User talk:Novem Linguae

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 40.

Wondering about activating our OWID visualization tool (way 3) on EN WP per this?[1]

We are still working on improving it as only functioning decently on desktop. But would like to begin testing here. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James. Howdy. I un-archived your thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Next steps towards OWID visualization within MediaWiki and posted there. Let's try to centralize discussion there. I also notified WT:GADGET and WP:IANB. Let's keep an eye on the VPT thread and try to reply often enough that it doesn't get archived without a resolution, else we might have to un-archive it again. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have dropped data usage down to 2 MB per here.

Link to the page it is loading.[2].

But we still need to improve a bunch of other functionality, then maybe start the discussion again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My stats, for this month and last, do not seem to reflect my postings. Admittedly, some of these are new articles, which have delayed registration. Others are simply major additions to existing pages; the latter should show up immediately. Can you detect anything that's amiss? Thank you in advance. 36hourblock (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@36hourblock. Sure. Can you please reply with a URL of the page I should look at? And a description of what you expect to see and what you are actually seeing. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. You can just go to Edit Statistics that is available on my Contrib. page:

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/36hourblock

I just loaded over 30,000 in the last 24 hours or so. The red bar graph hasn't moved. --36hourblock (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@36hourblock. Thanks. By the way, what does it mean to "load over 30,000"? Which part of the page should I take a look at? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Bytes" is what I meant: sorry for the imprecision. You are not responsible for reading my mind. 36hourblock (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searching https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/36hourblock for the word "bytes", I see...

• Average edit size*: 598.1 bytes
• Small edits (<20 bytes)*: 1,079 · (38%)
• Large edits (>1000 bytes)*: 441 · (15.5%)
• <20 bytes* · 1,079 (38%)
• ≥ 20 bytes* · 1,760 (62%)
• < 1,000 bytes* · 2,398 (84.5%)
• ≥ 1,000 bytes* · 441 (15.5%)
• Taken 4.45 megabytes of memory to execute.

Can you give me some guidance as to what I should be looking at? These just look like numbers to me. I am not sure what the question is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bar graph that provides a visual measure of the posting per byte: Hasn't budged. This has happened before. --36hourblock (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bar graphs I see are year edit count and month edit count. I don't see any bar graphs for bytes. Can you clarify? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fun Nomen. Have a nice life.--36hourblock (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@36hourblock. No need to be rude. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem Linguae. Would you mind giving a second opinion on Draft:Carl Thoma? I'm reaching out to you because I saw your activity at WT:AFC and you seem level-headed. I was confused by the reviewer's comment: "A puff piece built on manufactured and paid for PR non-references. No indication of significance." The draft relies on significant coverage in ARTnews, Crain's Chicago Business, Inside Philanthropy and other similarly reputable and independent sources. As for significance, the subject of the draft is described in RS as a "pioneer" and a "founding father" of the private equity industry, rather than a run-of-the-mill executive. Finally, upon removing the Philanthropy section, the reviewer dismissed it as "tax avoidance," which might be a cynical take on philanthropy in general, but doesn't seem like a reasonable approach when reviewing the biography of an actual philanthropist, and it gave me the sense that my draft may not have been given a fair shake. I am happy to discuss further with you - thanks in advance! JBarTB (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBarTB. Hey there. Thanks for following our paid editor disclosure rules. So when checking if something on Wikipedia is notable (qualifies for an article), a reviewer will usually start clicking the references. Reviewers are looking for around 3 references that pass WP:GNG. A reference passes GNG if it is around 3 dense paragraphs of in-depth writing / analysis focusing on the topic. The "independence" part of GNG is failed if there are a lot of quotations, if it is clearly based on an interview, if it is clearly a press release from the company, etc.

Anyway, I clicked open the first couple references, and here's what my trained eye sees:

• https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2018-3-21-meet-an-art-collecting-couple-committed-to-advancing-scholarship - The source's reliability looks OK. According to their about us page, they have staff writers, so aren't just a random person's blog. The specific article is borderline. The bottom half seems to be information supplied in an interview, so kind of calls into question the independence of the top part.
• https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20141213/ISSUE09/312139982/carl-thoma-of-thoma-bravo-mixes-private-equity-and-art-collecting - Their about us page says they have 20 journalists on staff, so that's good. But this article clearly fails GNG due to being almost entirely quotes from the article subject, so not independent.
• https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/personality-profile-past-downturns-inform-carl-thomas-strategy/ - Paywalled. I can't read it.
• https://www.artnews.com/art-collectors/top-200-profiles/carl-thoma-marilynn-thoma/ - This article heaps praise on the article subject, saying things like behemoth, top-performing, innovative, move the world forward, cutting edge, and pioneering. This is way too much praise, and is indeed a "puff piece", calling into question the independence of the journalist. Seems like this may be an advertorial.

I imagine @Scope_creep followed this same process and decided that most of the citations did not meet the "independent" criteria of GNG.

Anyway, as for getting this article published, your best bet is to remove any citations (and their associated article text) that are clearly from non-independent sources, and focus on just a couple of really good references/sources, if they exist on this topic. Remember you only need about 3 really good ones. We want to base our articles on independent, non-biased sources so that the articles are high quality. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed many of them lack independence as they are interview based. Essentially, the sources are all manufactured PR to give the man a veneer of artificial notability that doesn't exist. Its starts with the "Meet..", which is puffed PR. By the fourth reference they are using the same photograph in many of the sources. By ref 6 is it press-release and/or mix of interview style PR along with profiles. By the second block, they are philanthropists based off of press-releases and in the third block, its the company which doesn't apply. It is a classic PR driven. There is not a single secondary source that here satisifies the WP:BLP requirements, nevermind WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. Most of it not independent at the least. scope_creep^Talk 17:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Novem Linguae, for your explanation. I appreciate you taking a look at the draft and sending such detailed feedback. If I had to single out the three best independent, non-biased sources in the draft that qualify as WP:SIGCOV, I would point to: this article from ARTnews (not the "Top 200 Collectors" profile that you assessed above, which is not an advertorial, but still not the ARTnews piece I had in mind for SIGCOV); this article from art ltd. magazine; and this article from the Albuquerque Journal. I would be happy to sharpen the draft so it draws its content more from these stronger sources and less from weaker ones, if you think that's the right direction to take. Thanks, JBarTB (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 sources aren't bad. 2 magazines and a local newspaper. Likely makes them independent enough. If you rewrote the article to only use those 3 sources, I think it'd stand a chance at WP:AFD, where this is likely to end up if published. @Scope creep, thoughts on the 3 mentioned sources? Should this editor take the time to rewrite their draft around these 3 sources? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would need to. They are certainly better than the last lot with proper bylines and don't smack of being PR. It still needs reviewed by an independent editor. scope_creep^Talk 14:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBarTB. With scope_creep's advice in mind, I'd recommend going ahead with the rewrite, then resubmitting the draft to AFC. After being resubmitted, a fresh editor will be along to review the rewrite. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Novem Linguae, I hope you're fine. Well, I saw the revert comment you made on Amouranth's page, so I decided to address it on here. So it's been confirmed widely that her birthday is on 2nd December. The subject even made a BIRTHDAY PARTY IRL STREAM on Twitch, back in December. And on a popular online podcast this week, she clearly mentioned that she was aged 31. This would logically prove that her birthdate is 2nd December 1993, so she is not born in 1994 at all. Details on Wikipedia, are meant to be pedantic or accurate as possible, so I will revert your previous edit for now, but let me know your thoughts. Diademchild (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Diademchild. Thanks for the note. Perhaps you should repost this at Talk:Amouranth so that others can join the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you undelete this user page for me User:Kudpung/New Page Patrol - a necessary evil . Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung. Sure.  Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wondered if there was a test enwiki somewhere that I could use to exercise / practice with the Page Curation tools, without having to do that carefully on the live one as I review actual articles? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunloungerFrog. Yes. You can use https://test.wikipedia.org/. I am an admin there and I just made you a patroller, so you should be all set. Happy testing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem Linguae, I wanted to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom/1, where it appears the script was confused and didn't catch the existing GAR page (I also have no option to close the reassessment with the script, which makes sense since it's already delisted). I think what happened is the reassessment page name wasn't following the normal format, but I'd appreciate if you could take a quick look and confirm my understanding. If this was a one off issue with the creation of that particular reassessment, no changes to the script should be necessary. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm pretty busy for a couple days but will try to look at this soon. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I took a look at this one for a couple minutes tonight. Looks complicated to wrap my head around. Has this happened multiple times or is this a one off? If it's just a one off might just let this one slide. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall this happening in the past. Hopefully it was just one error. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just relax and let the process end in your favor. Accept the win. I politely asked our friend and close ally User:theleekycauldron to step back from this discussion (as an arb, I thought she should avoid the appearance of undue trophy collecting). I didn't ask you; the process still needed an advocate. You've gone something tremendous! Accept the victory! Why are still you nattering about, presenting yourself poorly now? It's making me nervous. BusterD (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made my intentions clear weeks ago, yet I stayed out of the survey until a full two weeks into !voting. On the other hand, you created a snow thread on the talk page 18 hours in to the RFC. Some decorum, PLEASE! BusterD (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not sure how to reply to this. Will give it some thought. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely fair. Don't feel I'm trying to disrupt or draw you out. Don't feel obligated even after the outcome is final. Please know I have immense respect for what you and others have accomplished here. BusterD (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I gave this some more thought. I wish you would have said something like "Hey Novem. I feel like you might be BLUDGEONING a little bit over at the AELECT RFC. Would you be willing to reply a little less?" That would be a way to frame your concerns without accusing me of trying to "win" the RFC, accusing Leeky of collecting trophies, accusing me of presenting myself poorly, and accusing me of being indecorous.

As for the SNOW thing, it was SNOWing when I posted it. Here's the old revision. As you can see it is something like 45 to 1 there. So I started a discussion on the talk page to figure out if people wanted to end it early or keep it going. Folks said keep it going, which I was fine with and didn't push back against. Then in a very interesting turn of events, it went from SNOW to not SNOW, and I even posted a reply to the SNOW thread later on saying it was no longer SNOW and should be treated like a normal RFC.

I think you have an incorrect assumption that I am biased towards AELECT. I feel strongly about small pieces of the process, such as the fact that the 2021 RFC was closed incorrectly, or that RFA is more toxic and AELECT is less toxic, but as for feeling a bias towards wanting AELECT, I actually feel neutral on that. If the trial had gone poorly and the community didn't want it, I would have let the process die a natural death and not lost an iota of sleep over it. I am not shepherding the AELECT process because I feel that it is a better process than RFA (I haven't decided yet), I am shepherding it because I feel the community wanted to try it, that it was doable, but that it was being held back by a lack of a project manager type person to do things like coordinate between various stakeholders (enwiki, WMF, stewards, Cyberpower), make small decisions to avoid decision paralysis, set a schedule and stick to it, create clear and organized RFCs, etc.

Anyway, hopefully this reply doesn't offend you and gets us a little more in sync on this topic. Thanks for reading. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replied on the RFC discussion so I won't repeat myself too much, but as far as I can see Novem hasn't done anything out of line here, especially not anything worthy of this kind of message. It feels disproportionate and a bit melodramatic. Just my two cents. BugGhost 🦗👻 04:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I weighed in at the RfC talk and don't really have anything else to add except that I don't understand BusterD's intent here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem, I'm in a sticky situation in this discussion. I asked the closer of this RfC to weigh in on their intention regarding the outcome, but their response concerns me and I'm not sure how to respond without opening a can of worms. I am seeking your advice because you seem to be experienced in this topic on wikipedia. The void century 15:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for the message. I'm sorry to hear that you're taking a year wikibreak due to this topic. Let me know if you return early and I'd be happy to give more advice, time permitting. Thanks. Be well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Novem Linguae! Well, I need your help. I have started leaving Edit summaries on edits I make, but many times I accidentally click "Publish" twice. So, I was going through User scripts to help me. But, I did not find one. Can you please make 1, that prevents a user from publishing without leaving edit summaries? Please let me know. Xiphoid Vigour ⚔ 07:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xiphoid Vigour. Howdy! Have you tried Special:Preferences -> Editing -> "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae Thanks for the help! I was not informed about that. Xiphoid Vigour ⚔ 07:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are well. Just here to let you know that User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/WatchlistAFD.js, a script that I love to have, seems to have stopped working for me. Unfortunately I have a very limited knowledge of coding so I wouldn't know where to start, but I thought I'd let you know. Love your work! GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Will see if I can find some time to work on this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem, I have expanded my reference to you at my debrief. Again – as a matter of fairness – I wanted to let you know, though it wasn't anything (imo) negative; quite the opposite! Hope you are doing well, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made reference to the CiteHighligher script in your !vote on the AFD for Barron Trump. Can you point me in the direction of the script. TarnishedPath^talk 01:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I probably should have linked it. User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. TarnishedPath^talk 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted my edits on edgelord, and you vaguely said that the citation “didn’t include edgelord”. even though the citation may not say “edgelord”, it very much implies it. I’m hoping that you’ll restore my works since i believe i violated no policy or guideline. If i did violate any guideline, then inform me with an elaborate explanation. 2A00:23C4:908:E101:2D08:FCD3:B4B6:8C5F (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for your good faith contribution. However you need to be more careful that your citations support your statements. In this case, it is not appropriate to say that "X is an edgelord" and support it with a citation that doesn't even have the word edgelord in it. Besides failing WP:V and being WP:OR, there are also WP:BLP concerns. Hope this makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First I want to say thanks for anrfc-lister, makes listing a discussion so easy.
Second I have a question about UserHighlighterSimple. What I'm looking for is to highlight non-EC users in the most minimal way, similar to how blocked editors are effected by the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" preference. I don't want to change the general signature format, or use any of the other functionality, but just give the user name some simple change that makes it easy to identify. Reading the documentation this seems like it should be possible using the common.css configuration, but I don't understand how. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad you're enjoying ANRFC-lister :)

UserHighlighterSimple's default is to put a box around users with less than 500 edits. Users with less than 500 edits are almost entirely non-EC users. Are you aware of the box and think it's not visible enough?

Have you checked out User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserHighlighterSimple#Config settings? If you follow those directions exactly, then edit the .UHS-no-permissions { border: 1px solid black !important; } part to something else, you can change the styling of users with less than 500 edits. For example, to do a strikethrough, you could change that to .UHS-no-permissions { text-decoration: line-through; } –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a box around user with less than 500 edits would be fine, but I don't seem to be able to get it to work. I thought that this .js[3] and this .css[4] would achieve that, but I've seem to have got something wrong as it's doesn't appear to be working. To clarify I just want to highlight the new users without changing other signatures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This line looks wrong: .window.userHighlighterSimpleNoColors = true;. Try removing the period at the beginning and see if that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping! It's working now, I'm going to go fiddle with the CSS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Enjoy your fiddling :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. (Still about review count at XTools) Just making sure: patrol-patrol is globally considered to be part of the review count (even though technically speaking it's not pagetriage), right? (And so XTools should too.) That's the impression I gathered from some NPP ranking queries, but better be safe than sorry. Thanks and have a good day, — Alien  3
3 3 01:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Alien333. What's patrol-patrol? Can you give some additional context? I know what Special:UserGroupRights patroller and reviewer are by themselves but have never seen patrol-patrol combined like that. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant patrol-patrol as in log_type = "patrol" AND log_action = "patrol" in the logging table. (internally in XTools we group the two with a dash, and I forgot that it's only us :)). So I meant the "default" MW patrol feature, which as you said is not often used anymore on ENWP. — Alien  3
3 3 18:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. Well anyway, PageTriage is only installed on enwiki, so anything that's not enwiki can definitely keep using the old system. So the kind of decisions you'd need to make for the ticket we were talking about is 1) what to name the Page Curation count, and 2) whether to keep displaying Patrol and Page Curation side by side, or hide Patrol. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if Patrol shouldn't be counted as part of the Page Curation count, as some (the NPP hall of fame queries at any rate) have counted it in, but now that you say it keeping the two shouldn't hurt. Thanks for the help! — Alien  3
3 3 19:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Page Curation should only query the Page Curation log, not the Patrol log. WP:PatrolVsReview talks a bit more about the differences. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Novem Linguae! I wanted to ask if there's a technical error. Here it's appearing that TomAlvor deleted that page. But, he only has 22 edits and obviously not an admin! I use minerva skin please tell what issue it was. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 12:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ophyrius. The software lets non-admins delete redirect pages with no other history, if it is done as part of a page move. Looks like that is what happened here. That is, TomAlvor moved a page. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! I didn't know about that.😅 _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 14:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no worries :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

saw you fixed the watchlist, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One time I get woozy... but really appreciate it. qedk (t 愛 c) 22:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that the close was a bit too early. It's been only 9 days since the discussion was move to VPP, and my concerns were raised only yesterday. While, I do see a consensus so far, I don't think that people have thought this proposal through, as I fail to see any advantage that granting move-subpages alone would give. It should either be as give them everything that page movers already have (except maybe move-category) like BD2412 says or make no changes and grant extended-mover on a case-by-case basis like Aaron Liu says. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I've started Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Revert close? to see if others feel the same way. If someone else also thinks it was too soon, I'll probably revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sinicasyaycami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there, can we do anything about this user? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.  Done. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also delete the AI-generated vandalism image they used? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sinicasyaycami.jpg I don't wanna use any markup so it doesn't show up as an image on your talk page. It was uploaded to Commons first so it may need to be pointed to the admins there Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone started the process at c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sinicasyaycami.jpg –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nominated for deletion on Commons. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! I'd also suggest a revdel of their edit summaries, this is a LTA and would be nice to WP:DENY them from having trophies in the page histories. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds time consuming since it is spread across multiple pages. Another volunteer is free to revdel those if they want. But in the spirit of WP:DENY perhaps it'd make sense to not spend too much more time on this :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Let's hope they enjoyed it while it lasted... Cheers, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have done a lot of updates so are posting again for feedback and potential approval.Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#OWID_visualization_within_MediaWiki_(Part_2) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Subscribed. Let's see what folks say now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only minor concerns raised but not much engagement.[5] Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the only comment was an objection to deploying. Unfortunately that is not a great outcome. Maybe fix the concern there, then make yet another VPT thread in a couple weeks, and ping everyone that participated in the second to last discussion (since that one was well attended). –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Apologies to both you and older ≠ wiser for accidentally amnending the older ≠ wiser signature. Lapsus manus. The bolding was intended to assist the closer's work but I guess it's not needed. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome. No worries. A couple years ago when I was newer I tried adding bold to an AFD and got reverted, so I get the impression that people like to control their !vote and how intense it is. I've also been reverted for fixing comment typos. Nowadays I leave comment content alone and pretty much only change bullets, indent, and headings. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 9 § Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information until a consensus is reached. Grnrchst (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all your work at phab:T378287. You deserve a ton of appreciation :) – DreamRimmer ■ 13:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy. I'm glad you got to play a part in that too :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd extend that appreciation for wrangling Extension:SecurePoll through the process and getting WP:AELECT off the ground and into the running! Sohom (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have stopped working entirely. I still haven't learned how to debug these things, but now nothing is appearing at all. Yes, I know, bugs, github, etc...but I want to verify it's happening to someone else too. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon. Looks like Special:Diff/1296857619 broke it. I updated some code. Try it now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yay thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and then it stopped working again. Hm. Strange magic. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works here: User talk:Datawikiperson. Fails here: User talk:Digital Disruptors. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon. Looks like some of the old templates are still using the "old way" that I had just removed in favor of the "new way". Just now I wrote a patch to support both. Try it now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both work now, thanks! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, sorry my edit led to this. I did think about scripts relying on the unblock template but not expect the style attributes to cause issues :( Sohom (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. HTML is not a stable interface. I think you approving the edit request was fine. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Your script at present has options to list requests for closer to the Admin, RFC, Deletion and other sections of WP:CR. I don't know when it happened but someone added sections for Merges and Requested Moves. Any chance of an update to your script? TarnishedPath^talk 14:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath. Done. [6]. Thanks for reporting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Novem - you gave me a useful solution for a .js script previously, and I have seen your script contributions, so am seeking your interpretation again (and assistance to fix, if possible, please) of a user template test I'm running on both my user page and sandbox. It is {{User Wikipedian For|year=2005|month=04|day=17|sc=y}}

Questions: 1. On my sandbox page, the counter advances automatically each 24 hr. What triggers it to read the date and update the function precisely at GMT 00:00:01?

The counter has never worked automatically on my user page. I tried placing it inside or outside a wikitable or style template (no effect), and have updated it manually by clicking on the GMT clock displayed on the upper right of my screen (this works). Using {{purge}} manually also works on my user page.

I've sensed that some format on my user page obstructs an autopurge at 1 second past 00:00 GMT, because the sandbox counter always works well. I've checked other user pages where this function is used (usually, outside of a table), and they update automatically daily.

2. For some of your work, I've seen what may be automatic "purge" functions. Is there a way to install a script that refreshes a page on the 24 hr clock, and therefore would not require manual attention?

3. If a script for a page purge at 00:00:01 GMT doesn't exist, could one be created?

Apologies for introducing such a minor issue, but curiosity about how it happens and how to fix it steers me to seek your thoughts and solution. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Pages are cached as much as possible to reduce server load, and it is not possible to autopurge them at a fixed time using a user script, since that requires you to be online. There are some approved bots for automatic purging, but they are not currently active. You can use the following script, and once installed, it will automatically purge your user page when you visit it. Please do not visit too often, as frequent purging will not be helpful due to how MediaWiki handles caching. A few visits a day should be enough.

$(document).ready(function() {
    if (mw.config.get('wgPageName') === 'User:Zefr') {
        $.post(mw.util.wikiScript('api'), {
            action: 'purge',
            titles: mw.config.get('wgPageName'),
            format: 'json'
        }).done(function() {
            mw.notify('Page purged successfully!', { type: 'success' });
        });
    }
});

DreamRimmer (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DreamRimmer, but the main query remains: the sandbox counter updates automatically - how? - and having a script purge for the user page requiring a page visit is not different than going to the page and clicking on the clock (I do not want to visit my user page very often). Other users, and possibly other autopage functions on Wikipedia, have counters or autopurges that require no page visit.

How does an autopurge bot get activated?

Except for clearing my own cache manually, I am always logged-in and online (sandbox recognizes this; user page doesn't).

What page factors are different between the sandbox and user page that allow auto-updating on the sandbox page while blocking it on the user page? Zefr (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. In general if a template makes a calculation, the page will need to be purged or you will need to make an edit to the page before that calculation updates. Are you perhaps editing your sandbox frequently, causing an update? I do not use automatic purging in any of my user scripts. If me and DR end up stumped, a good place to crowdsource technical questions and answers is WP:VPT. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I rarely use my sandbox, but the counter there ticks along on its own each day at GMT 00:00:01, or seems to. Simply by looking at my sandbox page, would the counter be triggered to update? If so, why doesn't looking at my user page autotrigger the counter?

I know and have high regard for VPT, but feel this counter issue is not a community-value topic to bring there. Just an itch I can't scratch...

Have been reviewing and enjoying CiteHighlighter.js in my article editing, with thanks. Zefr (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because there are other counters on my sandbox page, the user counter gets triggered by the page refresh to keep the date and article count constant. For example, I've kept this one as info.

Today is Monday, August 11, 2025. Currently, there are 7,037,728 articles on the English Wikipedia.

I'll add it to my user page as a test, and see what happens tomorrow. Zefr (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem Linguae. Hope you're doing well. I just noticed that [7] is not updating recent reviewed draft. Can you please address the issue? Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258. Fixed. Do a Ctrl-F5 to hard reload the page, which will update the JavaScript files and fix the bug. Thanks for reporting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, Still not working. Can you look again? Fade258 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258. When I visit https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/?user=Fade258, I see some entries from July 4, which should indicate the bug is fixed, since the bug involved the last couple days of entries not being detected. Can you please go into more detail about what's broken? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae. Since, I am a mobile user, I even didn't see any entries from June 30. How it happens? Fade258 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try closing and reopening the tab? Did you try closing and reopening the browser app? (The idea being to clear your caches so that the .js file with the new code loads instead of grabbing an old cached version of the .js file.)

Can you please paste the URL you are visiting, and provide a screenshot? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, Now it is working after clearing my browser cache. Thank You for your help. Fade258 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem Linguae, I noticed your comment here and here referencing 7,700 edits, noting the same metrics being used. Based on these, is the implication that the youngest account age approved as admin was 2 years? Ie they're based on successful RfA minimum values if not mistaken? Just trying to do my homework prior to voting hence the question. Thanks, CNC (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor. Howdy! The 7,700 edits comes from Sohom Datta's AELECT last year, when he had 7,735 edits around that time. Was pretty exciting actually because the previous record before him was 0xDEADBEEF who had around 8,000. Well, record within the last 5 or so years anyway. GoldenRing passed with a really low edit count, but it was in 2017.

The 2 years tenure is just a subjective impression, and I don't have data to back that one up. Hope that helps explain some of the criteria I'm checking. Feel free to use your own criteria of course. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha and yeh I was curious about youngest account specifically to know what the record is, but I guess this data might be unknown without calculating it over past 5 or so years. 2 years sounds about right to me, based on what I've seen so far. Cheers for info, CNC (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor: You might find this data useful. – DreamRimmer ■ 18:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should 24.198.139.17's talk page access be revoked? They have continued to bludgeon the process and (attempt to) waste others' time even after being blocked. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 05:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grand Delusion. Hey there. Thanks for the message. That talk page is a bit of a timesink, but I don't think their behavior quite rises to the level of revoking TPO. If they keep it up I'm sure someone will take additional action against them. For now I think things are OK. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thank you for your asynchronous script, which helped me complete my one that I had no idea how to finish for several years! --𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐸𝑎𝑐ℎ ... 𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑡 14:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@For Each ... Next. You're very welcome. Happy scripting. See you in a year when you've made a dozen user scripts and become a MediaWiki developer. There's so many programming rabbit holes around here :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ready for business. All downhill from here. Nice work. BusterD (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD. Thanks. So far so good! –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a lot more confident in AELECT after round 2. It is largely to your persistence and dedication that this one worked so well. (and lots of obvious others) BusterD (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD. Thank you very much. I'm actually really happy to see that your vibe towards me and AELECT is becoming more positive. I was a bit worried about things between us after User talk:Novem Linguae#You should give it a rest, dude., so I am glad to see things going in a positive direction.

Feel free to chat with me anytime about things. I want things between us to be good. I have fond memories of working together with you during the meetings with the Growth Team about new page landing reform ideas, and would hate for anything to cause tension between us. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my actions appeared polemic in the moments I took them. You and I are always good; my concern is the intrinsic precision of the process. In my experience, what often happens in volunteer-driven organizations is a gradual personalization of processes. Any election cycle brings a rhythm, and folks will begin to act around the rhythm (internal politicization, which I believe potentially fatal to community trust). I'm still seeing things I believe we should adjust (like listing candidates alphabetically in discussion and voting processes). If in the moment I acted boldly and seemed to be rude, my perhaps clattering actions were intended to provoke a fuller discussion on the merits. I'll always be a gadfly on this voting thing. But I reside so much trust in your work here I feel allowed to disagree with you for a higher good. That makes us friends. It has always been so. BusterD (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Glad to hear things are good between us. By the way, can you elaborate a little bit on personalization of processes? I'm not sure what that is. Would love to learn the concept so I can understand better what concerning pattern you're spotting in AELECT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not identifying any specific pattern in AELECT, but instead in general human behavior. For background, I suggest you read the third email here. What follows is my informed opinion, based on years of watching.

Acquiescence is not at all the same as agreement.

I have several times in my life managed volunteer-driven enterprises. I'm regularly involved in content communities which rely heavily on volunteers to create experiential "product." In my personal experience, volunteer energy derives from trust (in the community) one's efforts will not be wasted.

Some volunteers seem to have more time/resources, seem to be more willing, seem to be more dedicated, and seem to have more interest in specific outcomes. This causes normal interpersonal friction. I'm not casting friction as a problem, but instead as an inevitability.

On Wikipedia, we move content forward by a frequent willingness to disagree. We argue, constructively, for agreement. We put our friction up front in order to argue for a higher truth. As a community, we notice the friction, then find paths and processes to smooth the roughness towards trust in the disagreement itself. This makes for a collegial society of minds. This is, I believe, how communities thrive.

Our community thrives (if not grows) from its central tenets. This is the Wikipedia I agree to participate in, when I log on. This is how the community has matured from a mere social media phenomenon to a trusted source of information on medical topics, for example. Through disagreement the community has chosen to apply a very strict sourcing standard to such articles.

One of our central pre-pillar tenets, we believe in "rough consensus and running code", not voting. Our community even adopted !vote as a way of signifying not a vote. An argument is made at WP:AFD, WP:RSN, or WP:RFA; we vigorously disagree about the worthiness of the made argument and its corollaries. Each user has an equal opportunity to make a case. The closer notes the found consensus, which is usually obvious even without closure.

In authorizing a new voting scheme, the community has accepted that volunteers with more time, resources, willingness, dedication, or interest in a specific outcome, will have an outsized influence on the future of our endeavor. This makes for a less collegial society of minds. We will be forced to accept candidates which did not go through sufficient and personal vetting. We will allow current admins to be desysopped on the votes of 25 EC accounts. We have made it far less stressful for a lifetime job interview and far simpler to get rid of longtime trusted servants. What could possibly go wrong?

As a community wikipedians will gradually acquiesce to authority without trust. This fundamentally changes how we operate in the future. And that's why my stridency now. BusterD (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get any pleasure about being dickish regarding this. I'm generally pleased with both AELECTs so far, although I have no way of understanding why voters made the choices they did. In typical wikipedian fashion, I trust those votes less than their arguments. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no worries. AELECT seems to be a bit of a tradeoff between A) transparency and evidence-based argumentation on one hand (our current RFA and consensus system), and B) not being too harsh to candidates on the other. Pros and cons! Is the tradeoff worth it? I'm sure the community will keep telling us their thoughts on this via RFCs. And if it causes problems we can always RFC to go backwards too. Change is scary, risky, etc. but we'll see. Thanks for talking this out with me. I do want to understand and be respectful of all perspectives. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for running AELECT, again. I couldn't find a barnstar that encapsulates how important this is to every aspect of the encyclopedia, so here's a cute kitten instead. Here's to many more elections and many more admins!

Toadspike [Talk] 16:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a big thank-you for all the work you’ve put into creating the election system and making it work! I think it’s a tremendous improvement over the RfA. I can’t imagine the amount of time and effort you’ve put into it, pro bono Wikipedia. I do have one minor suggestion: would it be possible to keep the announcement box up for a couple of days (the one that announced the stages of the election process that appeared at the top of watchlists), now saying “voting results are now in” or some such? Just to close the loop? As I say, just a minor thought, not meant as a criticism of all you’ve done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. Howdy! I think this would be a good thing to propose at WT:AELECT and get consensus for. We've got to balance the excitement of announcing the results with not spamming people too much. It occurs to me that while RFAs are advertised via watchlist notices, that the results are not advertised there after they close, so that may be something to consider. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will comment there. I see discussion has started already, with some interesting stats analysis. With respect to the notification box, there is a difference between RfA and the elections, and that is the result in RfA happens in real time, and the notification box stays up until the 7 day period concludes, with the result. For the elections, the lag time can be days (or even a week, it was suggested) so it makes sense to me to take down the "voting is going on" box once voting is over, and then put up a new box for the results. But, just a thought. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't want to just do it myself since it's your signature there. But could you please add the withdrew link in the Sahaib candidacy page to the header to become "The candidate withdrew during the discussion period" header for posterity and consistency with the 2024 election handling (SheriffIsInTown, Iwaqarhashmi, NoobThreePointOh). Thx. Raladic (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.  Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin Elections barnstar
	Thank you for managing the process of the second admin elections and writing code for SecurePoll. It is appreciated! Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Novem Linguae.

This is that complete Latin course on Commons I mentioned to you today, in case you ever decide to make more progress towards novem. :) Ijon (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have improved the software and I have reapplied.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at this discussion? I think there may be a bug in one of your scripts related to processing of unblock templates. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]