Hi Primium! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 05:44, Tuesday, February 9, 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Direct-to-video, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little White Lies. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot: Thanks, bot! -- Primium (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ichi the Killer (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot: Thanks, bot. Fixed it. -- Primium (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Post on Escher Street, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baby, Box, Broker and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Baby, Box, Broker, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primium! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primium. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Baby, Box, Broker, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primium. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Baby".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sphoeroides trichocephalus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, bot. -- Primium (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carinotetraodon imitator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. -- Primium (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Primium (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 179.6.16.121. Our network was set up relatively recently, so we suspect it may have been an issue with the previous IP owner. If caught again, we'll assume it's malicious software or a misconfigured network and will address it accordingly. -- Primium (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline since, because your account is not directly blocked, you could edit from other IPs. And it's easier for you to go over to WP:IPECPROXY and follow those directions to request IP block exemption on this account than get the block lifted. Assuming that the fixes on your end don't work. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- Primium (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canada‑Ukraine authorization for emergency travel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bot. -- Primium (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blow page is a disambiguation page and should either redirect to strike or include information specific to exhalation, or striking.

Blowjob redirects to fellatio when it should as a slang term redirect to Blowjob (disambiguation). if you disagree perhaps etymology could be expanded on the blowjob page, just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.216.114 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. While I agree with you, there's a standard process for moving pages, and for large pages like the ones you are changing, there is typically a discussion and vote involved. For such large pages as Blow or Blowjob, to which hundreds of pages already link, every single link throughout Wikipedia will also have to be checked to ensure it's linking to the correct page. It's a large undertaking you will have to accept as part of this move. Until there's a vote and consensus, I ask that you refrain from making these sweeping changes. -- Primium (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a disambiguation page. No argument. 86.167.216.114 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an excuse. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dwarf pufferfish you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dwarf pufferfish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dwarf pufferfish for comments about the article, and Talk:Dwarf pufferfish/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dwarf pufferfish, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at a maximum standard length of roughly 2 cm (0.8 in), dwarf pufferfish are some of the smallest pufferfish in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dwarf pufferfish. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dwarf pufferfish), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the After Blue page! I added clearer attribution on the talk page and in an edit summary, but next time please follow the steps at Help:Translation when you translate text from another article. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primium. Thank you for your work on List of Shahed drones. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work. Possibly the models could be covered here rather than in a separate article for each. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primium. Thank you for your work on Novokalynove. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primium, if you feel that Loitering munition is not at GA level, could you open a proper Wikipedia:Good article reassessment? You can use the same rationale that you posted on the talkpage, but having a formal GAR is the expected process. Thanks, CMD (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chipmunkdavis. Thanks for letting me know. Should I also undo my assessment changes? – Primium (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth doing that in the meantime, although the key is to be clear with the GAR statement so other editors might evaluate. Thanks, CMD (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primium. Thank you for your work on Book of Remembrance for Those Who Fell for Ukraine. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]

Please don't make mass changes like this without community consensus for them. If there's a guideline that supports such edits, please point me to it. Otherwise, editors often have legitimate reasons not to use the actual characters in the coding, and they are to be respected.

The existence of a script does not constitute community consensus, by the way.

The same logic applies to ALL mass copy edits that come down to mere personal preference.

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reason to use HTML entities over characters, I would appreciate it if you could share it with me. – Primium (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already did: This article uses ndash and mdash mnemonics for clarity in the coding, and because the actual characters are not found on a standard keyboard. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant where was the discussion that determined this rationale? Thanks. – Primium (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. Where is the discussion that determined yours? For that matter, what is yours? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this conversation, it seems you believe respecting the decisions of previous editors is the best approach, possibly speculating on their reasons. Is this correct? Or is it your belief that HTML entities are better than the characters? – Primium (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um... both? I think the main point is that, where there is no guideline (or when a guideline says "either A or B is acceptable"), no editor should go around changing things to suit their personal preferences. But yes, I believe HTML entities are better than the characters, for reasons already given. Note that I'm NOT going around imposing that opinion on other articles. Why? Because there's no guideline to support that. The absence of a guideline shows that the community doesn't see the merits of the HTML entities, and far be it from me to think I'm smarter than the community. That doesn't mean I won't do this at a single article, one of the most highly edited articles in the encyclopedia. Maybe someday the community will come around. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for the clarification. I'd like to point out the irony in you accusing me of making an opinionated edit, considering your equally large reversion was based on personal preferences. While I may respect the work of previous editors, I believe it’s important to critically evaluate edits rather than follow them without question (as mentioned briefly at WP:GFISNOT). Appealing to tradition is a fallacy that bars improvement. My changes were not motivated by personal preference, but rather by a simple desire to improve broader consistency using Auto Ed. In the future, I'll consider if Auto Ed's suggestions are too trivial. I hope you'll also reconsider reversions motivated by personal opinion. – Primium (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]