User talk:Novem Linguae/Archive 9

Question
Hi. I'm adding two modern academic opinions on one event (purim). but two users deleted my content and even accused me of war editing. I want to know if can someone delete academic content because he thinks that the book of Esther is not historical fiction ? in now-days, no professors think that this book is reliable. but this user insists on consensus !!! Nobody is supporting his idea, what, what consensusing can be established when he has no advocate ??? Jentilir (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Jentilir. Thanks for your contributions. This is called a content dispute, and the best place to hash this out is on the article's talk page. In this case, that is Talk:Purim. Since your edits are being objected to, you need to develop a consensus on that talk page before your edits can be included. A consensus means that the result of the discussion is that most people agree to add your content. If this agreement doesn't happen, the content should not be added. Please also be careful not to edit war, which can get you blocked. WP:3RR. Hope this helps. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. @Jentilir. Your edits had capitalization, grammar, and punctuation errors. What is your native language? We have Wikipedias in many languages. It may be easier to edit that Wikipedia. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My native language is persian. And i added those text in persian wiki, too. But english is international's language. Why should not to edit in this wikipedia? And on what Basis he/she says "No secondary sourcing means that we should not include this, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate list of opinions" ??? If he/she has a secondary source, he/she can add his content too, But he can't delete my content, because he/she has not any defender. Jentilir (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jentilir. Why should not to edit in this wikipedia? You have errors in every sentence, which makes it high effort to read and fix your contributions. This quote, for example, should be "Why shouldn't I edit this Wikipedia?"
 * And on what Basis he/she says "No secondary sourcing means that we should not include this, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate list of opinions" ??? WP:SECONDARY sources are better than WP:PRIMARY sources. The use of primary sources can mess up the WP:WEIGHT of an article. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will fix my errors. but this not related to its undo my edits. He/she can say you should fix your writing, not saying that you should convince me (when I don't have a supporting secondary book to defend my idea). And i request you to tell him/her to stop deleting my context. If he/she didn't have and secondary book, it's not my fault. he/she should Research for finding text to support his/her idea. And you said about WP:WEIGHT. all primary sources are supporting the report of Esther an Mordecai. So can I delete subsequent source because it's indiscriminate reports ? Jentilir (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jentilir. As a newer editor (18 edits), you should pay attention to what experienced editors such as (207,000 edits) and  (48,000 edits) are saying, and adjust your editing accordingly. They probably know what they are talking about :) Content disputes should always be discussed at the talk page of the article, in this case Talk:Purim. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Experience in what field ? I don't think they read even a dozen academic books about religions or history ?  Experience in general editing didn't give anyone the ability to undo their opponent's edits. If someone had another idea, he/she should put his/her text in wikipedia's page, dude. it's not my duty ! Jentilir (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting
 ❄️Happy holidays!❄️

Hi Novem Linguae! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to meet you in Toronto, and always appreciate all your technical work! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk

&#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Melbourne shuffle
Hello, I am seeking a dispute resolution over at the Melbourne shuffle page. I noticed you have cleaned it up a bit in the past. Recently an IP address and two newly created sockpuppet accounts (all clearly connected IMO) have attempted to rewrite the history of the shuffle and attribute the creation of the dance to one man. No other source links him to the shuffle, let alone names him as its inventor. It's all really bizarre. Please read their claims and my response to them over at the Melbourne shuffle talk page. Any help in sorting this out would be much appreciated. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This might also be relevant: the man in question had a Wiki page that was deleted in 2021 due to "undisclosed conflict of interest, lack of any quantifiable accomplishments, that this is a resume, and because it's spam". - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @HappyWaldo. Thanks for the message. I went ahead and reverted to the last stable version, as I don't think someone saying in an interview that they invented something is a very reliable source. If there continue to be issues on this page, I'd recommend posting at a noticeboard or something to get neutral editors to participate in the discussion. Can also consider filing a WP:SPI if it becomes obvious the two accounts are the same editor. Hope that helps. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism of Melbourne shuffle warning
Please read user happwaldo's edit comment before you delete if highly important level article Purple rain and black sky (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Novem Linguae!


Happy New Year! Novem Linguae, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2024
Happy New Year, dear tutor! Your guidance and support have been invaluable. Wishing you a year filled with joy, success, and the fulfillment of all your aspirations. Cheers to a fantastic year ahead! – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks @DreamRimmer. I wish you a great new year too! – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

yo
ltb d l (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

History merge
– Novem Linguae (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

NPP Coordinator
– Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
06:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Christmas
06:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

BZRP MS #53
Hello, I wonder why you reverted my edit in the BZRP MS #53 article? What is the idea that in the header of the article it is specified that it is a Spanish song? Bogartlipa1989 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @Bogartlipa1989. I reverted your edit because 1) you didn't leave an edit summary, and 2) I think we should mention that this song is in Spanish somewhere in the WP:LEAD. Especially since the song's title is in English and all of its lyrics are in Spanish, I think this is important information to provide to the reader since it is not intuitive. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Bug with one of your scripts.
The ANRFC lister refuses to list any discussion I try to use it on. It claims that it can't find any signature. Maybe you can figure out what is going on. Thanks, NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * removed example as I thought that that discussion was ready for closure. My point still stands. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 19:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @NightWolf1223. Thanks, will take a look. Here's some diffs I plan on testing and fixing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Connecticut_Panhandle&oldid=1194575114
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Large_language_model_policy&oldid=1194511250#RFC
 * – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is likely having MediaWiki:Gadget-CommentsInLocalTime.js installed ("Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" in Special:Preferences). Will write a patch. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @NightWolf1223. Should be all fixed. Thanks for reporting. If you encounter any other bugs please let me know. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just tried it at Talk:Israel and got the same issue. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 21:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Redon Ismaili
Articles for creation Adope266 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

F&GT
Hi Novem Linguae. As you are probably aware, there are some personnel changes ongoing at Featured and good topic candidates. I have temporarily seconded myself from FAC and TFA - I am a coordinator at both - to help out during the changing of the guard. The bot for promotions seems to be working nicely and saves coordinators a lot of work; thank you. Do you know if there is a similar bot for 1. demotions 2. adding articles to an existing FT or GT? If there isn't, could there be? Both would again be very helpful in terms of reducing repetitive activities. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @Gog the Mild. Thanks for helping out at FGTC. There is not currently a bot for those two activities. I estimate it would be a ton of work. To give you an idea of the amount of work, the current bot is 1500 lines of logic and 3900 lines of tests to handle only one workflow (brand new promotion).
 * Anyway, the first step would be getting a detailed work instruction for each of those two activities. As an example, here's the work instruction for what the bot currently does: User:Novem Linguae/Work instructions/FGTC. Do work instructions for these two activities exist, or if not, would you be willing to write some? Could you also provide some example contribs links showing the manual promotion diffs? Example. (Note the offset and the limit in the URL.) Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oof. So we could just be moving the work around. Thanks for considering it anyway. I think that we can shelf 2. adding articles, it is a common event, but it's not that much work. 1. demotions looks like a right pain. But before I firm up a request, let me talk to the one surviving and two immediate past F&GT coordinators about whether it is actually as bad as I am finding it and whether it is as common an event as I suspect. I already have queries out as to whether there is an activities list; if there isn't I would want to write one anyway. Then, obviously circulate it for comments and run it a few times to bug check. I'll then get back to you and we can have an informed discussion as to whether the future work saved would be worth the input of coding effort now. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Keep me posted :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like the demoting instructions are at User:Spy-cicle/FTC/Demote Instructions. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

GuestBook
Hello! I fixed my entry in your guestbook just now with my signature as well as getting rid of the auto-generated text! I hope you have a great weekend and enjoy that cookie! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nomnom nom! – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!
– DreamRimmer (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @DreamRimmer. Sorry buddy, I'm pretty busy with work this week. May want to contact a different NPP admin such as Rosguill or Hey man im josh. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. Thanks for the update. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Mira Filzah
Morning I reviewed this and it looks ok. Previous versions were duds and the subject name was create-protected. She is definently notable now and although its a bit fluffy in the language, I'll clean it up. But its notable. Can you remove?  scope_creep Talk  09:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Scope creep. Un-salted. Should be all set. Have a great day :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  13:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to comment?
There is a debate at talk:Scientific method 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)

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:. 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, – 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. 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)

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)

Conditional barnstar
Hi, if 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! &#126; 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)

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, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, 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, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, 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, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, 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, , and , 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, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, 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, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, 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, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see 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. Exclusive Editor 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)

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 Featured and good topic candidates/Primates/archive1. It gave the same error at 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)