User talk:Primefac

Hello Primefac. I am writing to you hear your opinion on PrimeBOT reordering banners as it did in Special:Diff/1330376050 and Special:Diff/1330388380, in a way which is less consistent with WP:TALKORDER. It appears to have its preferences for order, and these preferences do not seem to match TALKORDER. Is this due to some limitation or was it simply never designed with TALKORDER in mind? I partially reverted the first of those two diffs. —Alalch E. 19:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I suspect, much like this discussion from late last year, that this is an AWB issue (though that issue was because I was using an outdated AWB build, which was rectified by 31 Dec). I have a funny feeling that changes made to TALKORDER are happening much more frequently than changes to AWB's builds. Primefac (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Right, an AWB issue. I'll think about investigating this a little and bringing it up with ... AWB people. —Alalch E. 14:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:WebGap? This user has posted on their user talk page that they're a digital agency that and has been given permission to update the article Amarula. I've been trying for a couple of months to explain WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY to them, but they keep putting it off for some reason. They say they understand what Wikipedia wants them to do and seem to have no problem with it; however, they always come back to try and directly edit again the article again. Is what they've declared so far is sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes or do the need to be more specific and actually name their employer? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Paid editing is one thing, sharing an account is another. I've blocked them until they can sort the latter part out. Primefac (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. Perhaps they'll sort things out now. FWIW, I just assumed they were speaking about themselves using "we"; It didn't cross my mind that the account might be shared. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You beat me by about 20 seconds... Thank you. Went to fix it then was confused to find it was already fixed. Appreciate it! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Heh, just happened to have it pop in my feed right as I was checking new changes. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts Nine years! ...

Precious

Nine years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Good day! I was curious about something I think you did but can't be sure of because I don't know how it works.

I'm a big contributor to this article and monitor it for vandalism, which has happened on occasion. Checking it today, I noticed that all edits prior to your recent contributions and going back to May '24 have been "suppressed". I'm curious if you did this and/or have any insight into why it was done - I've never seen that happen and so am curious what goes into that decision. After looking into reasons an article's history may be suppressed, I figure it had something to do with the insertion of references to legal documents. It would be good to know in case it resulted from something I did that I can avoid in the future.

Thank you for your assistance and contributions! Mangocove (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You have figured correctly; some of the text you added was not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia itself. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

i just want to yap and do everything wrong ok Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Nerd-in-history, did you read through the links I sent you? I removed that content for a good reason. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

sorry dude it didnt even told me but ok i guess Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

oh my god im so sorry my brain just clicked in and i realise what i just did, Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to double-check. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit removed the utm_* but left the gad_*. DMacks (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ugh. I think I need to re-code the bot, because it seems like every time I run it there are new sets of trackers that weren't there before... thanks. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for wrangling da bot! DMacks (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Primefac. I'm some procedural concerns about how you blocked Eastmain following this SPI. Admins are required to provide a clear and specific reason why a user was blocked. In this case, the block log refers to the SPI. The SPI says nothing beyond "a connection" and "Technically indistinguishable", neither of which is a blockable offense on its own. Another issue is described as "unrelated"; nowhere is this marked as a CU block.

I assume that something you saw in your analysis of these accounts' behaviors or the CheckUser data justified the course of action you took, but as I cannot read your mind and do not have access to that data, I can't be sure. The subsequent LLM issues raised arguably make this a case of avoiding scrutiny, which could justify the block retroactively, but normally we expect admins to state a reason for their blocks up front. Please be mindful of how this appears to outside observers, like myself, and especially how this appears to the blocked user, whose initial appeal expressed frustration at exactly this issue.

A secondary concern, not grounded in policy but in community practice, is that we normally do not block editors indefinitely for a first-time sockpuppetry violation; normally the block on the "master" account ranges from a week to a month. I was surprised to see that the block of Eastmain was indefinite. Depending on the reason, an indef of the master may be justified, but again, I don't have the reason for the block.

Apologies if this comes across as harsh or overly critical; I only intend it as a gentle reminder of what's expected of us as admins, something I think we all could use from time to time. Toadspike [Talk] 13:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, you have some fair points. I've also thought about a few other ways this could have been achieved more reasonably, so consider this "lesson learned". Primefac (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Any chance I can get you to do a PrimeBOT run on Category:Pages using infobox school with deprecated parameters (0)? Still populating, but would be awesome to get your assistance with this one as it could involve over 40,000 pages. Hope you are well! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there anything you need from me to facilitate this or is the code at the bottom of {{Infobox school}} sufficient? Let me know what I can do to expedite this one. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I will let you know if I run into any issues. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Any chance you've had a chance to look at this? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Not yet; was a big cat and I wanted to make sure it populated, then I got sidetracked with IRL stuff this week. It's still pretty much at the top of my list. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds great! I know how busy real life can get. Also, I know there is no deadline... Just looking forward to cleaning up this Infobox. Appreciate your help as always! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My edit summary got clipped... I have reverted Special:Diff/1339531776. I am not in favor of including blanks in unknown parameter checks, but in deprecated param checks it is different. You are about to do a bot run to clean up all parameters. Why not do the blanks as well? Leaving the blanks just invites a dump of unknown parameters down the road when editors come along and fill in the unfixed parameters that remain. I've seen this happen literally thousands of times... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The very short answer is because I do not like making a truly-cosmetic edit.

The general (if begrudging) consensus is that updating parameter names to avoid a hidden maintenance category – even if it means a "visually" cosmetic edit – is acceptable. For tasks like mine where I am usually doing exactly this, and at scale, I want to avoid as many "unnecessary bot edits" as possible (i.e. make an effort to appease those who are in the minority of said general consensus). Changing |foo bar=baz to |foo_bar=baz is a change that will affect a category regardless of whether |ignoreblank=yes. Replacing/removing a blank |foo bar= is only sometimes a non-cosmetic edit, and so I prefer not to do them.

Now, for this run and for this template, I will make an exception, because there are 71 parameters that are being deprecated, and on the balance of probability at least one of those should have a value to it (when I started running the task yesterday I think I counted a little less than 1% with all-blanks). I was also a few hundred edits into the run when I noticed, and the cat will likely not refresh completely until after the proposed run was done anyway.

I won't go on too much of a ramble about my thoughts about "blank wrong parameters leads to more unknowns", but from my own experience I haven't seen that happen (they also generally happen with a frequency low enough to clean up pretty easily). Primefac (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your stance on not making purely cosmetic edits. That is totally valid. Also appreciate your willingness to make an exception this time. If you wish to discuss the blank wrong parameters leads to more unknowns at any point, I'm happy to go into more detail on that and share my experiences on the issue. For now though I guess we can agree to just have a difference point of view on that issue.

In any event, thank you as always for the bot run you are doing. It is greatly appreciated! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious: if only 1% of articles in the category have all blanks, maybe the very standard practice of ignoring blanks is the right thing to do. The bot would edit 99% of articles with undesirable parameter names, removing or fixing every undesirable parameter, whether it is empty or populated. That would surely achieve the goal without making editors grumpy. There is a small but loud contingent of editors who object loudly to truly cosmetic bot edits like only removing a bunch of empty parameters. The tiny handful of left-behind unsupported parameters that might conceivably be filled in later by clueless editors will (a) not display anything in the infobox and (b) assign the unknown parameter category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

So the issue here, in a nutshell, is that there are A LOT of editors (particularly new editors) who will see |some param= and just fill it in with a value assuming it will work and not realizing that the param is actually supposed to be |some_param= (with the underscore). By not repairing those parameters, it is making more work down the road...

1. New editors (particularly temp accounts who have never made a single edit) come to a page to update 1 value and just assume that the existing code will work.
2. When it doesn't work, yes it populates a maintenance category but that process relies on someone (usually myself or User:Phuzion who also monitors unknown param categories) to come along and fix the mistake.

For the record, every day I come across a unknown parameters that were at one point valid parameters, but were at some point either removed entirely or were changed to a different value (underscore added, capitalization changed, etc.) But let me be clear, this is not a theoretical problem... I personally see it happen all the time. I'm happy to share diffs of this moving forward when it happens next (would be impossible to go back through my edit history to find specific diffs from the past).

When we are doing a mass cleanup like we are doing with {{Infobox school}}, I think it makes sense to clean up all the parameters, whether they are used or not. Now yes, there will be some purely cosmetic edits. But the vast majority of them are used.

I don't think there is any objection to the cleanup we are trying to achieve with removing these deprecated parameters, the disagreement seems be to solely on whether to clean up the deprecated parameters that are currently not used on a particular page.

My argument boils down to if we are going to clean up the ones that are used anyway, why not also do the ones that are unused at the same time to avoid the issues I mentioned above.

I will also mention that I have done this process to dozens of infoboxes. {{Infobox school}} is unique because of its high use count and thats why I've asked for a PrimeBOT run. But I have easily done 30-40,000 JWB edits fixing deprecated parameters and have not gotten a single complaint about COSMETICEDITS.

Just some of my thoughts. Respect both of you tremendously by the way, just have a different view in this case... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

FYI Primefac your edit summary is broken... Not a big deal but check the link on this diff for example... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/1339564077#Parameter_cleanup) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Whoops... I had been doing a lot of prefix searching just before that, AWB crashed and I didn't have the old edit summary saved, and I guess my fingers were faster than my brain. I always check to make sure the edit summary looks good, didn't think to check the link itself this time since it was just a restart! Primefac (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

my fingers were faster than my brain... Been there! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a reminder that you absolutely rock! Thanks for the bot run!!! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jonesey and Primefac: For the record, here is an example that just popped up of what I was talking about, ironically also {{infobox school}}. |mascot image= was long ago deprecated, but not removed from all uses (I should have asked for it to be included included in the recent bot run PrimeBOT did). So someone assumed it would still work, thus populating the unknown param category. Now not implying this is some disasterous problem, but it is why when we are doing a mass clean up of deprecated parameters, I push for cleaning up ALL uses, even those that are blank. This sort of issue happens for me dozens of times a day. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion? I had originally considering not responding at all, since this is not atypical of interactions between this editor and me. If I am out of line, then perhaps I should not be contributing to this template. —Quondum 14:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to reply, as you were the one to set the values, but I haven't had a chance yet to read through your reply or subsequent discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I had engaged in debate, but as you might notice, this editor is just reasserting their perspective (that articles must blindly reflect the references used, as opposed to that reliable sources should be found to support the chosen content, keeping in mind context), with no interest in considering the reasoning that is presented; I find this recurrent behaviour frustrating. You'll notice that they proceeded without any support or consensus in a contested case. There is no point replying further, so I will not. Never mind; I tend to simply step away from anything where this editor becomes assertive/obstinate, which now includes regular updates of the template as the new CODATA values are published. —Quondum 12:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I still haven't had a good chance to read through the discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

Hi Primefac! I was wondering if you'd be able to knock out a quick parameter removal run on Category:Pages using infobox football tournament season with unknown parameters, removing |defending champions= which was removed per discussion. phuzion (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Either someone's already working on it or the cat is still populating; I only see ~400 pages which is a bit small for my bot. I'll check it out this weekend and see if the numbers have grown any. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it was ~2600 last I checked. Someone must be working on it, thanks anyways! phuzion (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

that was me. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:Infobox fictional location

Primefac (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, can you delete these three #REDIRECT pages that I unintentionally created, please. These fights are actually at Winnipeg, not Las Vegas.

• UFC Vegas 116
• UFC Vegas: Burns vs. Malott
• UFC Vegas 116: Burns vs. Malott

Thanks! --Discographer (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm doing some work on astronomy units formatting templates. I would need to use {{So}} as a shorthand for the unit Solar constant, which according to the IAU standard should be written as S_☉, similar to how we already have {{Lo}} as a shortcut for {{Solar luminosity}} L_☉. {{So}} currently redirects to {{Uw-soablock}}. Is it okay for me to repurpose it? Slovborg (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It would probably be best to start a talk page discussion; the base template is used a ton but with it being a subst-only there's no way to tell how many people use the redirect as a shortcut. If you don't get much participation then it might have to go to WP:RFD, but start with the talk page first. Primefac (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't really think about that. Slovborg (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, just letting you know that in edits by your bot like this one to Mornington Secondary College, the words "a discussion" link to Special:PrefixIndex/1339564077#Parameter_cleanup, when they should link to Special:Permalink/1339564077#Parameter_cleanup. Graham87 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Ooft, good catch. Primefac (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah looks good now, thanks. And I also made a mistake in my above message ... I should've linked to this edit. Graham87 (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for all you do. I am logged in and trying to create an account for an event attendee on Special:CreateAccount but was blocked. The block will expire 2032, which is not allowing me continue with account creation even after being logged in. I have refreshed, logged in but to no avail. Kindly remove the block so I can continue as I did not make any form of disruptive edits. Thanks and hoping to hear from you soon.-- Olugold (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Your rights as an event coordinator should allow you to create accounts despite the rangeblock, but since that does not appear to be the case I have granted your account IPBE temporarily, hopefully this will help. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure you were aware of the explosion of Category:Pages using infobox rugby biography with unknown parameters (0). One of many categories I monitor. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Cause and effect, my friend. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate you cleaning up the category! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem. Figure it was the least I could do after populating it ;-) Primefac (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Haha! Keep up the good work! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, There are problem in my AFCH script, can't load other declining reasons. Namita Tudu (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "other declining reasons". What are you seeing, and what did you do right before reaching that point? Primefac (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

When I open a draft through the AFCH script and click on the “Decline” option, I am only able to see a limited set of declining reasons. The full list does not load, and I am unable to select other standard decline reasons that are usually available. Namita Tudu (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Has this always happened or is a recent thing? If it's a recent thing, have you made any changes to your Preferences, switched browsers, or anything like that? Primefac (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue has been happening for the last 1–2 days. Before that, everything was working normally. After noticing the problem, I tried switching browsers to see if that would fix it, but the issue still persists. I have not made any changes to my Preferences, enabled or disabled any scripts. Namita Tudu (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Novem Linguae, any thoughts? Primefac (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm unable to reproduce. Would be helpful to get a screenshot, and an exact article to test, and a list of a couple of decline reasons that are included, and a list of a couple decline reasons that are missing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Resolved The issue is no longer occurring. Everything seems to be working properly now. Namita Tudu (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

(Sorry, this is a machine translation) Did you think it was a prank? Please restore the note page above. I'll add a reply. --Triglav (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think the TFD was closed in error, you are welcome to request a review of the close at WP:DRV, but it looks like a pretty solid consensus to delete the template. If you need any of the content from either the template or its talk, I am willing to get you a copy of it. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The process seems complicated. I think I said something like "feel free to use it," so I won't comment any further. I'm sorry to have taken up your time.--Triglav (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I could possibly be misinterpreting your request. If you need the content of the template (or the talk page) in order to implement a merge/update of the infobox river template, I'm happy to supply that. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. This bot has been trouble since day one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I honestly forgot to keep tabs on it, otherwise I would have shut it down a long time ago, especially when the off-task editing started. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for following up this time. I support whatever action you can take to stop this pattern of mess-making. I don't know if this is a CIR situation or something else, but it's not good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hi, can I ask your opinion whether (like the "Soldier F" section in Bloody Sunday (1972)) it is appropriate to move a section into a new article? I am referring to the "Politics and political views" bit which Talk suggests is too large now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov Naturally, chess takes up the bulk of this Good Article, as you'd expect, but what do you think of the relative size of the 'Politics' bit? Finally, what would the syntax be for transcluding this putative new article in the main Kasparov article at this place: I assume it's similar to what's in the BS article but would be grateful if you'd let me know what to put at the top of that section if/when I move it? Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Section sizes in Garry Kasparov More information Section name, Byte count ... Section size for Garry Kasparov (40 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 11,409 11,409 443 443 Early life 6,543 8,629 169 296 Introduction to chess 2,086 2,086 127 127 Chess career 17 57,061 0 3,108 Rising up the ranks 8,487 8,487 465 465 1984–1985 world championship 6,167 6,167 321 321 World champion 6,590 6,590 424 424 Break with and ejection from FIDE 11,236 11,236 549 549 Losing the title and aftermath 4,291 4,291 340 340 Retirement from regular competitive chess 2,274 2,274 137 137 Post-retirement chess 17,999 17,999 872 872 Olympiads and major team events 3,600 3,600 129 129 Assessment and legacy 9,045 23,616 336 992 Playing style 5,777 5,777 216 216 Contributions to opening theory 2,046 2,046 157 157 Chess rating 1,765 1,765 140 140 Other achievements 2,720 2,720 143 143 Notable games 2,263 2,263 0 0 Chess and computers 14,592 15,173 588 628 Artificial intelligence 581 581 40 40 Candidate for FIDE presidency 3,971 3,971 182 182 Politics and political views 84 3,171 0 218 Overview 640 640 84 84 Croatian citizenship 2,447 2,447 134 134 Books and other writings 95 21,265 2 1,040 Early writings 4,219 4,219 237 237 My Great Predecessors series 1,282 1,282 121 121 Modern Chess series 1,033 1,033 113 113 Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov series 456 456 25 25 Winter Is Coming 983 983 70 70 Historical revisionism 3,785 3,785 154 154 Other post-retirement writing 5,650 5,650 318 318 Bibliography 2,456 2,456 0 0 Videos 1,306 1,306 0 0 Personal life 2,932 2,932 72 72 See also 261 261 0 0 Notes 24 24 0 0 References 28 28 0 0 Further reading 1,639 1,639 0 0 External links 3,646 3,646 0 0 Total 156,425 156,425 7,108 7,108 Close

Oof, the politics section is almost half again as large as the chess section; I'd say that splitting it out is probably appropriate. If consensus agrees that it should be split (I find it hard to believe it won't) then it should probably be created at Political views of Garry Kasparov. The content can largely be copy/pasted (giving appropriate attribution of course), but I think what you're asking about is what's left. I would probably use a {{main}} at the top followed by either a sentence or short paragraph summarising each of the existing sections. That way people reading the main article will get a general idea of the content but will be able to read the main article if they want to know more. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much Billsmith60 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've made those changes. It took a bit of work but also updates some old dead sources. Do you mind if I refer you to the disruptive edits of user Gaga2222 on that page and, now, at Magnus Carlsen? Billsmith60 (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they're rather enthusiastic about editing... not sure I'm seeing anything disruptive enough (at this point in time) to merit any sort of administrative action though; they largely seem to be playing by the rules, even if their editing is a bit erratic. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This template was not deleted. It may not have been added to the Tfd. Please see if this follows or requires userfication for the nomination you closed on January 24. ~2026-13909-16 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, good catch. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

In re this: Always all the love, and eternal gratitude for all the times you've solved problems for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Awww, thanks! I do have to admit that the phrasing came about more because I am easily distracted by the song lyrics in my brain matching up with the syllables of my words... Primefac (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

My husband has the same problem with song lyrics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

ie the Doug hole.Doug Weller talk 19:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking about. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I was asking whether this was a Mikemikev sock. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

They've been editing since 2005; that would be one hell of a good job to manage to avoid scrutiny for that long. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be their first en-wiki non-userland edit (2026)? But I'm also wondering it this is really the account Doug Weller meant, this one signs with "The Doug hole". ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the link in the OP is not helpful. Searching Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia for "Mikemikev" shows a short discussion regarding the troll. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that would make more sense. Special:AbuseLog/43459072 was done by the same user, so while I am not familiar with this sockmaster the description given by Generalrelative would certainly indicate it. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, their manner of mocking Doug and using "duck" wordplay in the username seemed to suggest Mikemikev to me at first, but I've never seen a Mikemikev sock go on to make a bunch of constructive edits afterwards. Could be he's mellowed out a bit or it could be someone else. In any case, I'd bet money this is block evasion, given the initial editing pattern (the trolling, first edit being a one-word statement on the user page, leaping right into back-end stuff, edit summaries containing way too much background knowledge, e.g. "Dead people should only contain subcategories", quoting things like WP:IAR in RfC discussion in the first 50 edits). See my comment on their talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Primefac, As in probation period for AfC i want to know a status of my approvals Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

My AfC log Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)