User talk:Novem Linguae

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 40 sections are present.

Robotaxi

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 @Novem Linguae, I posted my request directly on the Robotaxi Talk page with my proposed text and tagged with the COI edit request- Talk:Robotaxi#Mobileye Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

I can no longer log into the ssh on Toolforge. I had been using it for a while a few months ago, and now it gives me the error described here:

Error message: Warning: the ECDSA host key for 'login.toolforge.org' differs from the key for the IP address '208.80.155.130'

This means the key has been updated. Try refreshing it with :ssh-keygen -R <ip>

I tried the command and that did not make any difference. I tried creating a new password; that didn't work either. Now when I try to log in with:

ssh -i .\.ssh\id_ed25519 davidtornheim@login.toolforge.org

I now get the error:

davidtornheim@login.toolforge.org: Permission denied (publickey, hostbased).

What do I need to do? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @David Tornheim. I'm not particularly good at SSH or Toolforge. Might want to repost this at WP:VPT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think there are two separate issues here. The first issue is that whatever setup you are using has a ssh-keygen variant that ignores the -R flag and regenerates your ssh-key (which is a slightly bad thing). The other issue seems to be that by running ssh-keygen again, you have overwritten your old key.

I think the next steps is to follow the steps at Generate_an_SSH_Key and then add your new key to idm.wikimedia.org/keymanagement/ making sure to suspend the old key. Once you have done this, you should be able to go into your .ssh/known_hosts file and delete all lines starting with login.toolforge.org to replicate the effect of the the ssh-keygen -R command. Sohom (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The error message is not about the ssh client key being used for authentication by @David Tornheim. The error message is about the ssh server fingerprints for login.toolforge.org not matching the locally stored historic values. The command suggested by the ssh client would expand to ssh-keygen -R 208.80.155.130. ssh-keygen -R login.toolforge.org may also be needed. This would remove the historic host fingerprint value(s) from the user's known_hosts file. The next attempt to login would likely prompt for confirmation of the host key. Those can always be verified by looking up the host on wikitech:Help:SSH_Fingerprints. -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BDavis (WMF) Is the second error that David recieved from the SSH fingerprint ? That seems like the error you would get if you have mismatched keys ? Sohom (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta & @David Tornheim, the second error indicates that David is not presenting a known ssh public key to the remote server as Sohom already suggested. I apologize for not fully parsing the original message before responding.

I'm not sure what "I tried creating a new password" means, but if that was actually generating a new key then it needs to be uploaded via idm.wikimedia.org as Sohom suggests. Currently David's Developer account is showing ssh-ed25519 AAAAC3NzaC1lZDI1NTE5AAAAIKKcL75isvfARsotLq/LfFHnDTXSyG2toRFekZ1pUN0j as the only trusted key for accessing Cloud VPS instances. If that public fingerprint doesn't match David's id_ed25519.pub file then this is the likely problem. -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I think the problem was that I did not upload the new key to idm.wikimedia.org/keymanagement/. I will try that. When I said I tried created a new password, I meant a new key plus a *different* "passphrase".

Where this page says "Try refreshing it with :ssh-keygen -R <ip>", what IP are they referring to? Is it my machine's IP or one at WMF? Is 208.80.155.130 one of WMF's servers?

I forget which of the countless ssh server fingerprints for login.toolforge.org and wikitech:Help:SSH_Fingerprints I picked from the first time I created a key and passphrase, or what I *should* do when choosing one.

I will try generating a new key and uploading and let you know if that works.--David Tornheim (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta,BDavis (WMF): Thanks again for the suggestions. It took a few tries, but I did get it to work by generating a new key and uploading the new key.

I did some research on why the bot is still not working--looking at the github code ([1],[2]) before I got on the server. I'll poke around a little more on the server and see if the code is the same, and probably ask Sohom Datta--who has expertise in Go--about what I think might be be causing the program to cash, whether it is a problem with the code or data on Wikipedia that doesn't meet the code's requirements. I'll ask or give an update at Yapperbot talk page (and/or phab:T361426#10086509) . --David Tornheim (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim Based on a quick look at the code (and some mocking up using python) [3] should have been the culprit. Sohom (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohom Datta Thanks for fixing it! Based on the error, I suspected it was a problem with the online data of a recent GA nomination. I was working through extractGANom() of matchers.go and the loop that called it from main.go to see if the data it was parsing didn't match its requirement. I'm impressed you figured it out so quickly. I'll post soon about my thoughts on adopting Yapperbot-FRS vs. starting a separate bot for the FRS piece. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Yapperbot/FRS/Bugs § Bug with GA nomination template fixed 8/29/24

@Novem Linguae: It's okay with me if you archive this discussion since it is all resolved. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll let the archive bot grab it if that's OK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.--David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for working to get XFDcloser maintained! Happy that someone took on this task; I recall your involvement with Twinkle, so I'd imagine XFDcloser is in good hands! Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm a bit too busy to write dozens of patches for it like I did with Twinkle, but I can keep an eye on it and try to unbreak anything major. I also got the bug tracker in good shape for if/when a volunteer developer comes along and is ready to write patches for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a prolific editor, please consider NPOV more carefully.

Should a source that attributes potential misinformation as being "right wing" or "left wing" be quoted verbatim, or can the bias be omitted in an article other than one on that source in particular? It seems clear to me that it should be omitted, based on the following:

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone. Specifically "What to include and exclude": "Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective" "Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

Please try to sway my opinion otherwise, if you disagree. Dagelf (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dagelf. Hey there. I'm not sure my talk page is the best spot for this. Consider posting this somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Consider including a link to the dispute that triggered this question so that additional context can be gleaned. Concrete examples tend to be much easier to give a correct answer to than hypotheticals. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just checked your edit history and I decided to revert you at the article Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. The correct place for discussion about your proposed controversial change is Talk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. You should follow the WP:BRD process for controversial changes. You need to get a consensus of the talk page's editors before resuming controversial edits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok god. I don't see how its controversial. But you, being omnicient, oh great one. Please enlighten us quacks... I hope it gives you great pleasure. Dagelf (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If people revert you, it's controversial. Please see WP:BRD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Wikipedia page

Hello, i want request for wikipedia about Juwel Chowdhury 45.249.186.21 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got any reliable sources such as newspapers and books? Will need this to qualify for an article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider them non-notable, bordering on spam. Sohom (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

admilnstrator election pages

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Ways to help: as the following is unsolicited advice, of course please feel free to proceed as you think is best. I appreciate you have a very specific idea in mind on how to organize the administrator election, and I think it's great that you want to drive the trial run to completion. Would you mind, though, rewording your message slightly? The first sentence comes across to me as if you're looking for someone to do the heavy lifting of writing drafts, while retaining final say to adjust things as you wish, and that feels somewhat top-down rather than working collaboratively to build a process. I imagine that this isn't the message you want to convey, and I realize that others may not get the same impression. If the message were to focus a bit more on working together and establishing consensus (which your last paragraph does touch upon), that would be great. isaacl (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.

Done. Thanks for the feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need a little help

Hey, I just adapted the AFCH gadget in Bengali Wikipedia (bnwiki) on my userspace. Everything works correctly there, until faced the issue with "bengali Afc submission template". In /afch-master.js/submission.js, there's the output: var tout = '{{AFC submission|' + template.status, paramKeys = [];. I tried to modify it in many ways, it gives "undefiend" output for my solution. Can you please modify it for me, like this, {{Bengali AFC submission|. [N.B.: both, english template and local template name should work by this.]

Thanks and regards, –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 10:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanbiruzzaman. Hey there. Looks like the code you want modified is on the Bengali Wikipedia. You will need to ask there. This is the English Wikipedia and I do not have the ability to edit bnwiki's gadget files. Maybe post at bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:কারিগরি আলোচনাসভা? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanbiruzzaman You "should" be able to manually modify https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/blob/2b33a3d5c3f2a0dc199c82ac30b1ba97f62a878a/src/modules/submissions.js#L240 on your local computer and then reupload the files. Sohom (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Nigam

Hello Novem Linguae, I hope you're doing well. I have taken the deletion review route on simple wikipedia. Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @C1K98V. Did you intend this message for me? I am not active on simple English Wikipedia, and I am not familiar with this afd. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Novem Linguae, as you accepted the enwiki draft Abhishek Nigam, so I have reached out to you. You can go through the discussion, the article was soft deletion with minimal participal. If your opinion can helps in any way getting the article restored on simple wikipedia, I would appreciate your assistance. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Well my thoughts on the notability of this person on English Wikipedia are at Talk:Abhishek Nigam#Notability. Feel free to use those. However I don't think it would be appropriate for me to participate in the simple wiki afd directly because 1) it might be canvassing and 2) I do not know simple Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being an interface administrator. Susbush (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susbush. Thanks for the barnstars. Is this because I helped you with Twinkle? I'm happy to help :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ozone depletion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R-12.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tool Barnstar
	Your tools are interesting, especially UserRightsDiff Susbush (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

haha my barnstar got used thx H At 08:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait why does it say "tool barnstar" H At 08:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yooo! @Hydrogen astatide. Sorry, I couldn't find a good design, i just chose yours because I was lazy, i couldn't find a one that has a 🛠️ in it. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy, or efficient? ;) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin Elections barnstar
	It's happening! After all the time. After the strange closure in 2021 and its overturning to an only slightly less disappointing result. We finally have an admin election! And candidates that make me happy. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Sargoth, with whom I had been discussing this in 2022. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good memory my friend. Thank you :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very good memory indeed! Congrats :-D --−Sargoth 15:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle dark pull request you made

Hello, I noticed you made a pull request here that you merged that says you chose to lighten everything. Is there some reason behind this or was it a time-saving shortcut? Asking because I'm thinking of adding dark mode compatibility to Twinkle. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a time saving shortcut. If you'd like to write a PR that does dark mode properly, I'd be happy to load it up and take a look. If it looks good, I'd be happy to merge it. Maybe just do 1 module as a proof of concept. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a pull rq. I have tested it locally and it seems to work. Because of the way css works, it was easier to just do everything in one go rather than picking modules. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing from Admin Election

Hi Novem, I've removed my name from the list at Call for Candidates - on reflection I wouldn't be active enough as an admin - can you remove anything else that needs to be tidied up to remove me from the process please? Many thanks, good luck to all remaining in the race and best wishes for the trial run. Josey Wales^Parley 08:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961. Bummer to hear you're dropping out. I had given you a green tick in my voter guide under "1000 edits in the last year" so I don't personally view you as inactive. But anyway, I will action your request. Thanks for letting me know. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on voter guide

Greetings Novem Linguae. I saw on your admin election voter guide that you wrote that Velella was blocked twice, once in 2006 and once in 2011. But the block log shows that the 2011 block was a mistake: Unblock, as wrong user was blocked in error The blocking admin meant to and subsequently blocked 111.68.97.18 within 5 minutes. Perhaps the guide should clarify this since the block is mentioned. Cheers. starship .paint (RUN) 13:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went ahead and changed it to "no blocks in the last 5 years". The blocks for Velella were in 2006 and 2011, which are ancient history so I don't think it hurts to remove them completely. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you. Thank you! starship .paint (RUN) 14:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COIN

I thought it best to leave a note here, as I didn't want to take up any space in what is already a very long thread at COIN. I do not really see any meaningful objection to discussing COI issues at COIN, or to attempting to establish the nature or longevity of those issues. It seems to me that suggestions that such discussions are aspersions or off-topic are entirely misplaced. Axad12 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that I'm sure we're both aware that there is a great deal of historical controversial material (re: Framgate) adjacent to the matters being discussed, but hopefully you'll appreciate that I've been at pains not to incur on that territory because (to the best of my knowledge) those events have no bearing on the matters under discussion at COIN. Axad12 (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Alison Creagh

We'll see how things shake out. But having to make your case using connections to years-vanished users and decade-old arb cases seems like a bit of a stretch to me, and I am just trying to let you know that with my comments in that thread. I think recent diffs showing a pattern of problematic editing would be more persuasive. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the issue at stake is quite simple. LauraHale was a declared paid editor at that time, but half the work that she was being paid to do was being done by someone else who she knew off-wiki but who was not a declared paid editor.

That is the only sense in which the old material is relevant, but it is relevant since it represents the start of a 13 year relationship between Hawkeye7 and Paralympics Australia.

To be honest I'm surprised that you don't seem to see any problem with the activity under discussion. If it was a situation in relation to two entirely unknown editors, one of whom was a declared paid editor and one was undeclared, and the undeclared one admitted that they had done half the work that the declared one was paid for, then the obvious conclusions to be drawn would have resulted in sanctions re: the subsequent 13 year COI.

Once the matters were identified the undeclared user claimed for the first time that they are a previously undeclared Wikipedian in Residence, and (highly implausibly) that they didn't know that that had to be declared, but that in their opinion that makes it all okay. But no, it isn't okay. It is far from okay.

To some extent I think it is unfortunate that the thread wasn't started at ANI, because if it had been I've little doubt that there would currently be discussions going on in relation to sanctions being applied. Axad12 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good summary of your point of view. I hope others are able to read the COIN and extract the same info easily. The COIN is getting a bit on the WP:BLUDGEONy side and a bit hard to read. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it was remiss of me not to have kept the discussion more focussed and concise. Unfortunately the nature of the UPE issue wasn't apparent at first.

However, those readers who venture at least a third of the way into the thread will hopefully draw the relevant conclusions. Axad12 (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note to say that I considered the response Your conspiracy theory is just plain nutty to be effectively an uncivil personal attack (unless users are now able to make allegations of mental incapacity about each other without consequences). Can I request that you issue the appropriate talk page notice to the user? Axad12 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. While I can see your point of view, it is also a fairly mild statement (is talking about content not contributor, has no obscenities) and seems reasonable considering the context of that discussion (that you keep accusing this editor of being a UPE over and over). So I don't really feel comfortable acting here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. The suggestion that someone believes in a nutty conspiracy theory is clearly a comment about both the contributor and the content. "Your conspiracy theory is plain nutty" is a heavily personalised version of "These allegations are untrue" that includes an obvious negative comment about the contributor. Axad12 (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note to apologise for having added my comment at the end of the response to your RfA question. It was a good faith error on my part and I trust that the explanation provided in the recent thread clarifies why it occurred.

It does seem to me that in that thread I've had to face some repeated and malicious accusations of bad faith (i.e. 'vandalism', ‘vandalism intended to injure the candidacy’, ‘negative campaigning’, ‘forum shopping’ and, at COIN, casting doubt on my ‘claim to be relatively new’, i.e. presumably an allegation of sockpuppetry).

I must admit that I'd been under the impression that misplaced allegations of vandalism and persistent accusations of bad faith were very much frowned upon on Wikipedia and I'd thus be grateful for your advice on that point.

I can only reiterate that my contributions at both COIN and the RfA were in good faith and not part of any 'campaign'. Axad12 (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I agree that you're acting in good faith and that posting in the candidate's question section was a newbie mistake.

I think your communication style (WP:BLUDGEONing) and your decision to talk about the candidate's possible COI over and over on multiple pages is pushing people's buttons, so they are getting a bit snappy towards you. That incivility will probably go away if you just tone it down a bit.

Mild incivility is discouraged but is not usually actionable at WP:ANI.

You have engaged in mild incivility yourself by going on and on about the UPE thing without evidence. That is WP:ASPERSIONs.

One could make a reasonable argument that you are "negatively campaigning". That section at WT:AELECT was a simple "are third parties allowed to respond to official candidate questions?" and somehow turned into a recap of the COIN thread. And that's on a page with 109 watchers during an election. From that perspective, do you see why some might feel that it is unfair of you to talk about that so much on that page?

Anyway, just go silent on the issue and all this tension should go away. You've probably talked about it plenty. If there's merit, others will surely keep talking about it for you, hopefully in the right places and in the right proportion.

Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight above, I appreciate it.

The irony here is that for the great majority of the discussion at COIN I had no idea about any forthcoming RfA, and had I been aware I probably would have been more circumspect in what I said. The fact that the thread may appear overly negative is actually because I was not aware.

However only one person has expressed any annoyance over my conduct, and that person clearly has partisan interests.

Also, at WT:AELECT I don't believe I mentioned at any point the contents of the COIN thread, I only gave an explanation for the wrongly placed comments and objected to the various allegations against myself. The person who drew attention to what was in the COIN thread was my accuser, who has also gone out of their way to do so at the RfA and to make a big song and dance in what was a pretty much dormant thread at COIN. I take no responsibility for any of that and it certainly was not negative campaigning by me.

I intend to take no further part in those proceedings. I will try to improve in the future, however, as I do not wish to cause acrimony.

Thank you again for your kindness and patience, Axad12 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin elections

As far as I can tell, you're the driving force behind the current admin elections trial -- both proposing it and shepherding it along. I wanted to stop by and say thank you for your work. It's too soon to say how it's going with respect to whether the elections give the admin bit to the "right" candidates, whoever one might think those are, but it's clear that it's suppressing some stressful and pointless negativity. I would never have believed that a version of RfA could be created that was such an improvement over the atmosphere of the traditional version. I have not participated in the many discussions about how to improve RfA as I thought it was an unsolvable problem. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.

We'll have to wait and see how the elections turn out before judging whether this is the right way forward for RfA, but this has already led to most of the 35 candidates having a much more reasonable evaluation of their qualifications for adminship than they would have had under the existing system, and will surely give us more admins than we would have had otherwise. Thank you for your creativity and diligence on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind message. I am mainly the implementer. The creativity part and the original plan were designed by @Worm That Turned. To be honest I am undecided on administrator elections and don't feel passionate that it is the right or wrong way. But I am passionate that the community wanted to try it, and I am passionate that this idea didn't get a fair shake in WP:RFA2021 due to a questionable RFC close, so I stepped in to help get the trial going. Hopefully it ends up being a net positive experience for Wikipedia. And if not, that's fine too. We'll find out in the debrief! –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add my thanks. I've been following the developments (without participating in the discussions leading up to the election) and I think that the election system is far superior to RfA, which I think is a vicious process. Tweaks like capping the new system at 10 candidates per election might be an option going forward, but given the amount of work that you and others have put into it, I felt it was my Wiki-duty to read all the candidate statements and comments before voting last night. I'm really impressed by all the candidates who have come forward out of a sense of wanting to volunteer for a project they believe in. Thank you and the others for all the hard work! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I'm really grateful for all the time you spent on my script issue, and glad we got to a decent solution. Much appreciated, Novem Linguae! – Anne drew 01:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for the bling! –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your work over at Wikipedia:Administrator Elections, where it looks like you've responded to 117% of the discussions and put in a lot of procedural and technical work to make this thing go well. Much appreciated!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Happy electing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Now that voting is over, I wish to thank you, Novem Linguae, for helping to steer the community through the admin election process, and comprehensively reviewing all candidates. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unblock-review

One addition which you may as well stick in:

wikitext = wikitext.replace( initialText + appealReason, '\n{{unblock reviewed|' + action + '=' + reason + '|1=' + appealReason

Note the \n; it prevents a rendering bug that can be seen here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the same bug as https://github.com/NovemLinguae/UserScripts/issues/229

I think I'm going to start using GitHub to track these bugs. You can keep an eye on the list of bugs at https://github.com/NovemLinguae/UserScripts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AUnblockReview

Will see if I can work on this a bit tonight. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep running a fork of your current version until https://github.com/NovemLinguae/UserScripts/issues/229#issuecomment-2451167659 or similar is implemented. It's just aesthetic, but annoying. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon. I did some work on this tonight. I think I fixed all your bugs. Go ahead and reinstall my version and see if it works better. If it works smooth, let me know in a couple days and I'll start spreading the word that folks should replace the old one with this. User talk:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UnblockReview.js may be a good page to centralize discussion going forward :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok! thx! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just gave github a new bug! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And rolled back to my own version after multiple failures. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. Will take a look. Filing bugs in GitHub is great so definitely keep doing that if you're willing. I've got unit tests set up now so every time I squash a bug and add a test, the bug should be gone for good, until we've got so many tests that the script is running really smoothly. Stay tuned! –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon. OK, I did a couple more bug fixes. Feel free to switch back to it and beta test it some more :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

k! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon. Hey, honest opinion, is the UnblockReview version I've been working on better or worse than the Enterprisey unblock review? How much better or worse? Depending on the feedback I may start trying to get folks to replace the Enterprisey version with mine. Also, any bugs still popping up frequently or did we squash most of them? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's jumped in my face since my last report; I've been using your version exclusively, and there don't seem to be regression errors. Might just be random, but I haven't seen any of the misplaced results recently, which I appreciate. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is [4] a repeat bug? It fails silently. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon. Fixed. The problem was the user just put an {{Unblock}} tag with no |reason=. Feel free to file GitHub tickets if you find any more bugs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A fox for you!

Thanks for all your work with the admin elections, I really don’t think it would have happened without you! Have a nice rest of your Sunday :)

Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar, much deserved

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		You've already received a couple of plaudits for this work, but you deserve this one as well. For diplomatically, tirelessly, gently moving the process forward. These admin elections would not have happened without you. Kudos. Now on to the debrief and (with luck) many more to come! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AELECT discussion

Hey! I assume you're planning on sending out a mass message with the results of EFA2024. I want to coordinate with you on that, because I want to put in a link to the RFA2024 phase II discussion – which I hope ends with a reauthorization of EFA well into the future :) I think I'm about ready to let the page go live to RfC, so let me know, thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Theleekycauldron. Thanks for the message. Actually I already made a debrief page at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Debrief before seeing your user talk message. I was planning to do an unorganized debrief for a few weeks -> a couple surveys and RFCs to tweak things about AELECT for a few weeks -> RFC to renew. I was planning to do it independent of RFA2024, since that process is 9 months old now. I honestly hadn't even considered that phase 2 might still be going on as I assumed it was long done.

I'd like to request that you hold off launching Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. That would mess up the plan I had and I think we need to think about this more. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giving this some more thought, maybe we should do the debrief and little RFCs outside of phase 2, and then the official renewal RFC could be done in phase 2? That might be a good compromise. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to split the parts! I think it'd be nice to keep all the formal voting in one place – would it work for you if we did the debrief and prepared the proposals to be voted on outside of phase II, and then voted on the proposals and renewal inside? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe. I wonder if we can survey some of the easy changes though rather than RFC them. Might not need phase 2 for those. Let's think about it and we can circle back when the debrief wraps up. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting your comments for publication

Novem, I'd like to invite you to think about commenting on the AELECT process for the next issue of The Signpost i.e. issue 16, probably later in November. If you don't mind, I'll hold a place for your comments in the next News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Bri. Sure, I can definitely help with that. If you remember, would you mind coming back here and dropping a link when you're ready for me to take a look? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Barnstar

	The Admin Elections barnstar
	Thank you so much for all your hard work in organising the administrator elections. It would not have been possible without your efforts. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hey Novem Linguae -- I note you sent me an e-mail. Unfortunately I can't actually read e-mails at the moment (computer issues) so is it possible for you to communicate in some other format? If privacy is a concern you could place it somewhere in userspace and I'll copy it offline and then delete. (I'm online now, but in the process of going to bed.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Espresso Addict. Ah I see. It's OK then, you can disregard the email. Thank you for the follow up, and happy editing :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship trial

Hello, I just saw that community added new administrators in it's ranks through trials. I have a question regarding this, does this trial adminship come with a time duration or is it indefinite like the adminships through rfA are? Ratnahastin (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ratnahastin. Nope, no trial. It is permanent. The trial part refers to the fact that the community only authorized administrator elections to happen once, and requires a second RFC to do it again. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another thank you

I think you've gotten more than enough bling (), but I also wanted to take the time to thank you for your months of tireless work to make the administrator elections happen. My closure of the RfC that got the ball rolling 6 months was one of the only closures I've ever done, and it took me many hours to get right, and I'd say it was a positive experience. It was an equally positive experience to watch you work as you tirelessly coordinated on the AELECT talk page and Phabricator tickets. Shepherding the process that got so many administrators to be assigned at once, something not done since 2010, is no small achievement! It was my pleasure to take part in the RfC closure and the subsequent initial MMS message drafts. I look forward to see what you do moving forward. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sirdog. I appreciate your thoughtful message. It was very nice to see the process be successful after all that work. Thank you for your role in this as well :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, online admin

Do you want to just semi-protect this talk page? I'm not entirely sure of the correct etiquette here, and I know the harassment isn't as severe as it would normally be to necessitate page protection, but the user is gone for now. Any good faith newbie will need to go somewhere else to get their questions answered anyways. It would be more efficient than the current revert-warn-block cycle, anyway. Your call though- I just spotted you were active right now, you know the backstory, and I figured you're easily the most drama-free admin I could ask. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian. Good idea. I think there's enough recent vandalism to justify it. Protected. Thanks for letting me know :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for doing it so quickly! <3 GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent work on Twinkle getting rid of the backlog and technical debt. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 04:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad someone noticed :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About botclasses.php

I see you are interested in botclasses.php. Thank you. I recently added Pavel Malahov's functions, have you had a chance to look at them? Orfur (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Orfur. I saw the edits on my watchlist and made some formatting improvements, but haven't looked at the functions in depth. @Wbm1058 is the maintainer of that particular page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orfur left a note on my talk as well. I just replied; see User talk:RMCD bot/botclasses.php

Followup on the discussion at User talk:wbm1058#That bug with moving pages. Can you open SpecialMovePage.php in your VS Code and let me know whether Intelephense works for you with that file? If it does, then I'll know its an issue with my local setup and not some more global problem caused by MediaWiki code complexities. On the suggestion of a friend over our Thanksgiving meal, I asked ChatGPT for help. It gave me quite a thorough list of things to try. I worked through most of them, but, so far without success. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058. Yeap it's working. Screenshot. You can see the words "intelephense" in several spots (next to each "problem" in the left pane, in the tooltip on the top right), indicating it's working. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S201050066

Hi Novem Linguae I want to give an update regrading the banned user S201050066 one week ago he made a YouTube video where he called out the Wikipedia community for blocking for ip address 2607:FEA8:59E1:9D00:0:0:0:0/64 this shows that S201050066 should not anywhere Wikipedia Andykatib has been telling him in the past to move on from Wikipedia but he hasn't listened do you think we should make a long term abuse page for S201050066 I hope you enjoy your day 173.239.131.234 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for one month for block evasion. Looks like the user is trolling. I'm not familiar with this master, so hopefully my analysis is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User interactions page?

Hey Novem, Thought you might know this, but do you know the URL for a Wikipedia tool that shows how much user X has interacted with user Y? I've used it before, can't remember where it is. If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer That was it, thanks. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Capture and replay testing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Capture and replay testing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 30 § Capture and replay testing until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for this. Polygnotus (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Graham is a champ for going through RRFA and keeping a good attitude about it. It's the least we could do! –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly braver than I am. Polygnotus (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]