This is an archive of past discussions about User:Novem Linguae. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi - just wondering if you were you are aware of User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. I've only just installed Citehighlighter, I'm not aware of any interaction issues; but there will surely be an overlap? It would be good to think of some kind of merge possibly. Two other comments: 1) Rather than highlighting the entire text of the reference, unreliable just highlights the source - personally I find this less intrusive. 2) I'm not sure if red-green colour blindness issues would come into play here, but it might be necessary to consider (WP:MOSCOLOUR). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
unreliable-citehelper comparedHi - a follow up comment. Not sure if these classify as bugs but nevertheless: the image at right is from the article Queen of Rhodesia (I was GA reviewing this, why it's come up). With Unreliable installed I see the source is classified as marginally reliable, whereas Citehelper classifies as generally reliable. Further, the lower image shows what happens when you have clicked on a reference (the blue highlight), but the linked source still shows Unreliable's classifying colour, whereas the Citehelper's colouring has disappeared (perhaps that was deliberate on your part?). This is just my personal view, but it does reinforce for me why highlighting the whole reference is less useful. Thanks for all your work and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to add or request. I have no idea. but this news company at news247plus.com is now since long (almost 5+ years, has a good domain authority and covers lot of news with good traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.251.232.46 (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello JayPsi. Thanks for acting on my feedback, I think it has helped the article. I resubmitted the draft for you. Another reviewer then evaluated it and found issues with non-independent sources and with notability. I agree with their feedback. Please add high quality, independent sources such as newspapers or books that go into multiple paragraphs of detail about the organization, then resubmit by pressing the blue "submit" button. Should probably remove most of the existing references too, please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Citations to the organization's website should only be used sparingly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Novem Linguae!
Thank you for looking at the draft I made, "Draft:Zvi Lotker." You left a comment saying that the sourcing could be improved. Do you have any advice as to what could be made better?
Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GayaPapaya (talk • contribs)
Hey GayaPapaya. Thanks for reading my comment. Top notch sources from a Wikipedia perspective are newspaper articles and books, written by folks with no connection to the subject, and that go into detail about the subject. Personal websites, university websites, company websites, organization websites, etc. are not good Wikipedia sources, please see WP:SELFPUBLISH. The idea is that the former have an editorial process, whereas the latter anyone can write and publish them. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Novem Linguae: Have you looked at the references and done the translations. They are realy dodgy. There is a difference between letter and letters that actually mean something. These are the latter. They are not references. They provide nothing to satisfy WP:V, nor WP:BASIC, nor WP:BIO, nor WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
Scope creep. Hello friend. Thanks for the message. I have no objection to regular prod or AFD. Just that I'm pretty sure BLPPROD only applies to articles without a single reference or external link of any kind. That one had 7, which is why I removed it. Speaking more generally, these professor articles are confusing, and there appears to be an unsettled debate about whether WP:NPROF trumps bad references and WP:V. I've asked about it in multipleplaces and gotten conflicting answers. Anyway, happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not that there was anything wrong with your request, as one of the admins who patrols speedy deletion categories, it's just not a request we typically see, to delete a draft page to move an article from main space back into draft space. No mistake made, I just double-check if I have questions about a page deletion request. LizRead!Talk!02:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Aza24. Hmm, that ping didn't go through, good thing you posted here. Sure, happy to do it. Maybe I'll wait a few days to see if the BRFA trial is extended, that way I can just run the bot. No need to hold back, you can promote a bunch at once if you want, feel free to clear the backlog. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Also I have another possible issue with the bot (or perhaps the process), the "Bot assisted promotion" steps have adding the topic to the FT and GT pages first, but then there would just be a redlink on the public pages until the bot comes through, right? Maybe there needs to be some notification that the bot is finished so a coord knows when to add it to the page? Not sure. Aza24 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey Aza24. I fixed the "List of" issue. The code now checks for the |title= parameter, and if present, uses that instead of the main article name. For the bot assisted promotion steps issue you mentioned, my personal opinion is that having a redlinked template on the page for an hour until the bot comes through is worth it to avoid forgetting to add it. But feel free to modify the steps if you are concerned. Another thing I did to help with this is I added a reminder to the bot's "job complete" message, e.g. Special:Diff/1052345633. Yes, feel free to promote at a faster pace, let's eat up the backlog, since WikiCup is ending on October 30th. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Use "ft2main" I believe, see the parameters at Template:Article history for more info. Sorry about the delay, I'm going to send two more topics your way. Hmmm I wonder if (maybe this is crazy) new topics could be added with <!--Topic--> to the topic page and then the bot could come and remove the "<!--"? That does seem tricky though; since the FT and GT pages are reader facing I'm hesitant to have redlinks hanging around there. Maybe the bot could put a message on a coord page when the cycle is done and remind them to add the topic to the page? Just thinking out loud here. Aza24 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24. I'm fine with either. Let me know your preference and I'll implement it in the bot. By the way, BRFA has been backlogged for a couple weeks, so back to manual promotions for awhile. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Modern code... I would have bet that neither option was functional. I'll ask Gamer or something what he'd prefer. Thanks for the note on the backlog. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey there. Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't seen it. I stand behind my revert though, for now. There does not appear to be consensus for that addition. There were dissenting editors in that discussion. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is calling a colonizer a colonizer not a neutral stance? While glorifying a colonizer who is a documented murderer for their acts of genocide is considered neutral? It is time to tell the truth about the history of this land and the White Supremacist narrative that likes to sugar coat the genocide of First Nations people is NOT OKAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:65A6:A0:356B:44E3:D1EE:75FB (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course, it's a matter of taste, but this makes it look a lot better for me. Great script, by the way! I copy titles often and it never occurred to me to make the computer do it for me. jp×g11:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, I just figured out the script doesn't freakin' do anything (I am using Firefox on Fedora). I will attempt a fix. jp×g11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG. Hello my friend. I made that script because someone requested it at WP:US/R. But after I made it, I discovered a better script called User:Nardog/CopySectLink.js, so I stopped work on it. Please try out the Nardog script and see if you like it. I may actually delete my script so that people don't get confused. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I tried installing that one, but it didn't add any button to the title bar, so I said to hell with it. Anyway, for what it's worth, navigator.clipboard.writeText(title) seems to work for me. jp×g11:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether it Would be fairly easy to adapt your NotSoFast.js script to highlight articles published less than a month ago (for example) and discourage reviewers from reviewing old redirects immediately when they are published as articles? Obviously whether it would be desirable is another question.
I have been watching the current New pages patrol Backlog drive and noticed that old redirects published as articles come at the beginning of Special:NewPagesFeed and seem to be reviewed based on the creation date of the redirect, not the publication date of the article. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@TSventon. Hey there. I can certainly look into this. Can you help me understand the request a bit better? less than a month ago and old redirects is confusing me a bit, as these seem to contradict each other. Can you elaborate? Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if that was confusing, I am not a NPP regular, I can give a couple of examples.
Welsh republicanism which I described as an old redirect, was created as redirect 10 May 2006, then published as article 23 November 2021 less than a month ago and reviewed 27 November 2021 (reviewed 4 days after publication)
Matthew M. Graves was published as article 26 July 2021 (not yet reviewed 127 days after publication)
One objective of the drive was to review articles which had been indexed by Google after 90 days. My question is, should reviewers prioritise articles like Welsh republicanism or like Matthew M. Graves? There seem to be a lot of redirects converted into articles so articles like Matthew M. Graves are waiting a long time to be reviewed. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A known shortcoming of Page Curation is that it behaves weirdly with old redirects that are later turned into articles -- for example, if I sort by "oldest", it shows Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis, created on 3 September 2007. Between 2007 and now, it didn't show up on anything, because redirects are not patrolled in the same way pages are -- but it was expanded on 30 November 2021, which caused it to stop being a redirect, which means it's showing up as a new unpatrolled page -- which it is, but in a very weird and different way (software-wise) from others. jp×g11:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
JPxG I am looking at Special:NewPagesFeed and I am sure that NPP regulars are familiar with how it works. I can understand why Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis was displayed as the oldest, but I was wondering whether Matthew M. Graves should be regarded as more urgent as it was published on 26 July and if so whether Novem Linguae's tool could be used to highlight articles like Matthew M. Graves. This may be a problem that only occurs when there is a large backlog. TSventon (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive
The Working Man's Barnstar
For reviewing at least 10 articles during the drive.
Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 11 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe12:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a contributor to WP:COVID19? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject COVID19 interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Novem, just a quick question about one of the two self-published tags for my last draft.
I took a long shot on the personal blog of the subject but was wondering about the second citation. Do third party wikis count as self-published? Hoping for some clarity on this. -Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjwxiv (talk • contribs) 06:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey @Jjwxiv. Good question. Unfortunately wikis are considered unreliable sources. In general, anything without a paid writer and an editor that reviews/edits/approves the text is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should be based on mostly high quality sources such as newspapers, books, and academic journals. Hope that answers your question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Ghulam Faruque
I keep adding the new paragraph with references on the above person but it keeps getting deleted.. there is no reason it should as it is based on hard facts.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.51.162 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey there. Your edit had tone problems. You can't say things like Its sad that he was able to get away with such massive corruption.. in an encyclopedia, that is not the factual tone that we use. Something controversial like this also needs more citations. Please see HELP:CITE for how to create <ref></ref> style citations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I did not copy/paste from a web site. It's all original text, plus a quote (which is indicated in quotes, and there's nothing wrong with that). Again, it is not in any way a direct copy of that page. Can you please show me how to view the article I created, as it's been deleted? Thanks! Geschwindic (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Hoven Linguae. Thank you for your feedback on my submission of the draft page Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. I will be resubmitting a revised version. NMDann (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@NMDann. Hey there. I moved your temp draft to the main draft page, and I commented there. If you want you can hit the resubmit button, but I recommend another round of editing first, incorporating my comments. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, I'm afraid I've undone your WP:cut-and-paste move, as (a) that's not how we do it and (b) the page had already been substantially cleaned up by Sennecaster. NMDann, you are free to edit the draft now, and can if you wish replace some or all of the existing article text with that from the temp page (of which you are the only author). I'll delay deleting it for a while in case you want to do that; please let me know when you're done with it. Thanks to all, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if I removed it all, but I think Earwig is coming up clean at this point. I'll close the CP listing as resolved and point to this TP section. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I apologize if this isn't the correct place to be responding to your message as I'm super new here, but I looked at the mindat pages you sent in response to my article about Enthyrrhapha, and it seems like that genus is listed as synonymous to Euthyrrhapha. I am not super familiar with mindat's system of organization, so I'm not sure why both genera have different pages, but from what I'm seeing, I think they're two names for the same thing. I was also just informed that I submitted the redirect to the wrong location, so I plan on fixing that as well (assuming you agree with my assessment that a redirect is needed). Thanks for the help!
I understand your desire to follow policy which intends to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia.
Sorry for all the spammed references, and yes, I know there is a duplicate. Tell me your "not allowed" and I'll remove those. I'll also find a textual reference which expands on the reason why MICIMATT is an important term to describe the changing influence by commercial organizations over the USA government. I dont care too much about this, but it is real, and the acronym names it. It is thus, a relevant term.
The problem with version controlled histories, is that they are version controlled. I thank you for your assistance, but consider the policies that you are upholding poor. We can differ on policies but still hold respect.
Thanks, Novem, for your input. The draft page is more worthy of publishing, and the "attack piece" against Wikipedia's current editorial policies has been toned down, just a little.
I wish you to know that you have been a consumate professional in your interactions with me, and that I bear you no ill wishes.
Thanks a lot for your feedback on Draft:WiFi Doppler Imaging, we really appreciate your perspective as an experienced Wikipedia editor. We've tried our best to make all the edits you suggested and have published the final result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpraka (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Their Autopatrol rights have been removed & I have moved some of the articles reported at AN, back to the new pages feed thus I presume they are automatically unpatrolled, there seems to be some of their articles which are possibly undeclared paid promotional non notable articles, in your spare time if you observe such articles I think nominating for deletion wouldn’t be a bad idea. I’m baffled as to how this went unnoticed for this long. Celestina007 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for alerting me about that situation. A plethora of non notable possible undisclosed paid promotional articles (over a dozen) as of now have been unearthed due to that singular act of yours. Thank you for your diligence. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Novem Linguae! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me22:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Tymhoho. Thanks for the message. I've decided to step away from that particular draft and let another reviewer take a look. It is in the queue and someone will be along. Apologies for any delay, there is a large backlog. Happy holidays. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
My Find The Bad Things bot alerted me to the references in your TestMOSOrderPositionFinder script. No hurt in leaving the aliases there for a little longer, but I do plan to nominate them for deletion again in January — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me19:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
With this resubmission, I include citations to five (5) high-quality sources. All five go into multiple paragraphs of detail about the subject. These include two articles in the Columbus Dispatch: "TEMPLE HONORS GANESHA - CENTRAL OHIO HINDUS AWAITING ARRIVAL OF FIVE MORE STATUES" and "Hindus install three wooden deities from India in local temple." Pages 308-310 of the book Religion in Ohio and a treatise on the subject by the Center of Folklore Studies at the Ohio State University (https://cfs.osu.edu/archives/collections/L4R/bharatiya-hindu-temple) also contain multiple paragraphs of detail about the subject. Finally, the Ohio Historical Society marker (first reference) also discusses the subject in detail. Links to all five sources are in the reference list.
Thank you.
- Ram1751 (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Given his media role with NBC News as well focused on COVID-19 analysis and short-listing as Biden's Surgeon General, felt like he met notability. Been taking feedback on this AfC for awhile, would be grateful for your feedback
@Aza24. Hey there. It's not fully automated yet, I still hit a button to run it. I was waiting for the next ping, now that you've given it, I plan to write the code to make it fully automated then finish the trial. Give me two days, I'll be back at my normal computer tomorrow. Happy holidays. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Bot is running fully automated now. It runs every hour at X:05. Once you're sure the above issue isn't caused by the bot, feel free to promote another topic and we'll see how the bot does in full auto mode. After that I think we can wrap up the BRFA and we'll be all set. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it is because the nominator accidentally created the topic page themselves and so the bot didn't create a talk page for it, trying to do so now... Aza24 (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The nominator originally created the nom page under Next Nine, but the FGTC discussion resulted in the renaming of the topic to NASA Astronaut Group 2, maybe something happened along the way there that messed it up? I think if I move the NASA Astronaut Group 2 to the draft space without leaving a redirect (and then request speedy deletion), and then we move Wikipedia:Featured topics/Next Nine to Wikipedia:Featured topics/NASA Astronaut Group 2, it should work? Aza24 (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24. I think the cleanup will be more complicated than that. We need to change every |ftname = Next Nine to |ftname = NASA Astronaut Group 2 on every talk page, and also need to change the category names. I am happy to do the cleanup myself.
That's three possible things for the bot to read and pick the topic name based on. In the future, which of these three things should the bot use to pick the topic name? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd say the topic box name is best? The other two seem more likely to be different. Surely though, if we redirect the Next Nine page to NASA Astronaut Group 2 there's no need for manual clean up? Though it wouldn't be a huge task anyways—I could quickly go through and do it Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Great, got that part done. Now back to the original question, if I may. Any idea why the topic is showing as featured instead of good in the talk page article history boxes? I was under the impression that setting GTC instead of FTC in the article history is what controlled whether the topic displayed as good or featured. My bot did correctly set GTC, so not sure why it's showing as featured. Any ideas? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
We will have to move Wikipedia:Featured topics/Next Nine to NASA Astronaut Group 2 btw, since the latter was the name that was decided on. Anyways, I'm not sure why; when I did it manually sometimes it would do that, but after like half an hour it adjusted for some reason. I suspect that once we get a single fully integrated topic page it will readjust like that. If not, then we can perhaps look further for a cause? Aza24 (talk)
OK. We have a lot of renaming to do then, as mentioned above. Need to fix |ftmain= on a bunch of talk pages, and category names. Sounds like you wanted to do it, so feel free, and if you want I'll skim it over and check it when you're done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24. Hey buddy. I went ahead and fixed everything, should be all set with NASA Astronaut Group 2. Bot is running in full auto mode and is ready for more promotions. Feel free to promote a bunch, I'd like to get enough test cases to end the BRFA bot trial. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!!! I will try to get some promoted tonight. I think I know where one of the original problems began, by the way. When the GTC began, Jim Lovell was a GA, making it a GT. But Jim Lovell was promoted to Featured before the topic was a promoted, making it a FT. Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Yep I think I know why—it was probably because the topic name included html to make it italic ''808s & Heartbreak'' which I assume a page can't be created with. Sorry for so many messages! Aza24 (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey @Aza24. Thanks for the messages. Yeah, the problems with Next Nine were because of that GA to FA thing, and also the wrong name thing. The bot performed correctly given those set of inputs, and it's cleaned up, should be all set with that one.
Great to see the bot performed well with Billboard number-one country songs. Mega-topics like that with a bajillion articles are exactly why we created the bot. Saves us a ton of work.
Yeap, the italics in 808s & Heartbreak threw it off. I've patched the bug and cleaned up the mess. Feel free to promote additional topics, if available. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Article spamming is an existential threat to the collaborative project and I also find that most editors tend to shy away from this area of editing, but not you! A critical ping you made to me, led not only to the utter deletion of two third of the dubious articles they created, but also led to the nabbing of an LTA. Thank you so much for striving to maintain and sustain the integrity of articles on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Congrats!! Your work on this bot is honestly awe-inspiring—especially with a promotion system so intricate and complicated... the manual labor this will save is on another order of magnitude :) Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks buddy. Yeah it was a very complex first bot for me. Guess I like a challenge! Feel free to keep throwing test cases at it, that's the best way to fix the bugs. Luckily most of the hard work is done now. Happy new year my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Well... hmm, now that I'm looking more, it seems there are nine Music FTs on individuals that use "overview of". I suspect this might need some community consensus or something. Aza24 (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about me deleting a section there, I didn't intend to, i think it was an error while copying and pasting the other section. Corinal (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Just following up on this discussion. I've opened a GitHub issue for tracking; just ping me when DraftCleaner gets "out of beta". I was thinking that it would probably be more efficient to just have DraftCleaner exist only as a function in AFCH and not as a standalone user script (it's a bit odd to load in a whole user script for a function like that, and it's not too much of a hassle to open the helper script to do a cleaning), but let me know what you think. I'm also excited to integrate any test cases that get written into AFCH's test suite. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I hope you enjoyed your stay in my Guest Room.
Here is an ice-cold soda as a thank you, complimentary.
Normally, visiting my Guest Room also means you've gained a new talk page watcher, but since I'm already watching your page, you get two sodas instead. ––FormalDudetalk02:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, again thanks for showing me this useful script - there are 2 new stubs I came across today where it tells there is no template/taxonbar and I need to create same - I have no idea about creating those, perhaps you might take a look at Lestidium prolixum and Lestidium nudum and if you are able to create what is needed will you please point me to where you make it so I can see what's involved in making those if it arises in the future on my patrols. Many thanks for your help Josey WalesParley19:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
{{Don't edit this line {{{machine code|}}}
|rank=genus
|link=Lestidium
|parent=Paralepididae
|extinct= <!--leave blank or delete this line for "not extinct"; put "yes" for "extinct" -->
|refs={{cite web |url=https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/89477-Lestidium |website=[[iNaturalist]] |access-date=2022-01-31 |title=Genus Lestidium}}
}}
Thanks for that, I think that this old-timer may be skipping those but I will read up on your instructions and maybe mess around in sandbox. Have a great evening Josey WalesParley22:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
My Find The Bad Things bot alerted me to the references in your TestMOSOrderPositionFinder script. No hurt in leaving the aliases there for a little longer, but I do plan to nominate them for deletion again in January — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Zero-COVID at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
