User talk:Novem Linguae

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 40 sections are present.

Hi Novem, I hope your well. Just a few things to run by you, when you have a moment. Can NovemBot do promotions of former topics? Thinking about Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Dwarf planets/archive1, in this case.

Also, two requests for the NovemBot, granted that you deem them reasonable and have a moment:

1. Could the bot possibly add something like {{Fa top}} & {{Fa bottom}} to promoted nominations? Consistency with the FA bot would be ideal—and I think the visual element makes it clearer if a conversation has ended.
2. Could the bot also put {{FC pass talk message}} on nominator talk pages? Although there's no template for GTs in this regard at the moment.

Again, these are super low-priority, so please no rush! Thank you again for all that you do here. Aza24 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy. Just acknowledging that I've seen this. Will circle back to it when I'm less busy with work stuff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you for your invaluable efforts. And again, no rush at all. Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24

Hard:

• Looks like NovemBot can't currently handle former/demoted FGTs. This is because I haven't programmed logic for how to handle things like Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Dwarf planets, where it'd have to add an action4 to {{Featuredtopictalk}} and change its current status, instead of just writing a brand new page like it currently does. I would also have to add logic on how to reconcile the new set of WikiProjects with the existing WikiProjects already on the talk page.
  If you want to trick the bot into doing this anyway, blank both Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets and Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Dwarf planets, run the bot, then manually fix/merge the old and new content at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Dwarf planets.

Easy, let's knock these out, need some action on your side though:

• {{Fa top}} & {{Fa bottom}}: Can you show me a diff please? Unclear which page you want this on and where exactly the two would go.
• {{FC pass talk message}}: I think you'd need to fork this into its own template and make a few modifications, or modify the existing template to handle a "topic" parameter. Once this is ready, let me know and we can add this to the FGTC promotion work instruction and to NovemBot.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of this.

• For the FA top and bottom I'm thinking of what the FAC bot does ([1])—so this would be after pages are promoted, on the discussion page. Just seems like an archiving standard we ought to include; I imagine we'd be fine having it place {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}}?
• I'm currently discussing this was Sdkb. I think a new template is probably the route; although the current supports featured topics, it doesn't for good topics, as you allude to. And using the single-star icon for featured topics is a bit strange anyways. Will report back once progress is made on this template.

Aza24 (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24. I added the {{Archive top}}/{{Archive bottom}} feature just now. Can you run the bot on ONE regular topic (not an addition) so I can confirm the change? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've now just promoted one (Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Overview of Ben&Ben/archive1) – Aza24 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24. Let me know when you finish forking {{FC pass talk message}}, and I can get that added to NovemBot. Also let me know the next time you need a former topic re-promoted. That will give me a nice push to work on that feature. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you! There may be a delay with forking the template, I'm rather busy this May, but hopefully I'll get around to it early this summer. Aza24 (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem, I've gotten around to forking the template, see {{GA pass talk message}}, I hope I did it right. {{FC pass talk message}} should already be available for topics. Feel free to add these to NovemBot whenever you have a chance. Thanks as always for your efforts. Best – Aza24 (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Aza24. Can you do me a favor and repost this somewhere (maybe User talk:Novem Linguae/Work instructions/FGTC) and ping me? Pings and notifications on user talk get erased really easily (MediaWiki clears them every time you visit the user talk page). Pings from remote talk pages stay in my ping box until I get around to them :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on what evidence that was presented that could possibly justify the topic ban you have imposed. There was a loud chorus of a group of editors calling for a sanction, who repeatedly restored the topic after it was archived. They presented accusations but didn't present any evidence to support those allegations. All were the same editors in a content dispute on Tim Hunt.

[2] My contribution history on Tim Hunt. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.

Note: {{npov}} tag added 13 March 2024, single revert to restore. 25 March 2024 - one single edit adding context and information in WP:RS per WP:NPOV.

That is all of my contributions to the article.

[3] My contribution history on Talk:Tim Hunt.

Note: 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution. I had not made any comment in talk since 12th February.

Since 12th February, I've made 3 comments in talk, 1 contribution to the article in total. This is hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.

I was accused of forum shopping, I raised the issue once when {{npov}} tags were being removed by edit warring. Didn't reply for nearly a week, didn't rise to the bait of edit warring.

Only one editor made an accusation of not assuming good faith seemingly supported by a diff. That took a talk quote taken out of context, which was a response to [4], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misogyny is not my comment but for example [5] he's just another misogynist.

I don't accept that a topic ban was justified. No evidence was presented, mere accusations of involved editors are not sufficient to justify action; I presented clear evidence those accusations were unjustified. I have already given up editing the article because of the toxic nature of the discussion, have no intention of returning but an unjustified broadly construed topic ban would prevent me from writing in other areas. I am asking you to reconsider your decision, in the light of the lack of any evidence of misconduct. WCM_email 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!)[reply]

	Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Ahecht
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

... 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

	Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: North8000
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

	Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: MrLinkinPark333
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Chlod
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Test results[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Novem Linguae

Draft:Meru Gokhale is now improved. Please see link below. Blawgar (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meru_Gokhale Blawgar (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

	Greetings, Novem Linguae. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Theroadislong KylieTastic
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Precious

One year!

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

i've boldly/cheekily crammed in user instructions at the top of doc page as i couldn't work out how to put them lower? Tom B (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpbradbury. Thanks. I split the template in half just now to help avoid problems with this in the future. By the way, I haven't tested anrfc-lister in awhile, so please let me know if you find any bugs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't obvious to me where move discussions should go, because the instructions on the closure page aren't obvious, you could put something about move going in 'other'? thank you, Tom B (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem, I've created a new tool for checking links in articles and posted it here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Feverfew – A new link checker tool. I hope if you have time, you can give me feedback on it. Thank you! Plantaest (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will take a look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem! A recent discussion with @LunaEatsTuna reminded me of an issue I've had my eye on for a while.

One of the best ways to improve an article (and something experienced editors do all the time) is looking at GAs/FAs in the topic area to use them as models. However, my sense is that very few novice users think to do this — if they check elsewhere at all, it's typically to the most prominent article in the topic area, which won't necessarily be the highest-quality.

It would be helpful if there were a gadget that could take as input any article and return the article best-suited to use as a model for it (i.e. a GA or FA that shares similar categories/Wikidata information/text). If such a gadget worked well enough, it might someday be included as a standard talk page element.

However, I don't have any clue about how to develop such a gadget (or even if a gadget would be the optimal form for the tool). Given the technical areas in which you work, you came to mind. I'm curious, what do you think of the idea? Do you have a sense of how technically difficult it might be? And if it's feasible, would you have any interest in taking on development?

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 03:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Sdkb. I think the technical approach for something like this would probably be to use a machine learning model such as mw:Lift Wing, and then access its suggestions with a user script. This is not my area of expertise. Maybe someone like Sohom Datta can provide a bit more detail. Also, WP:US/R is a good page for requesting user scripts if you want to get more eyes on something like this in the future. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request a look at the interventions of User:Maurnxiao in Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election, sections Infobox, Muslim Vote, and Workers Party.

A member of less than a week (although his very first post was challenging the status of sources as reliable, making me suspect he has been active under a different identity), entirely unaccepting of the principle of consensus, determined to see a level of coverage of one political party that is disproportionate to that given by mainstream news sources. Highly disruptive, unwilling to accept that his preference is not grounds to change the approach taken by the article. Time sensitive issue (election is in 10 days), so a quicker intervention would be desirable. Is seeking a topic ban suitable, or is some other solution more suitable.

With thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kevin McE. This looks a bit too complicated for me to solve with just a couple minutes of reading. I'd recommend you copy paste this to WP:ANI to get some additional eyes on it. If you post at ANI, you will need to inform Maurnxiao of the ANI discussion on their user talk page. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I was just looking to see if there is a less drastic step to take before that. I will do that if he continues. Kevin McE (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, he is just knocking on an open door, as this issue sss already settled before he took to tell others about me. I'd accepted the consensus against my wishes and had stopped pushing for my views. Maurnxiao (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @Novem Linguae for conducting a discussion between the two of us on your page: only doing so in the assumption that this is the last of it.

@Maurnxiao: If you have stopped, that's fine, that is why I said I would take other steps if you continued (you had not communicated your concession to consensus anywhere). You have said that you won't, so that is the end of it. Good. Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the draft charter written by User:Sj. well done indeed!! I have started a draft of sorts of my own. could you please go to this page, and let me know what you think? thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another WP:BLAR need your help Christnz1990 (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here is the link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wonderful_Pretty_Cure!_episodes# Christnz1990 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Christnz1990. Hey there. It looks like you didn't follow all the manual AFD steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. I think I've fixed it. In the future, you may want to install WP:TWINKLE, then go to TW -> XFD -> AFD, and it will do the steps for you automatically. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Novem Linguae, I saw that you recently edited the Robotaxi page and I have a request for you please.

Mobileye has announced upcoming robotaxi projects with Holo in Norway, Deutsche Bahn in Germany and Verne in Croatia that could be added to the page. Due to the scope and potential of these projects, I would suggest adding them to the timeline and creating a new section under 'Notable Commercial Ventures' for Mobileye.

Here are sources: https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/26/24185735/rimac-verne-robotaxi-croatia-mobileye-autonomous https://www.iotworldtoday.com/transportation-logistics/germany-launches-fully-autonomous-self-driving-taxi-transit-trial https://europe.autonews.com/suppliers/nio-mobileye-autonomous-driving-tech-nears-norway-debut

FYI - I'm an employee of Mobileye and have declared by COI Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gideon at Mobileye. Thank you for following our COI rules. We appreciate you disclosing this and doing things by the book.

Can you please repost your request at Talk:Robotaxi? This will help crowdsource this. I'd also recommend that you draft the text you want added and post it on that talk page. Having text ready to drop in will make it easier for whoever ends up processing your COI edit request. Finally, I recommend you tag your text with the {{COI edit request}} template to draw attention to your edit request. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Novem Linguae. I'll put together the text and ping you once I've posted it. Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could modify the script to show only blocked users for the entire edit history, not just the history that is displaying. Without that, it's not very useful for me. Is it hard? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23. Required some work, but I think I got it working. Try it now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to work. If I display the most recent 50 contributions to Frédéric Arnault, it shows only the blocked users in that timeframe, even though there are blocked users from earlier, e.g., RogerNotable, who made two consecutive edits on February 10, 2024. Also, there seems to be a bug that I don't remember being there before. I can toggle on your script, but AFAIK, the only way to toggle it off is to refresh the screen. When I do that on the most recent 50, it works fine, as it did before, but when I then go back 50 contributions, it shows no one because there are no blocked users in that 50, meaning it toggles it back on. Hope my description makes sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be working as I expected. Page 2 is blank because none of those 50 diffs have a blocked user. If you click "older 50" again, then RogerNotable shows up on page 3. The script stays on because &onlyShowBlocked=1 is still in the URL. My assumption was that the user wouldn't want to turn it off on the same page once it was turned on. I guess I could write some code to allow turning it off. Would that help? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's working as you expected, then I guess I wasn't clear enough in my original request. I'll try again. Before I turn the script on, I display the standard 50 most recent edits. When I turn the script on, I want it to show all blocked users going back to the creation of the article (without having to scroll backwards in time).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. That's doable, but would require a complete rewrite to use the mw:Action API instead of CSS element hiding like it currently does. Workaround: I could add &limit=1000 to the query to get it to display 1000 mixed revisions instead of 50, which would mean 20x the number of blocked revisions (but still not all of them). Or you could ask for someone to fork or write from scratch at WP:US/R. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, last time I made a request on that forum at your suggestion (this script), you were the one who did it anyway. :-) Your problem is you're too nice. You need to work on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I bumped it to 1000 mixed diffs per page, which should result in 20x more blocked diffs per page. See if that helps :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does help, thanks. I'm curious. How hard is to bump it in terms of work? It certainly doesn't seem to eat up processing cycles on the Arnault article, meaning it was very quick.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the history tab of ANI as my test case. When I tried bumping it to 5000, it lagged my browser pretty good. But I also have a UserHighlighter script that probably added to that lag. But hey, you're the only user right now, so if it doesn't lag for you then it shouldn't be a problem. Want me to bump it to 5000? Very easy to do in code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it be simplified like this? I don't really understand why it has to link to a different URL. Nardog (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for persisting the user script's state using the URL is that it allows the "next 50" link to be clicked and still show blocked users, rather than activating the script again. That make sense? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, but even then I would use sessionStorage or history.pushState(). At any rate, using CSS seems far simpler if you don't care about old browsers. Nardog (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

using CSS. Wouldn't the toggle reset when one of the pagination links is clicked, which is undesirable? By the way, I have no objection to you forking this if you have some good ideas for it. I have limited time at the moment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSS was a separate point, about jQuery traversing (I avoid .show() and .hide() because they use the style attribute; even if I wanted to support browsers without :has(), I'd give class(es) to <li>). I just made my fork persist through pagination (as long as you're on the same tab). Nardog (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Novem Linguae!

I was looking at your CiteHighlighter script. I downloaded the most recent dump (with only the current version of each article, not the revision history) and these are top 10.000 most frequently mentioned domains in URLs. I filtered out the duplicates (some lines in SourcesJSON contained subdomains so I removed those and removed the duplicates a second time). I ended up with ~8600 domains. For most domains it is pretty easy to judge how reliable they are. After a merge the script becomes much more useful because most references will be green so you only have to check those that are not. Performance impact is not too bad, on Bavaria (an randomly selected article with 64 refs and 3 notes) it ran between 600ms and 1s with the current list and between 800ms and 1.3s with the expanded list. It went from 53 refs that were not colored to only 20 (13 of which were books and one was a broken link). Comparison: https://imgur.com/a/7IsGRS5 Now its time to figure out a way how to judge the reliability of ~8600 domains. Perhaps it can be crowdsourced. Polygnotus (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Polygnotus. To be added to CiteHighlighter, I require that there have been a discussion about the source's reliability at RSN, or that it be added to some kind of curated list such as a WikiProject reliable sources page (and I assume those have their own processes that are hopefully also based on consensus discussions). I'm not sure I'd be comfortable just guessing at source ratings. Hope that makes sense. By the way, want me to change the content model of the two userspace pages you linked from wikitext to text so that word wrapping works correctly when viewing? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter and I understand your approach of scraping these pages. I also saw that you've put something similar to what I've done on the todo-list User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter#cite_note-2. Looking at this section I see that you added nrc.nl to the "yellow" section of the json based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#nrc.nl which means that the opinion of 1 or 2 random editors is enough under the current system. The domains I've proposed for inclusion have been referenced significantly more frequently across Wikipedia - ranging from 360 to 195,000 times. This extensive usage indicates a broader consensus regarding their reliability and value as sources. Of course we can curate the list to ensure things like archive.org are removed. I even thought about making a simple system where anyone could offer their opinion but I am not so sure that is necessary (e.g. an "I disagree with this rating" button with some preloaded text). I have to do a bit more research on the contentmodel thing, as far as I understand it it doesn't offer much of an advantage at the moment for plain text, but thanks for offering. It might be pretty useful for xml and json if you can collapse and expand treenodes. Polygnotus (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you and I have different philosophies on this. Feel free to fork (and rename) my user script then change it to point to your own source lists if you want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you explain yours? I mean you wrote the script and you posted a very similar idea in the cite note so I don't think our philosophies are that different. I've also considered building a simple interface where people can vote on the reliability of a source. A source that is used 20.000 times is probably reliable, and we can be more sure of that than a source that 2 random people have rated as reliable on WP:RSN. Sure, we got a lot of people expressing opinions about Fox News, but for most sources no one ever debated their reliability; people have just been using them and that became the consensus (de facto, not de jure). I don't think spamming RSN with a 100 sources a day and my rating of them would be a great idea. The current script already got an installed base. Forking is a last resort. Polygnotus (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That footnote is referring to featured articles only, which I trust more than regular articles. If you can assist me with generating source counts for that subset of articles, that might be something we can collaborate on. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA too or exclusively FA? Polygnotus (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusively FA please –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is running, will take a while. What should be the cut-off point for the amount of times a source is used? Polygnotus (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of the top 500 or top 1000 would be pretty useful, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Polygnotus/facounts I do not believe that prnewswire.com & yahoo.com & metro.co.uk are reliable sources Polygnotus (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I copied the top 1000ish results to User:Novem Linguae/sandbox. You can get CiteHighlighter to highlight these using window.citeHighlighterHighlightEverything = true;. For the ones not already in CiteHighlighter that had more than 200 citations, I clicked them open. If they weren't libraries, news aggregators, or dead links, I added them just now as generally reliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem - just wanted to give you a heads up that I forked your UserHighlighterSimple script to make UserRoleIndicator (my first user script!), which has a very similar purpose but slightly different execution (it puts a little div containing an emoji label next to user links, rather than altering the CSS to change the background). It uses the same logic as UserHighlighterSimple, and so relies on User:NovemBot/userlist.js as well to determine user roles. Seeing as it's forked from your user script and also borrows data from Novembot, I thought I'd give you a heads up to check if that's ok, and also to say good job on UserHighlighterSimple! The code I stole from it works like a charm. BugGhost🦗👻 15:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Always good to see folks benefitting from my bot's User:NovemBot/userlist.js. You're not the first one to incorporate that into a user script. Happy coding. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem. I mentioned you by name in user:HouseBlaster/RfA debrief, though I only had good things to say about you (specifically, about how you acted as a de facto named monitor). Just wanted to let you know as a courtesy. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]