This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 40 sections are present. |
Hi Novem, I hope your well. Just a few things to run by you, when you have a moment. Can NovemBot do promotions of former topics? Thinking about Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Dwarf planets/archive1, in this case.
Also, two requests for the NovemBot, granted that you deem them reasonable and have a moment:
Again, these are super low-priority, so please no rush! Thank you again for all that you do here. Aza24 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to know the reason why you restored the page all over again. After a discussion in this talk page it would be better to blank off this page completely. Keeping the LTA page in my opinion wouldn’t even help with WP:DENY, as I might be worried that the vandalism would continue constantly if this were to happen. But in your opinion would it be better to leave the page alone or blank it completely. For me though it’s still better not to have an LTA page for this user. As if we were to have an LTA page it would get worse. kleshkreikne. T 08:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello NL, hope you're feeling okay. Could you please change the content model of this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/MMS list to enable mass message sender-ish list? Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 00:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Novem, I hope you are doing well. I'm sorry to bother you with this message, but I just wanted to ask if you had a chance to review the newsletter draft. If not, there's no rush; I simply wanted to send a gentle reminder. Feel free to ignore this message. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, just fyi, it's now the third (similar) IP address making the same edits to the page on Ursula von der Leyen. Not that I think they are being malicious past being outraged and not fluent in the language, but I wanted to make sure you were aware. Similar edits, by similar IPs, have been rejected at the corresponding German page as well. JackTheSecond ( talk) 10:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought it sounded accurate . . . -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 20:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how you define "last few years", but the 2017 GoldenRing RfA is imprinted into my memory. He had 2385 edits over 12 when he ran. It was an absolute stunner of a successful RfA. I'm posting here as I don't want to give TheTechie any wrong ideas. Schwede 66 08:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on what evidence that was presented that could possibly justify the topic ban you have imposed. There was a loud chorus of a group of editors calling for a sanction, who repeatedly restored the topic after it was archived. They presented accusations but didn't present any evidence to support those allegations. All were the same editors in a content dispute on Tim Hunt.
[2] My contribution history on Tim Hunt. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.
Note: {{npov}} tag added 13 March 2024, single revert to restore. 25 March 2024 - one single edit adding context and information in WP:RS per WP:NPOV.
That is all of my contributions to the article.
[3] My contribution history on Talk:Tim Hunt.
Note: 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution. I had not made any comment in talk since 12th February.
Since 12th February, I've made 3 comments in talk, 1 contribution to the article in total. This is hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.
I was accused of forum shopping, I raised the issue once when {{npov}} tags were being removed by edit warring. Didn't reply for nearly a week, didn't rise to the bait of edit warring.
Only one editor made an accusation of not assuming good faith seemingly supported by a diff. That took a talk quote taken out of context, which was a response to
[4], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misogyny is not my comment but for example
[5] he's just another misogynist
.
I don't accept that a topic ban was justified. No evidence was presented, mere accusations of involved editors are not sufficient to justify action; I presented clear evidence those accusations were unjustified. I have already given up editing the article because of the toxic nature of the discussion, have no intention of returning but an unjustified broadly construed topic ban would prevent me from writing in other areas. I am asking you to reconsider your decision, in the light of the lack of any evidence of misconduct. W C M email 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. There was no real community input and if you can be topic banned for 4 edits, none of which violated any wiki norm you've created a chilling editing situation where mob rules apply. W C M email 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and consuming large amounts of editor time).
misogynists circling the wagons to protect another misogynistand you've literally handed ownership of the article to them. It wasn't a tricky situation but its one that needed someone with the moral courage to do the right not the easy thing. Instead you sided with the gerrymandering, bullying mob and I sit here and realise with great regret that Wikipedia is no longer a project that I can support because it doesn't reflect the values it espouses. W C M email 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
You recently closed all my discussions on a talk page ( Talk:2024_Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus) for not being extended-confirmed. The WP:ARBECR page pretty clearly says that non-ECP users should still be allowed to contribute to the talk page unless they're being disruptive, which I wasn't. What's the deal here? Amyipdev ( talk) 01:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}
whereas the latter uses {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}
, which is more expansive and includes the instructions for non-EC to only make edit requests --
Gimmethegepgun (
talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Just wanted to inform you, no action is needed.
I refer to the discussion at link in which you and User:Hey man im josh participated. I had past issues with the citation bot that the version at https://citations.toolforge.org/ had bugs so I did run the bot from my account and it caused pollution of watchlist, and I was blocked for 1 hours and then it was an ANI but since that I contributed on Github to resolve the issues I had (mostly timeouts due to bad DOIs), and the author of the bot User:AManWithNoPlan was very responsive, and now I mostly run the bot from https://citations.toolforge.org/ that is a bot account and it resolves all the issues that happened for me in the past. Using the bot from https://citations.toolforge.org should prevent recurrence of the the past troubles I had. When an editor will not like a particular behaviour (such as replacing {{Cite}} to {{cite}}, this will be compensated by consensus achieved via a bot feature approval process (although it may be a bad example as I never asked for such replacement to be approved, and I don't do these replacement any longer)). So following the right process is almost always a recipe for success. I am sorry that I did not follow the correct process from the beginning. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 11:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, Novem Linguae. I hope this message finds you well.
You may remember that some time ago, you helped me on VPT about my user script. My user script is intended to make the lives of Wikipedians easier. As such, I would like some recommendations for features to implement in my user script. You can see the current (two) features here. Please leave any feature requests for features that would help Wikipedians here. Thanks! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
... but re: this edit, I think those were meant to be replies. In my read, the first is a reply to a call for a reblock, and the second is an endorsement of the reblock. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, do you have any idea why the bot isn't promoting the Avengers films GT? It was marked for promotion last night. Is it because I moved the page of the nomination early in the process to change the name? -- Zoo Blazer 16:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this edit on your essay. I'm going to start working on Yapperbot adoption related issues again--been distracted by other Wiki matters--and was just re-reading your essay. I'm a bit surprised my request stalled here. Before I ramp up again, I welcome any new thoughts about moving forward, either here or in one of the other places we have talked... -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
/data/project/yapperbot
). BY the looks of it, the directory only contains executables and no actual code. It might be more reliable/easier to redeploy the code based on the github project you allude to in the task.
Sohom (
talk) 04:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For your work on the various tools recently - much appreciated :) KylieTastic ( talk) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
Thanks for signing my guestbook! Myrealnamm ( 💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Sandbox???? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron ( talk), via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
You get a tank!!! | |
You get a tank!!! CoolMiner425 20:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you're involved in maintaining Twinkle, so I'm hoping you will know the answer to this; do you know if there is a way using the API/morebits to move a page and delete the page currently at the target, aside from sending a separate request to delete the page?
My understanding is that it is not but I am hoping I am wrong, as I'm trying to fix a bug with the rmCloser script where it can't overwrite pages even when the user is a pagemover. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Perm | Edited via | Action | Result |
---|---|---|---|
Admin | Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page | |
Admin | Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page | |
Logged in user | Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page | |
Logged in user | Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page |
Unable to reproduce. Diffs of tests. Would you like me to try any additional combinations? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Perm | Edited via | Action | Result |
---|---|---|---|
Admin | Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | Asks you if you want to delete the page, then you have to tick the box "Yes, delete the page". This shows up both when it's a regular page and when it's a redirect. This shows up both for one revision pages and multiple revision pages. |
Admin | Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | tried it both with ignorewarnings=true and ignorewarnings=false |
Page mover / delete-redirect
|
Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | Asks you if you want to delete the page, then you have to tick the box "Yes, delete the page". Only shows up for redirects. Only works for one revision redirects. |
Page mover / delete-redirect
|
Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | tried it both with ignorewarnings=true and ignorewarnings=false |
Logged in user | Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | |
Logged in user | Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page |
I think I understand your question and your confusion now. The page move webpage lets admins always overwrite pages, and the page move webpage lets page movers overwrite pages under certain circumstances, whereas the move API never lets this happen unless the page is a one revision redirect pointing at the page attempting to be moved. See results above. I think you'll definitely need two API queries for all situations except the situation where there is a one revision redirect pointing at the page attempting to be moved. I hope you find these test results as interesting as I did :) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Meru Gokhale is now improved. Please see link below. Blawgar ( talk) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meru_Gokhale Blawgar ( talk) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
You are in absolutely no way obliged to take this on, but it seems in your realm of expertise and interest...
Would you be interested in adding inline tagging to semi-automated tools? Evidence suggests it could significantly increase new editor retention (especially if tags replace reverts). Enterprisey was interested in taking it up, in a discussion a while back. There's a related Huggle ticket, T209797 (currently also mentioned on WP:MED).
Separately, thank you for all the infrastructure work you've done. I'm sure I won't use it all directly, but I'll benefit from it indirectly, all the same. HLHJ ( talk) 04:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, long time no see. I would like to ask where I can report spam links on enwiki. I noticed a subtle edit adding an advertisement link that went undetected for months (please see the last link in the edit). Thank you. Plantaest ( talk) 19:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Novem - just wanted to say thanks for the kind statement on the arbitration request page earlier - I was getting a bit stressed and worried over the implications of some of the things being said there - especially on that page because I don't really understand what's happening but it all feels very important. Feels a bit like being summoned into an alien courtroom. It was all a bit daunting, and your message made me feel a bit better about the situation. Again, just wanted to say thanks BugGhost 🪲👻 18:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Happy second birthday | ||
to the GANReviewTool. Its hard work continues to be very much appreciated. |
CMD ( talk) 08:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading your views on notability here on Wikipedia :) thank you for directing me to them. You have a very sobering yet gentle approach that I admire (especially in Thoughts on notability and AFD). I think that politics plays a huge part in AfD discussions. I particularly found true the words of a former admin (who has written a number of formally accepted guidelines for the project)..
"Wikipedia is utterly insane. The encyclopedia anyone can edit is the encyclopedia only logged in users can edit, and only if they're in the good graces of the arbitrary ruling clique of the day. If you don't speak their phony language of tongue-in-cheek civility and bureaucracy, they will sooner or later drive you from this project."
- Rividian
There is an element of necessary evil.. that I cannot deny. Without deletionists, the project could’ve easily tumbled into some funny junk.. albino blacksheep circus from hell. The kind that were all too familiar to us in the mindf*ck that was the 2000s. Hah :) So I try my best to remember that this project is different. It hurts sometimes, yes. Sometimes it is absolutely unwarranted. But this project is worth it at the end of the day, and that is largely in part to editors like you.
Thank you for sharing, @ Novem Linguae. I truly enjoyed. 9t5 ( talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
arbitrary ruling clique of the dayis just these norms, and not the fiat of some small clique.
I’m a work in progress! I like to think we all are :)Well said, my friend. If you ever have any questions or thoughts, let me know! – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your gentle approach to difficult discussion. I admire you. 9t5 ( talk) 20:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Please make a proposal as opposed to just not zero. Your conclusion on the topic is disingenuous as a number of other substantive proposals have been put forward. This is not count the votes as you see them. Please provide reasoning for the position you hold. A number of others (not just me) have done so but the not zero brigade seem to be avoiding providing their own proposals and any actual substantive reasoning. Please do so, I’ve been begging contributors to do so from the start yet no o e seems to be capable of doing so. If this is to be a discussion state what is wanted and why. The whole discussion is just lit zero and that’s it that’s not a discussion that’s a protest. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
They're trolling, they're trying to harass Fram, see their post on the user talk page, history of block evasion too dunno of whom. – 2804:F1...BF:1C3A ( talk) 06:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period § "Neither proposal specified what should happen after the trial period.": as far as I understand it, pending changes levels 1 and 2 were trialed at the same time. As can be seen at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions § Patrolled revisions, pending changes level 2 requires edits from all non-reviewer editors to be accepted before they can be seen by non-logged in users. Because disabling it after the trial required work to be done, it got stalled over disagreements on the best path forward ("why remove a protection level that is helpful right now?" vs "let's revert to the pre-trial state and evaluate"). Eventually its use got slimmed down to, as I recall, a handful of WMF office actions. A series of RfCs were held to establish policy for using pending changes protection, and only a policy for the use of level 1 was approved. No agreement was reached on a policy for using level 2. In spite of this, occasionally an admin would use level 2 protection if they thought it was appropriate, deliberately ignoring the lack of policy supporting its use ("there's no consensus against it"). At some point, all the instances of level 2 protection were removed, and descriptions of it were removed from the standard table describing page protection levels and other documentation. isaacl ( talk) 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Your scripts are SUPER useful for everyone! x q 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
One year! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
i've boldly/cheekily crammed in user instructions at the top of doc page as i couldn't work out how to put them lower? Tom B ( talk) 10:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 40 sections are present. |
Hi Novem, I hope your well. Just a few things to run by you, when you have a moment. Can NovemBot do promotions of former topics? Thinking about Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Dwarf planets/archive1, in this case.
Also, two requests for the NovemBot, granted that you deem them reasonable and have a moment:
Again, these are super low-priority, so please no rush! Thank you again for all that you do here. Aza24 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to know the reason why you restored the page all over again. After a discussion in this talk page it would be better to blank off this page completely. Keeping the LTA page in my opinion wouldn’t even help with WP:DENY, as I might be worried that the vandalism would continue constantly if this were to happen. But in your opinion would it be better to leave the page alone or blank it completely. For me though it’s still better not to have an LTA page for this user. As if we were to have an LTA page it would get worse. kleshkreikne. T 08:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello NL, hope you're feeling okay. Could you please change the content model of this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/MMS list to enable mass message sender-ish list? Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 00:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Novem, I hope you are doing well. I'm sorry to bother you with this message, but I just wanted to ask if you had a chance to review the newsletter draft. If not, there's no rush; I simply wanted to send a gentle reminder. Feel free to ignore this message. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, just fyi, it's now the third (similar) IP address making the same edits to the page on Ursula von der Leyen. Not that I think they are being malicious past being outraged and not fluent in the language, but I wanted to make sure you were aware. Similar edits, by similar IPs, have been rejected at the corresponding German page as well. JackTheSecond ( talk) 10:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought it sounded accurate . . . -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 20:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how you define "last few years", but the 2017 GoldenRing RfA is imprinted into my memory. He had 2385 edits over 12 when he ran. It was an absolute stunner of a successful RfA. I'm posting here as I don't want to give TheTechie any wrong ideas. Schwede 66 08:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on what evidence that was presented that could possibly justify the topic ban you have imposed. There was a loud chorus of a group of editors calling for a sanction, who repeatedly restored the topic after it was archived. They presented accusations but didn't present any evidence to support those allegations. All were the same editors in a content dispute on Tim Hunt.
[2] My contribution history on Tim Hunt. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.
Note: {{npov}} tag added 13 March 2024, single revert to restore. 25 March 2024 - one single edit adding context and information in WP:RS per WP:NPOV.
That is all of my contributions to the article.
[3] My contribution history on Talk:Tim Hunt.
Note: 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution. I had not made any comment in talk since 12th February.
Since 12th February, I've made 3 comments in talk, 1 contribution to the article in total. This is hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.
I was accused of forum shopping, I raised the issue once when {{npov}} tags were being removed by edit warring. Didn't reply for nearly a week, didn't rise to the bait of edit warring.
Only one editor made an accusation of not assuming good faith seemingly supported by a diff. That took a talk quote taken out of context, which was a response to
[4], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misogyny is not my comment but for example
[5] he's just another misogynist
.
I don't accept that a topic ban was justified. No evidence was presented, mere accusations of involved editors are not sufficient to justify action; I presented clear evidence those accusations were unjustified. I have already given up editing the article because of the toxic nature of the discussion, have no intention of returning but an unjustified broadly construed topic ban would prevent me from writing in other areas. I am asking you to reconsider your decision, in the light of the lack of any evidence of misconduct. W C M email 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. There was no real community input and if you can be topic banned for 4 edits, none of which violated any wiki norm you've created a chilling editing situation where mob rules apply. W C M email 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and consuming large amounts of editor time).
misogynists circling the wagons to protect another misogynistand you've literally handed ownership of the article to them. It wasn't a tricky situation but its one that needed someone with the moral courage to do the right not the easy thing. Instead you sided with the gerrymandering, bullying mob and I sit here and realise with great regret that Wikipedia is no longer a project that I can support because it doesn't reflect the values it espouses. W C M email 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
You recently closed all my discussions on a talk page ( Talk:2024_Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus) for not being extended-confirmed. The WP:ARBECR page pretty clearly says that non-ECP users should still be allowed to contribute to the talk page unless they're being disruptive, which I wasn't. What's the deal here? Amyipdev ( talk) 01:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}
whereas the latter uses {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}
, which is more expansive and includes the instructions for non-EC to only make edit requests --
Gimmethegepgun (
talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Just wanted to inform you, no action is needed.
I refer to the discussion at link in which you and User:Hey man im josh participated. I had past issues with the citation bot that the version at https://citations.toolforge.org/ had bugs so I did run the bot from my account and it caused pollution of watchlist, and I was blocked for 1 hours and then it was an ANI but since that I contributed on Github to resolve the issues I had (mostly timeouts due to bad DOIs), and the author of the bot User:AManWithNoPlan was very responsive, and now I mostly run the bot from https://citations.toolforge.org/ that is a bot account and it resolves all the issues that happened for me in the past. Using the bot from https://citations.toolforge.org should prevent recurrence of the the past troubles I had. When an editor will not like a particular behaviour (such as replacing {{Cite}} to {{cite}}, this will be compensated by consensus achieved via a bot feature approval process (although it may be a bad example as I never asked for such replacement to be approved, and I don't do these replacement any longer)). So following the right process is almost always a recipe for success. I am sorry that I did not follow the correct process from the beginning. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 11:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, Novem Linguae. I hope this message finds you well.
You may remember that some time ago, you helped me on VPT about my user script. My user script is intended to make the lives of Wikipedians easier. As such, I would like some recommendations for features to implement in my user script. You can see the current (two) features here. Please leave any feature requests for features that would help Wikipedians here. Thanks! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
... but re: this edit, I think those were meant to be replies. In my read, the first is a reply to a call for a reblock, and the second is an endorsement of the reblock. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, do you have any idea why the bot isn't promoting the Avengers films GT? It was marked for promotion last night. Is it because I moved the page of the nomination early in the process to change the name? -- Zoo Blazer 16:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this edit on your essay. I'm going to start working on Yapperbot adoption related issues again--been distracted by other Wiki matters--and was just re-reading your essay. I'm a bit surprised my request stalled here. Before I ramp up again, I welcome any new thoughts about moving forward, either here or in one of the other places we have talked... -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
/data/project/yapperbot
). BY the looks of it, the directory only contains executables and no actual code. It might be more reliable/easier to redeploy the code based on the github project you allude to in the task.
Sohom (
talk) 04:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For your work on the various tools recently - much appreciated :) KylieTastic ( talk) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
Thanks for signing my guestbook! Myrealnamm ( 💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Sandbox???? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron ( talk), via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
You get a tank!!! | |
You get a tank!!! CoolMiner425 20:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you're involved in maintaining Twinkle, so I'm hoping you will know the answer to this; do you know if there is a way using the API/morebits to move a page and delete the page currently at the target, aside from sending a separate request to delete the page?
My understanding is that it is not but I am hoping I am wrong, as I'm trying to fix a bug with the rmCloser script where it can't overwrite pages even when the user is a pagemover. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Perm | Edited via | Action | Result |
---|---|---|---|
Admin | Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page | |
Admin | Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page | |
Logged in user | Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page | |
Logged in user | Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page |
Unable to reproduce. Diffs of tests. Would you like me to try any additional combinations? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Perm | Edited via | Action | Result |
---|---|---|---|
Admin | Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | Asks you if you want to delete the page, then you have to tick the box "Yes, delete the page". This shows up both when it's a regular page and when it's a redirect. This shows up both for one revision pages and multiple revision pages. |
Admin | Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | tried it both with ignorewarnings=true and ignorewarnings=false |
Page mover / delete-redirect
|
Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | Asks you if you want to delete the page, then you have to tick the box "Yes, delete the page". Only shows up for redirects. Only works for one revision redirects. |
Page mover / delete-redirect
|
Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | tried it both with ignorewarnings=true and ignorewarnings=false |
Logged in user | Website | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page | |
Logged in user | Action API via Special:ApiSandbox | Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page |
I think I understand your question and your confusion now. The page move webpage lets admins always overwrite pages, and the page move webpage lets page movers overwrite pages under certain circumstances, whereas the move API never lets this happen unless the page is a one revision redirect pointing at the page attempting to be moved. See results above. I think you'll definitely need two API queries for all situations except the situation where there is a one revision redirect pointing at the page attempting to be moved. I hope you find these test results as interesting as I did :) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Meru Gokhale is now improved. Please see link below. Blawgar ( talk) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meru_Gokhale Blawgar ( talk) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
You are in absolutely no way obliged to take this on, but it seems in your realm of expertise and interest...
Would you be interested in adding inline tagging to semi-automated tools? Evidence suggests it could significantly increase new editor retention (especially if tags replace reverts). Enterprisey was interested in taking it up, in a discussion a while back. There's a related Huggle ticket, T209797 (currently also mentioned on WP:MED).
Separately, thank you for all the infrastructure work you've done. I'm sure I won't use it all directly, but I'll benefit from it indirectly, all the same. HLHJ ( talk) 04:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, long time no see. I would like to ask where I can report spam links on enwiki. I noticed a subtle edit adding an advertisement link that went undetected for months (please see the last link in the edit). Thank you. Plantaest ( talk) 19:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Novem - just wanted to say thanks for the kind statement on the arbitration request page earlier - I was getting a bit stressed and worried over the implications of some of the things being said there - especially on that page because I don't really understand what's happening but it all feels very important. Feels a bit like being summoned into an alien courtroom. It was all a bit daunting, and your message made me feel a bit better about the situation. Again, just wanted to say thanks BugGhost 🪲👻 18:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Happy second birthday | ||
to the GANReviewTool. Its hard work continues to be very much appreciated. |
CMD ( talk) 08:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading your views on notability here on Wikipedia :) thank you for directing me to them. You have a very sobering yet gentle approach that I admire (especially in Thoughts on notability and AFD). I think that politics plays a huge part in AfD discussions. I particularly found true the words of a former admin (who has written a number of formally accepted guidelines for the project)..
"Wikipedia is utterly insane. The encyclopedia anyone can edit is the encyclopedia only logged in users can edit, and only if they're in the good graces of the arbitrary ruling clique of the day. If you don't speak their phony language of tongue-in-cheek civility and bureaucracy, they will sooner or later drive you from this project."
- Rividian
There is an element of necessary evil.. that I cannot deny. Without deletionists, the project could’ve easily tumbled into some funny junk.. albino blacksheep circus from hell. The kind that were all too familiar to us in the mindf*ck that was the 2000s. Hah :) So I try my best to remember that this project is different. It hurts sometimes, yes. Sometimes it is absolutely unwarranted. But this project is worth it at the end of the day, and that is largely in part to editors like you.
Thank you for sharing, @ Novem Linguae. I truly enjoyed. 9t5 ( talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
arbitrary ruling clique of the dayis just these norms, and not the fiat of some small clique.
I’m a work in progress! I like to think we all are :)Well said, my friend. If you ever have any questions or thoughts, let me know! – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your gentle approach to difficult discussion. I admire you. 9t5 ( talk) 20:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Please make a proposal as opposed to just not zero. Your conclusion on the topic is disingenuous as a number of other substantive proposals have been put forward. This is not count the votes as you see them. Please provide reasoning for the position you hold. A number of others (not just me) have done so but the not zero brigade seem to be avoiding providing their own proposals and any actual substantive reasoning. Please do so, I’ve been begging contributors to do so from the start yet no o e seems to be capable of doing so. If this is to be a discussion state what is wanted and why. The whole discussion is just lit zero and that’s it that’s not a discussion that’s a protest. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
They're trolling, they're trying to harass Fram, see their post on the user talk page, history of block evasion too dunno of whom. – 2804:F1...BF:1C3A ( talk) 06:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period § "Neither proposal specified what should happen after the trial period.": as far as I understand it, pending changes levels 1 and 2 were trialed at the same time. As can be seen at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions § Patrolled revisions, pending changes level 2 requires edits from all non-reviewer editors to be accepted before they can be seen by non-logged in users. Because disabling it after the trial required work to be done, it got stalled over disagreements on the best path forward ("why remove a protection level that is helpful right now?" vs "let's revert to the pre-trial state and evaluate"). Eventually its use got slimmed down to, as I recall, a handful of WMF office actions. A series of RfCs were held to establish policy for using pending changes protection, and only a policy for the use of level 1 was approved. No agreement was reached on a policy for using level 2. In spite of this, occasionally an admin would use level 2 protection if they thought it was appropriate, deliberately ignoring the lack of policy supporting its use ("there's no consensus against it"). At some point, all the instances of level 2 protection were removed, and descriptions of it were removed from the standard table describing page protection levels and other documentation. isaacl ( talk) 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Your scripts are SUPER useful for everyone! x q 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
One year! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
i've boldly/cheekily crammed in user instructions at the top of doc page as i couldn't work out how to put them lower? Tom B ( talk) 10:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)