Novem Linguae

Notification of administrators without tools

	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: The Night Watch
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, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to comment?

There is a debate at talk:Scientific method#Stemwedel quote to which you may wish to contribute. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League Two play-offs good content

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League Two play-offs good content indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League Two play-offs featured content

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League Two play-offs featured content indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League One play-offs good content

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League One play-offs good content indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League One play-offs featured content

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League One play-offs featured content indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League One play-offs

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League One play-offs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League Two play-offs

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia featured topics EFL League Two play-offs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	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: Dieter Lloyd Wexler
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 February 2024 (UTC)

Question -- editing but not logged on?

Thanks the help with archiving. Question for you: When I see an editor who appears to be quite experienced who might be editing but not logged in, what should I do? This is an example: [1]. That editor notified of this discussion here. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You should assume that they have chosen to exercise their right not to establish an account. Is there more to your question?--2603:7000:2101:AA00:95FD:29F8:EB8A:7855 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I respond below. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Are the edits problematic? Do you suspect they might be violating WP:LOUTSOCK, for example, by double !voting in an RFC or at AFD? If no, you can ignore it. If yes, then you can pursue further action via posting an WP:SPI, asking an admin, or posting at a noticeboard. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In a case like this there are these reasons I ask:

(1) I am concerned an editor may be inadvertently outing themselves and might want their error hidden (without attention), so I wanted to know how to do something discretely.

(2) WP:LOUTSOCK or another effort to distance themselves from trouble they have gotten into before (or sanctions, topic bans or other restrictions) from a previous account that they do not want to be associated with.

(3) using multiple accounts with different IPs so as to make it impossible to see a concerning pattern (either of bias or COI) in a subject area. The subject Voice of America is highly political entity used to advocate U.S. propaganda abroad. So it would be vulnerable to such editing as any major political article. That's why I was concerned to see such an experienced IP with so few edits working on that particular article. (I have seen work in music, movies, and entertainment that I am very confident is done by IPs funded by the industry. But that is a different problem that has long concerned me. If it bothers you too, we could discuss elsewhere.)

Other than being experienced -and- the sensitive subject area, I did not see any specific problem with the edits or recognize it as the work of any other editor. I'm *not* accusing the editor of having done anything wrong. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware of this. But many internet providers - not at all the decision of the user, as is my case - impose on their customers add esses that periodically change. Rather than ones that are static over time. This is not at unique, but given your interest in the area, may perhaps be helpful for you to know. And as you can presumably see by my edits, there is nothing more than a cleaning up of the article, and adherence to RS refs and wp rules, that you will see. I recognize that when it comes to IPs, a few individual editors adopt an assume bad faith approach. But a deeper understanding of non static ip addresses, and a focus on the nature of the edits, may be helpful ways to think about things. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:95FD:29F8:EB8A:7855 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Also -- if either of you have thoughts on this .. and wp:lede .. that would of course be great as nobody seems to be responding for third party opinions, and given your suspicion of me, and the fact that you are looking at my edits, i am obviously not canvassing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section&action=edit&section=10 --2603:7000:2101:AA00:95FD:29F8:EB8A:7855 (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on their response in this section, I think we can rule out #1. I agree that #2 and #3 are a risk here and in any situation where an experienced editor chooses to edit logged out. However at the moment I think policy and community consensus allows it as long as they don't cause trouble and aren't behaving like a known sanctioned user. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Any thoughts on the music, movie, and entertainment industry? Have you seen the many IPs that appear to be coming from industry marketing? The edits of TheRedundancy125 always concerned me, and I believe I had reported that account somewhere. I wasn't even a little surprised the account was blocked for sockpuppeting. But I have infinite confidence new accounts have sprung up to continue the work to use Wikipedia for free advertising. I'm hoping this problem is being discussed somewhere as I might want to join the effort to address it and to share my observations. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPP and WP:AFC catch and deal with a lot of this stuff when articles are first created. After an article passes NPP/AFC and becomes more established, it's a bit harder to deal with. WP:COIN can be used to get help with the worst cases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you overturn my edit on Andrew Tate page.

Check the Gokhan Saki page.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6khan_Saki

I added the incomplete tag in Andrew Tate's page the same way it is added in Saki's page. This is just one example. I have seen it as a norm in many kickboxers' articles. I am certain no other admin who came across those pages found it to be non-standard. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@24thHusbandofDraupathi. I've personally never seen it. But if you're sure it's the norm in kickboxing articles, go ahead and put it back. Are you sure a WP:MAINTENANCETAG wouldn't be a better fit though? For example, {{Missing information|section}}–Novem Linguae (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it undue

... to mention what was covered in the press, and was a written statement by a US Congressman, about a person as to which we have an article? Which you deleted here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patsy_Widakuswara&diff=prev&oldid=1207585013 ?

A US Congressman would seem to quite easily fall within the wp:undue category of a prominent adherent. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles should be based mostly on WP:SECONDARY sources rather than things like press releases from congressmen. Let's discuss this further at Talk:Patsy_Widakuswara so others can see the discussion and participate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

wp:undue and wp:secondary are perhaps somewhat different reasons. But I've explained at that talk page my views on why it meets wp:primary. And point out that there is a secondary source.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yapperbot

FYI. I just posted here: User_talk:Yapperbot#Moving_Forward. Is there anyone else I should do some outreach to that could help answer some of the questions? Is there a central place in WP where the coders like to talk to each other about things like this? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim. Thanks for the message. I'll respond to your questions on that page. For extra technical help in the future, onwiki you can post at WP:VPT. Or if you prefer live chat, you can post on Discord in General Technical Discussion. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	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: Queen of Hearts
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, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Thanks for reverting my miss-click on this page, I don't often view Wikipedia on a mobile, but invariably when I do I seem to manage to revert something whilst scrolling. Will endeavour to be more careful in future! Cheers Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

a barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		not to tempt the wrath, but, P13 is exactly what I'd hoped would come out of making this RfA review!! So happy to see you make a good push for this, hoping for the best :D theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Conditional barnstar

Hi Novem Linguae, if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 13: Admin elections gains the needed consensus and the closers actually see the consensus instead of overruling it, I'll let an AI generate an unique barnstar just for you. Fingers crossed! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree. Haha. This should be good. I hope it passes then because I want to see and receive my first AI-generated barnstar. Fingers crossed! –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Boom Overture

Thanks for reverting. I saw the string of edits yesterday and tentatively concluded that they seemed like both NPOV and OR violations, but I didn’t have time to give it the thorough read I felt was appropriate before reverting. There seem to be some people who apparently must have axes to grind with Boom, given the highly negative attack-oriented strings of edits that show up on this article from time to time. 1995hoo (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@1995hoo. Thanks for your support. I think this editor may not even have an axe to grind. I think they may just be inexperienced in writing in a proper encyclopedic tone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This article was originally a series of thinly disguised press releases which are worthless as a source of information . No axe to grind just professional expertise combined with properly sources technical corrections. It should not be a the advertising arm of a company which is largely what this article was as noted by the flag at the top of the page. Novem pointed out issues and I corrected them via dialogue and including further references A blank reversion without specifying any incorrect or unsupported statements is not appropriate. Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If you follow some of the advice I gave on the talk page, such as deleting incorrect statements, or using an "x stated y" format, you can probably improve the article without violating our policies. Also please be careful of run-on sentences. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

About one of your scripts

Hey Novem! Have you considered having your DontForgetG12 script display the big yellow button in userspace? It'd be useful to have that functionality as AfC gets a decent amount of submissions from people drafting articles in their sandboxes. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I couldn't just display it on all userspace pages, so would need to look for certain draft templates to trigger it. If you want to ping me on a page that isn't my user talk so it gets in my ping box, I'll work on this in about a month when my day job calms down. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit revision on Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident

Hello, thank you for reverting my edit and bringing my attention to the already present thread on the articles talk page which i didn't see as well as citing WP:RSPSOURCES.

I hope you understand that i was simply trying to remove any potential bias in the article since Al-Jazeera, considering it is a state-owned media outlet, may very well hold prejudice in this topic. Hjemt (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hjemt. Sure, no problem at all. Let's see where the talk page discussion goes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

the West Bank is 110% illegally occupied. It's not "biased" on the part of Al Jazeera (far more reputable than any Israeli state media outlet) to say as much. Just so you got the memo. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:5CD1:3272:4C4D:E327 (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think using that terminology reveals bias (taking a clear side on that controversial issue). That's fine though. Sources don't have to be 100% unbiased to be reliable. The media bias fact chart, for example, has two axes: reliability and left right bias. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Updating User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter/SourcesJSON.js

Hi Novem Linguae, I've just added a couple sites (both reliable and unreliable) to User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter/AllSourcesExceptNPPSG, it would be great if you could review my additions and update your script! The script has been super helpful reviewing articles, and I'm sure tons of editors agree. Thanks, TLA^tlak 05:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla. Deploy complete. Thanks for pitching in. By the way, did you mean to change El Mercurio to http://listindiario.com/ (Listin Diario)? According to Newspaper of record -> El Mercurio, its websites should be https://www.emol.com/ and http://www.elmercurio.com/. Thoughts on me replacing http://listindiario.com/ with those two? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. Copy paste error. I'll just fix it :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. Yup sorry, did a typo! TLA^tlak 00:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible bug in the GANReviewTool

See here; it added a status parameter rather than updating the existing one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Nested template bug. Feel free to ping me from a non user talk page so the ping stays in my pingbox to remind me to work on this. I'll probably be busy until april. And the proper fix for this is probably to rewrite the script to use the parsoid api. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've pinged you from the script talk page. Sounds like it can wait; I haven't seen this before so it must be rare. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	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: Fehufanga
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, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Questions and suggestions

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)

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)

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

@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)

Thanks for all of this.

• For the FA top and bottom I'm thinking of what the FAC bot does ([2])—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)

@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)

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)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFP/Autoreviewer backlog

@Novem Linguae, we have a reviewing crisis at Autoreviewing permission page, as more than 10 request are pending. I informed it AN. The last admin intervener has recently cleared two request after I notified at AN. Still many are left. Can you please help in clearing the backlog? ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy this weekend. Maybe in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from ExclusiveEditor

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § AI for WP guidelines/ policies. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter/AllSourcesExceptNPPSG

Got bored again and added the Africa, Nigeria, South Africa Wikiproject sources. I believe I filled it all out correctly, would be super helpful if you could update the script again! Thanks :) TLA^tlak 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla. Looks good to me. I deployed the changes just now. Thanks for your work on this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

🫡 TLA^tlak 11:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LTA/BMX

Hi. I just wanted to know the reason why you restored the page all over again. After a discussion in this talk page it would be better to blank off this page completely. Keeping the LTA page in my opinion wouldn’t even help with WP:DENY, as I might be worried that the vandalism would continue constantly if this were to happen. But in your opinion would it be better to leave the page alone or blank it completely. For me though it’s still better not to have an LTA page for this user. As if we were to have an LTA page it would get worse. kleshkreikne. T 08:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Pestering (again): Novembot glitch

Hey, sorry to bring up what I'm sure is your favorite subject once more :) Novembot has been rejecting me at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Primates/archive1. It gave the same error at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Better Call Saul (season 6)/archive1 last week, so I ended up manually promoting that one. Wondering if you could take a look when/if you have a moment. Best – Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Will take a look in the next two days hopefully. Sorry I'm not doing it quicker. Will likely take a lot of brainpower to make all these NovemBot changes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	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: MarioGom
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, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

MMS

Hello NL, hope you're feeling okay. Could you please change the content model of this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/MMS list to enable mass message sender-ish list? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

NPP Newsletter

Hello Novem, I hope you are doing well. I'm sorry to bother you with this message, but I just wanted to ask if you had a chance to review the newsletter draft. If not, there's no rush; I simply wanted to send a gentle reminder. Feel free to ignore this message. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Billboard and other sources

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

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

von der Leyen

Hey there, just fyi, it's now the third (similar) IP address making the same edits to the page on Ursula von der Leyen. Not that I think they are being malicious past being outraged and not fluent in the language, but I wanted to make sure you were aware. Similar edits, by similar IPs, have been rejected at the corresponding German page as well. JackTheSecond (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Notification of administrators without tools

	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: Philipnelson99
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, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

harsh

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

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

GoldenRing

Not sure how you define "last few years", but the 2017 GoldenRing RfA is imprinted into my memory. He had 2385 edits over 12 when he ran. It was an absolute stunner of a successful RfA. I'm posting here as I don't want to give TheTechie any wrong ideas. Schwede66 08:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Topic Ban

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

[3] 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.

[4] 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 [5], 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 [6] he's just another misogynist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry I can't accept your response and have requested a review at WP:AN. Expressing legitimate concerns ref a WP:BLP as mildly as I did should not engender the hostile response from those editors that it did. The collegial atmosphere was not disturbed by what I said, I'd entered an already toxic atmosphere where editors had adopted fixed positions, which is why I chose to disengage. As another editor noted I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. There was no real community input and if you can be topic banned for 4 edits, none of which violated any wiki norm you've created a chilling editing situation where mob rules apply. WCM_email 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I could I suppose take the time to explain how your comments were overly simplistic to the point of coming across as asinine, infantile and patronising. However, I sense that would be futile and instead I'll simply note that editors expressing concerns about the article were dismissed as misogynists circling the wagons to protect another misogynist and you've literally handed ownership of the article to them. It wasn't a tricky situation but its one that needed someone with the moral courage to do the right not the easy thing. Instead you sided with the gerrymandering, bullying mob and I sit here and realise with great regret that Wikipedia is no longer a project that I can support because it doesn't reflect the values it espouses. WCM_email 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Why ARBECR all my comments?

You recently closed all my discussions on a talk page (Talk:2024_Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus) for not being extended-confirmed. The WP:ARBECR page pretty clearly says that non-ECP users should still be allowed to contribute to the talk page unless they're being disruptive, which I wasn't. What's the deal here? Amyipdev (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Something I noticed regarding this is that the instructions on that talk page are different than the ones on Talk:Flour massacre. The former uses {{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}} whereas the latter uses {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, which is more expansive and includes the instructions for non-EC to only make edit requests --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)