Ellison 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartonellison (talk • contribs)

A question about promoting RfC's

Hi PrimeHunter.
 I have a question that I am relatively anxious to find the answer to. Is it permissible for an editor to advertise⁄promote an active RfC on the Village Pump if the editor is not the editor who started the RfC, but simply an editor who joined the discussion some time after the RfC was started? And if the answer is "yes," is it required to obtain consensus for such promotion, or may the editor just go ahead and do it? (Of course this assumes that the RfC is not already being promoted on the VP, and it goes without saying that the promotion must be completely neutral and totally without bias.)
 Thank you. I really appreciate your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: I would say it depends on factors like the relevance to the chosen Village Pump page and the stage and importance of the RfC. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Danish Cup

I see you are Danish, and I was wondering if you want and if you have time to create more seasons in Danish Cup - there are many redlinks and many seasons missing ! I do the same for my country, see : Cupa Romaniei. Thank you my friend!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not be spending time on that. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not? You can take it easy, one per week is good! In one day someone will have to do it!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

We are all volunteers. I prefer to work on other things. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure issue

Hi PrimeHunter, hope you had a good winter solstice! Someone dropped by on IRC who had managed to get stuck in a Wikipedia Adventure loop. I looked through phab and the known bugs and couldn't find anything - I've asked them to detail their issue here (which they may or may not have done yet). Would you mind having a look? Thanks -- samtar ^whisper 13:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have posted to User talk:BethJaneToren. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year PrimeHunter!

Happy New Year!

PrimeHunter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.