User talk:Novem Linguae/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

WP:LTA/BMX

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)

Hey there. We have those LTA pages for a reason. I imagine that reason is to educate experienced editors and vandal fighters about our regular LTAs. Not much education will be taking place if the page is blank. Are you sure it is a good idea to be messing with these pages? Do you have enough experience to be blanking these LTA pages without discussion on the talk page? A quick perusal of WT:LTA shows that the practice of blanking LTA talk pages is controversial, for example, the second comment in the section Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse#Archives AWB run. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So one of my fellow editors who was the one who dealt with the MRY thing decided to blank the whole thing off because of WP:DENY. You should take a look at WP:LTA/MRY to see why he blanked it on purpose. For me though I think it might’ve been guaranteed, but it didn’t work. Every LTA is different. You should leave a message on the one who blanked the whole LTA page as to why it’s not worth it. I’m not trying to be mean to the vandal but I just wanted to prevent additional disruption from taking place, so I had to blank it. kleshkreikne. T 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hard to believe you've only been editing for three weeks. Most editors don't even know about LTA pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they were inspired by this video (overview of LTAs on WP) to join? Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

MMS

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)

I actually would love to take User:Celestina007/Mailinglist/WP NIGERIA (a list compiled by a very proficient user who later left), to this page I mentioned above, don't know if it makes sense to just move it there, or better, change the content model of this one to Mass message delivery list. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Vanderwaalforces. I don't think we should move it from out of someone's userspace without permission. I'll change the content model and copy paste the contents for you. That should do the trick I think :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Great! I see you’ve done it. Thank you so much. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

NPP Newsletter

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)

Thanks. I made some edits just now. Can you check with me in a couple days for a final approval? That'll give time for another round of polishing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. It looks great after your edits. Thanks for polishing it up. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The NPP newsletter has been sent successfully. Could you please merge this draft's edit history into Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Newsletter/Archive/34? I accidentally copy-pasted content into the archive without moving the draft. Thanks in advance! – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I G6'd the new archive 34 and moved the draft to 34, preserving the history. Should be all fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

von der Leyen

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)

Will keep this in mind. Thanks for the info. If they keep it up, may need a WP:RFPP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Billboard and other sources

Moved to User talk:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter § Billboard and other sources

 – –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

harsh

I thought it sounded accurate . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I try to be polite. At least for now! :P –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

GoldenRing

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. Schwede66 08:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Good info, thank you. I think RFA culture has changed since 2017 though. No offense to GoldenRing, and I could be wrong, but I don't think he could pass in today's RFA culture. Also 88 opposes is brutal, so even if someone could pass with 2k edits, I'd still advise against them running so that they don't have a bad RFA experience. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Why ARBECR all my comments?

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)

Hey @Amyipdev. Thanks for the message. If you read WP:ARBECR carefully, it essentially says that you can only use talk pages to make edit requests. You'll notice I didn't close the section where you made your edit request, but I did close the parts where you were not making an edit request. I hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Something I noticed regarding this is that the instructions on that talk page are different than the ones on Talk:Flour massacre. The former uses {{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)

Past issues with the citation bot

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)

No problem. Sounds like it's all resolved now. Thank you for the message. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

My user script

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)

Thanks for the message. I replied at User talk:TheTechie/UserTools#Re: ideas. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor thing

... 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)

Sounds good. I self reverted. Thanks for being nice about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Right back at you — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Bot not promoting GT

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? -- ZooBlazer 16:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer.  Fixed. Sorry for the trouble. It was a bug unrelated to anything on your side. It wouldn't be a bot if it didn't break all the time ;-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your work on the various tools recently - much appreciated :) KylieTastic (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been fun to explore and tune up this old tech. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A Cookie for you!

Thanks for signing my guestbook! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic Ban

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.

[1] 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.

[2] 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 [3], 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 [4] 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. WCM_email 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey there. Thank you for your message, and I again apologize that I was the bearer of bad news.

I believe the job of a discussion closer is to summarize the discussion (with some caveats, of course, such as discarding sockpuppet comments and comments that do not comply with policy, downweighting comments that are unconvincing or don't make sense, etc.), and I can see no other way to summarize that discussion than a consensus to topic ban. Anything else, in my opinion, would be supervoting. The consensus of the discussion was very clear.

I spent about an hour closing the discussion, and another hour preparing this reply, and I am confident from the reading I did during these two activities that your behavior in the topic area bothered your fellow editors, caused friction that affected the collegial atmosphere, and should be adjusted.

I believe it's OK to un-archive a section that needs closure. The community took the time to opine on the issue, and I believe they should be able to have a conclusion to that process.

If we define involved as "participated in the RFC", then the following 3 editors who commented at the ANI were uninvolved: Lavalizard101, Aquillion, and Star Mississipi. Looks like the ANI did receive some non-involved participation, which is great. It appears these three did not choose to oppose the topic ban.

Respectfully, –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't accept your response and have requested a review at WP:AN. Expressing legitimate concerns ref a WP:BLP as mildly as I did should not engender the hostile response from those editors that it did. The collegial atmosphere was not disturbed by what I said, I'd entered an already toxic atmosphere where editors had adopted fixed positions, which is why I chose to disengage. As another editor noted 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. WCM_email 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful of WP:BOOMERANG. By posting at AN, you're probably engaging in the same behaviors that I talked about in the ANI close (WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and consuming large amounts of editor time).

With that said, I don't mind my actions being reviewed and I do not take it personally. I respect your decision. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Novem Linguae, I feel I owe a bit of explanation here. I feel that the freedom to be able to discuss is of paramount importance in Wikipedia. Without it, we are nothing, no article can change. I agree with your evaluation of the consensus to sanction WCM. But lynch mobs also have a strong consensus to sanction their victims. What I saw in ANI, both against Thomas B at the outset, and then with WCM, was a gerrymandering, bullying mob out to suppress something they didn't want to hear. And that is both unkind and an offence to freedoms for which many have fought. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia I once knew, and wanted to be part of. And for that reason I have retired permanently. 92.31.246.75 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) (formerly Elemimele; I no longer have the use of my account)

Hi Elemimele. So sorry to hear that you retired over this. This dispute primarily seems to be about 1) the # of paragraphs in an article, and 2) knowing when fellow editors have had enough and are getting really annoyed. In theory, simple things that are easily fixable. But I guess not so simple in this case, eh? Your "side" seems to feel very strongly about what is happening to Tim Hunt's reputation and mental health, and its intersection with BLP. And the other "side" feels strongly about Wikipedia's philosophy to report on matters in proportion to how much they are reported in reliable sources. It's a tricky situation. Not sure if my words here help, but you deserve a full reply, so this is my attempt at it. Thank you for visiting my talk page and for your contributions to Wikipedia. Be well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I could I suppose take the time to explain how your comments were overly simplistic to the point of coming across as asinine, infantile and patronising. However, I sense that would be futile and instead I'll simply note that editors expressing concerns about the article were dismissed as misogynists circling the wagons to protect another misogynist and 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. WCM_email 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't been monitoring this since I've retired. I just wanted to correct something: there was no "your side" about this; I wasn't on any particular side, and was quite prepared to give an opinion on the article and walk away. I left because bullying behaviour and harassment have no place in a collaborative project, or any decent society. I watched this sort of behaviour being condoned, and actively facilitated at ANI, and had to ask myself some harsh questions on whether it is ethically appropriate to belong to a group of people who accept it? The answer, after a painful weekend of careful thought, was resoundingly "No", so I left. 149.155.219.44 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC) (formerly Elemimele, but locked out of my previous account! Not socking, honest!)

Yapperbot, your bot essay, etc.

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)

(Not Novem) @David Tornheim AFAIK yapperbot's directory is readable (should be /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)

Actually looking at it further, for yapperbot, you need three repositories yapperbot-frs for the feedback request service, yapperbot-pruner for the pruner service and yapperbot-scantag for the scantag service. If you compile these repositories and set these up on a test toolforge instance, they should theoretically (emphasis on theoretically) work. Sohom (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting that you should point the bots to test.wikipedia.org and no en.wikipedia.org for obvious reasons :) Sohom (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I'm aware of all that--especially all the github code which I have spent plenty of time studying. (Although I don't remember "scantag" service--I'll look at that.) I did set up a copy of the code already, but I would like data for the *actual* config files--not the ones on github. And they were protected the last time I checked. I could give you a list. Possibly someone unprotected them but didn't inform me. I will look at the directories again. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim They don't appear to viewable at this moment. I've asked on phab, but I wonder if it would be possible to reconstruct those config file based on the code you already have? Sohom (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the SREs (taavi) is worried that those files might contain secrets like passwords that would allow you to access yapperbot's account. Sohom (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: It's a reasonable concern. I believe I can prove that is not the case, as the password file is easy to find in the code. I'm not looking at the code right now, but I can dig into it and explain. Thanks for friending me on Discord. Do you know Go? I might have more questions later. I believe I understand the gist of how the code works, but using bots, the API, Toolforge, etc. are new to me. I can point you to the discussion of where we talked about adoption on here so you know my programming background. It sounds like you have experience with bots.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I see you are an intermediate Go programmer. Nice. One of the few! :) I could have used your advice earlier, when I had trouble with modules downloading correctly. I believe that problem is taken care of.--David Tornheim (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim I'm pretty familiar with the basics of golang, and I do work on bots (albiet I don't think I've seen a golang bot), toolforge and mediawiki in general, feel free to ping (on Discord or onwiki) if you need any help anytime :) Sohom (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: Thanks for your offer to help! And thanks for backing me up on that thread. I might dig into the code again tonight to show what parts open the config files vs. which code uses the password file.

One of the editors said I could redo the code in any language if I wanted, but I don't see any reason to do that--"if it ain't broke; don't fix it". However, I admit I thought it was strange that Naypta chose a language that probably few Wikipedians would know rather than languages like Php, Python, Perl, etc.--especially given that he wasn't going to stick around to maintain it.

So I am curious if you think Go adds anything meaningful in terms of ease of use or functionality to the ever-expanding list of programming languages. And over the long-term--for maintenance purposes--would it be better if the code is converted into a language more editors know? I do like Go's use of modules and the simplicity/elegance compared to the equivalent in C (and probably many other strongly typed languages), but other than that, I haven't seen anything else remarkable about it. I figured Naypta might have just learned it, thought it was novel, and wanted to try it out. Even though I spoke at length with him when he released Yapperbot, I was too busy with other question that I don't think I asked him. So I am curious why you became interested in the language. Maybe it is more popular than I think? I have looked at Go FAQ: What is the purpose of this project?'. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

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)

Am I missing something?

Draft:Sandbox???? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent. It's just a test page. See Wikipedia:About the sandbox for more info. I'll try to remember to take it out of the queue next time to avoid confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Phew! I kind of guessed, though 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

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:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

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)

Tanks!!!

File:Ru 251.jpg	You get a tank!!!
	You get a tank!!! CoolMiner425 20:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Updated draft

@Novem Linguae

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)

Semi-automation of inline tagging?

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)

Hey. Thanks for the message. Did you have specifics in mind? Which tool, what feature to add, etc? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the query, and sorry I've been so slow to reply.

Honestly, I don't mind which tool. The phab ticket is for Huggle, but I think the functionality is more important than how it is implemented. I'm also quite sure you'd know better than I where it would be most useful, and easiest to implement.

The simplest feature would be: when patrolling edits, IF the edit being reviewed is the addition of a single block of text, THEN have a button which adds just the point tag (not span tag) to the end of edit.

The "Basic design ideas" section in the phab ticket has a longer list (~removing the qualifications in the last sentence). These would probably be rarer use cases, tho. HLHJ (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You could ask for a user script that does this by posting at WP:US/R. The user script could add an [add CN] link on the recent changes, watchlist, and/or diff screens when the diff meets the parameters you described. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into this. HLHJ (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Report spam links on enwiki

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)

Howdy! Maybe just revert it. If it's affecting many pages, you could try the WP:SPAMBLACKLIST. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi

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)

You're welcome. Yeah, careful of participating in places like the administrators notice board and anything with the word arbitration in it. It is easy to unintentionally get in the middle of drama in those places. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Script kiddy

		Happy second birthday
		to the GANReviewTool. Its hard work continues to be very much appreciated.

CMD (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Was a lot of work but had a great ROI since it's so useful to content creators. Also it's been pretty low maintenance, it doesn't break very often, which is nice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your gentle approach to difficult discussion. I admire you. 9t5 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Notability Essays

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)

@9t5. You're welcome. I wrote User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Thoughts on notability and AFD after seeing the AFD you were involved in. I've observed this pattern for a long time and decided to finally write it down. I was worried it might be a bit too harsh, so I'm glad you found the tone acceptable.

Rividian's quote there seems a bit pessimistic to me. I think Wikipedia works a lot like any social group. Each social group has norms, and it's up to newer people to learn and follow those norms and not cause friction within the group. Groups have norms for a reason. Every single norm around here is the equilibrium of 20+ years of forces trying to push it one direction or the other and arriving at a happy medium that lets us build a great encyclopedia. I think arbitrary ruling clique of the day is just these norms, and not the fiat of some small clique.

There are some norms around here I'm not thrilled about, but I believe in the "wisdom of the group". –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae

“I wrote User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Thoughts on notability and AFD after seeing the AFD you were involved in.”

I didn’t even notice! Oh brother.. I am an emotional guy. I don’t know why but that has me tearing up. The Brad Heckman article held a special place in my heart because his talks helped me through a difficult time. I felt almost scared that perhaps he saw it, and then saw it get deleted and it crushed me.

Definitely pessimistic! But I think does a good job at stripping away that tongue-in-cheek attitude. You are very clearly an editor who has achieved their level of authority through grace and truly trying to help other editors out.

And I mean that sincerely. I’m not one to kiss the a** of an admin. I’ll be the first to them them to shove it where the sun don’t shine haha… so maybe that’s why I was so drawn to Rividian’s quote.. I’m a work in progress! I like to think we all are :) 9t5 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Side note: he definitely saw it because I reached out to him for permission to use his painting in the article. But I like to pretend he’s too busy to have noticed it get deleted. HAHA. 9t5 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

API/MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.js question

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)

Strangely I am not very familiar with Morebits because I mostly do bug fixes and small patches so haven't had an occasion to explore it in depth yet. @SD0001 could probably answer this question easily though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible to do in a single request using the API. That's something only the special page allows. – SD0001 (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@SD0001: I thought so, but I had hoped otherwise; thank you all the same.

Solving this for admins won't be an issue - it will just require an additional API call to delete the page before moving the article, but that won't work for pagemovers as they lack access to the delete API. Do you know if there is a way to delete redirects through the API without using delete? Again, my understanding is that there is not, but I'm hoping I'm wrong as alternative solutions will be messy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Double API calls aren't particularly difficult to code. Example. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the double API call; my issue is I don't think there is an API call for "delete-redirect". BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I think that's built into the move API. I think the algorithm is that any editor can move a page over a redirect if 1) the redirect only has one revision and 2) it is pointing at the current title. And any editor with `delete-redirect` (page movers and sysops) can move a page over a redirect 1) if it only has one revision. The best way to find out is probably to test it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've been testing it and I don't think that it is there, unless there is a configuration option not documented at the API page. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Test results

Perm	Edited via	Action	Result
Admin	Website	Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page	Y
Admin	Action API via Special:ApiSandbox	Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page	Y
Logged in user	Website	Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page	Y
Logged in user	Action API via Special:ApiSandbox	Move over a one revision redirect pointing back to the original page	Y

Unable to reproduce. Diffs of tests. Would you like me to try any additional combinations? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you try moving over a one revision redirect pointing at a different page?

With that said, I've now developed a function that uses the method at Special:MovePage to allow this - I would like to replace it with something cleaner, but it isn't an issue if it's not possible. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you open a phab ticket requesting the ability to do this through the API? Letting page movers overwrite redirects not pointing back to the current page is a relatively recent feature, so allowing it via the API was likely just overlooked rather than intentionally left out. – SD0001 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Done; T365325 BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Perm	Edited via	Action	Result
Admin	Website	Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page	Y 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	N 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	Y 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	N tried it both with ignorewarnings=true and ignorewarnings=false
Logged in user	Website	Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page	N
Logged in user	Action API via Special:ApiSandbox	Move over a one revision redirect pointing to a different page	N

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)

I did, thank you :) BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you try a related test for me?

With the website, try moving a page to a title where the title has no article, but the talk page has a single-edit redirect to a page other than the talk page of the article you are moving. If I am correct, you will be able to overwrite the page as an admin, but you will not be able to do so as a page mover. BilledMammal (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have time to do more testing. But I did mention our test results in phab:T365325#9847318. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Please propose slnething

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)

Thanks for the message, but I am not a fan of your behavior on that talk page. I have filed WP:ANI#PicturePerfect666 bludgeoning at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

IP

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)

Yep, I would recommend a block of 1-yr on that 182.228.179.154 IP, given the previous block being 6-months in length and the person returning to pretty much the same behaviour of attacks towards other editors like always before. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I blocked 182.228.179.154 for one week, which is what I'm comfortable with for now, and pinged Yamla, the admin who did the previous blocking. Hope that works for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes, level 2

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)

Good info. Thank you for sharing. I may increase my involvement in writing patches for FlaggedRevs, so having an idea of how it works is really helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Your scripts are SUPER useful for everyone! xq 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)