User talk:Gnomingstuff

Welcome!

Hello, Gnomingstuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wanderlust Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krishna Das. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susana Boomhouwer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scheer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matt Masters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Rider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Igopogo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be quite a curiosity! Thanks for fixing it.  :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Randomly came across your account when you fixed some old vandalism that I also missed. Saw your user contributions and was quite impressed. From a recent changes patroller that often worries about missed vandalism and random typos, thank you for your gnoming work. PritongKandule-✉️📝 04:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beyond the Mexique Bay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gnomingstuff. Thank you for your work on Go to Sleep, Little Farm. User:Ppt91, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article on this children's book! Please consider making small prose edits to eliminate repetition.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ppt91}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ppt91 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banco (typeface), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dub.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Atomica Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portishead.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnomingstuff. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really impressed by your restoration of the comments removed 14 years ago on the pan page. Thank you

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for creating this article. What an interesting woman! I was curious if she had taught any well known actors, and in doing some research discovered that one her students was the novelist Toni Morrison. I added that info and a ref to the article. You might want to mention that the Howard drama program was established in 1947 (see David Krasner (ed.). A Companion to Twentieth-Century American Drama. Wiley. p. 95. ISBN 9781405137348.). Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions! She seems to have led a full life. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Jacques Chambrun at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the other comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RV (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mexican Werewolf in Texas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are no werewolves in Mexican Werewolf in Texas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican Werewolf in Texas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mexican Werewolf in Texas), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous hook! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Wikipedia:Undetected vandalism was a great read. Thanks for your work helping us address vandals. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anne Cooke Reid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anne Cooke Reid founded the first Black summer theater in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Cooke Reid. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anne Cooke Reid), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quail Island (Victoria), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Australian government tried to censor a film of Quail Island's starving koalas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quail Island (Victoria). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Quail Island (Victoria)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacques Chambrun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that literary agent Jacques Chambrun sold unauthorized, scandalous excerpts of a Marilyn Monroe memoir to a British tabloid? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jacques Chambrun. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jacques Chambrun), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Hunter's Moon (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Keith Carradine met his future wife, actress and model Hayley DuMond, on the set of the 1999 film The Hunter's Moon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hunter's Moon (film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Hunter's Moon (film)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Late Report, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a segment filmed for The Late Report, comedian John Safran got frisked by police after going to a McDonald's restaurant dressed up as Ronald McDonald? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Late Report. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Late Report), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you wanted to undo some vandalism on Talk:Assembly language, but hit a wrong button and instead reset the page to an old version. I reverted your edit. Of course, you're more than welcome to clean up vandalism! I would have done it myself, but I didn't find the change you wanted to undo. Cheers, Chrisahn (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- made the correct change now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnomingstuff,

My name is Dr. Tim Koskie and I am a researcher at the Centre for Media Transition (CMT) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). We are conducting a study on the implications of content-generating AI systems such as ChatGPT for knowledge integrity on Wikipedia, and are approaching you because you have participated in discussions on this topic on Wikimedia pages.

If you are interested, we would like to invite you to participate in our study. It would involve joining either a focus group discussion or an interview (around 1 hour), in person at Wikimania in Singapore if you are going to be there, or online at a future date. At these sessions we would ask you questions about how you think generative AI will impact Wikipedia, as well as about the kinds of work you do on Wikipedia.

The project is funded by the Wikimedia Research Fund grant programme. You can find out more about the project here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Implications_of_ChatGPT_for_knowledge_integrity_on_Wikipedia If you are interested, let me know and I will forward you some more detailed information on the project. Tbkoskie (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive! There will be a lot of gnoming in this contest, so get Twinkle and citing skills ready! You might want to take a look at Category:Articles lacking sources from January 2024 to test out your citation skills. If you have any questions, feel free to tell me, I'm here to help and assist with drive operations :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Gnomingstuff! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:38, 2 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Gnomingstuff for collecting more than 50 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived pages are archived. It helps no one for you to go on a campaign for your own reasons, over 50 pages just in the last few hours, to fix vandalism that may not have been caught at the time. Archive pages have a big bold notice boxed at the top that says, Do not edit the contents of this page; please respect that. If you want to amuse yourself fixing 8-year old vandalism, such as this edit at Talk:Domestic robot, or 15-year-old edits like this one or this one in ancient Talk page discussions, knock yourself out. But please stay off pages that have been archived. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I have specifically asked whether this was OK and was told by multiple people that it was not only OK but encouraged: "The admonition about not editing archives doesn't apply at all to maintenance edits such as removing vandalism, adding more text that hadn't been archived before, etc." Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that, but I haven't seen it, nor participated, and whereas that may be the view of a few scattered editors, I for one do not accept that that represents the type of broad consensus required for a major change of this nature. There are many reasons to oppose this, not least, the time sink it represents for other editors. Afaict, thus far you are the only editor doing this, which means I only have to look at your edits to see if they are vandalism or not, but if other editors start doing the same thing, archives may start drawing lots of edits by multiple editors, and we will be in a situation where lots of vandalism fighters (like yours truly) will have to start looking at tons of archive-changing edits to see if they are legitimate or not. This would be hugely disruptive of multiple editors' time, even for those edits, like yours, that are clearly not vandalism (but you don't know that, until you look). But the upshot is a huge waste of time, for edits that are not an improvement to the encyclopedia, which is, after all, why we are all here. I understand and respect your view, but I ask you to please stop making edits to archives until a broad consensus has been achieved—meaning a discussion, and likely an Rfc, at a centralized discussion location that attracts a broad array of editors who can discuss the pros and cons and lay down a strong consensus one way or the other. Once you have that, I have no objection. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note your opinion about how I choose to spend my free time.

However, there is no "major change" taking place. Multiple people (including one administrator) have confirmed that it is OK to revert undetected vandalism on talk pages including archives, and I have done so extensively without complaint for almost a year -- indeed, I have been thanked for many such edits. You are the first and only person to take issue. Any "time sink" is of your own making; I have been reverting vandalism for several years now, and I provide diffs of the vandalizing edit for any non-obvious changes except for the rare cases where they no longer exist in article history due to merges/etc.

I am not aware of any policy preventing the removal of vandalism, and I would imagine most people would be surprised to hear such a thing exists. I would also imagine that most people would find it uncontroversial that vandalism is bad and should be removed, and that removing it is a clear improvement to the project. This includes vandalism to talk pages, which are indexed by search engines, scraped by various services/LLMs/text repositories, and are otherwise publicly accessible. In the worst-case scenarios, people have added slurs, defamatory claims about people with their real names, and even oversightable material.

If you would like to propose a new policy that vandalism must remain untouched, you are welcome to try your luck at doing so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what the consensus actually is, the following are explicitly mentioned as appropriate talk page edits in the talk page guidelines:

• "Restoration: to restore comments vandalized or accidentally edited or deleted by others."
• "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism." (As noted in the guideline, uncivil messages and criticisms don't fall under this criterion, and I have not been altering those unless they are blatant vandalism and not just someone's legitimate strong opinion.)
• "Off-topic posts: It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article)."

All of my edits involve vandalism that falls into one of these three categories. Again, if you disagree with the guidelines you are welcome to try to change them, but these guidelines reflect current consensus. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point listing here what is already in the guideline because I support the guideline and have no wish to change anything in it. Rather, I am asking you to stay within the guidelines, which I believe you are not doing. I have stated before that I have no objection to your fixing vandalized comments or any of the rest of it on Talk pages, which appears to be the great majority of what you are doing, so keep on doing it, and hats off to you. What I am requesting, is that you stop altering the contents of archived pages, until you achieve consensus for that.

For example, a few days ago, you altered (diff) a page that was archived in 2015. There is a bold, boxed warning to "not edit the contents of this page" at the top of the page that you edited. There is nothing in the guideline that says you may ignore this in archives, and I am requesting that you just hold off on the changes to archived pages, not the edits to Talk pages. There's clearly no urgency here for a page was archived nine years ago, right? So, it isn't going to hurt anyone to just wait a bit for that type of edit, until this can be cleared up. So, please just hold off on changes to archived pages, until there is a clear consensus that it is okay to do that. If you do gain consensus for it, we should consider making a request that the Archive template warning be changed, so it no longer says that the page must not be edited, and it should have a link added instead, and/or list the exceptional cases in which it may be. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say that I have not already said, and I have no desire to honor your invented one-man consensus. Take it up with the multiple people -- including one administrator -- who have agreed that is OK, as well as the zero other people who have said it is not.

Several more people have thanked me for such edits since you have last scolded me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to ask you about the point of this recent edit to an archived talkpage, but I see that you have already been questioned on this kind of edit. You repeatedly point above to the supposed consensus here, but aside from the fact that two editors on a rarely-viewed talkpage is not a particularly compelling consensus, the example you give in that discussion is editing somebody else's comment and/or template to include crude vandalism along the lines of "i fucked your mom," making it appear that they originally said it. I wouldn't object to you reverting that kind of thing particularly, but there is no compelling need to remove a test edit consisting solely of the letter "a" and the IP's signature as you did here.
Can you not edit archived talkpages if it isn't actually blatant vandalism? Your last 100 edits are all reverting stuff on talkpages; by my count 22 of those are archived talkpages, and of those 22 I wouldn't consider any of them actually harmful; most of them are test edits rather than vandalism in any sense. As Mathglot says above, all this does is add stuff unnecessarily to editors' watchlists, which makes it easier for actual vandalism to slip through the cracks. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say that I and longstanding policy have not already said, at length. "Reverting vandalism is bad actually because it means there will be more vandalism" is certainly a novel take. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's an impressively bad-faith misinterpretation of what I actually said. Policy is clear that the edit I objected to was not reverting vandalism. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument could be applied to literally any edit that appears on a watchlist. Thus, it is a bad argument. If your watchlist is so unwieldy that it can be ruined by one person's manual edits, then that is a problem with your watchlist.

As for the link above, which I have read many times since reverting vandalism is 80% of what I do on this website, it also makes clear that such edits are still "prohibited," and is primarily meant to inform how to properly communicate with those users (which I have not been doing for people whose edits are not recent). Nowhere does it claim that those edits should stand. As I have said before, they make it more difficult to comprehend pages and correctly attribute comments, which is why the talk page guidelines state that they should be removed. (If anything the talk page guidelines are far more liberal in what they recommend removing; for instance they recommend removing off-topic, comments which I have not been doing as that is subjective.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recommend removing off-topic comments No, they don't. WP:TPG says that it is common to delete test edits. That's not a recommendation. They do however say that an archived discussion is intended to be preserved as-is and should not be edited. Removing a test edit from 2011 which has been archived for eighteen months is not so urgent as to override that recommendation.

I do not believe for a moment that this edit makes the archive meaningfully easier to comprehend the page, and it certainly doesn't make it any easier to "correctly attribute" any comments. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to believe what you want, it does not affect reality in the slightest. As I said, take it up with the people who explicitly told me it was OK. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the people you talked to, it's about policies, guidelines (like WP:DISRUPTION), collegial and collaborative editing, and consensus. You seem to be a more, my-way-or-the-highway type of person, which works just fine, until it doesn't. Mathglot (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am the "ask for permission first" type, as evidenced by the fact that I asked for permission first before embarking on the disruptive, terrible crusade of reverting vandalism, received that permission, and then went about doing that for several months, receiving no criticism and in fact being thanked for it. You seem to prefer spending several months scolding people for following instructions, for unclear reasons.

As I have stated many, many times, you are free to address the people who have given me that permission, including (as I have also stated many times) an administrator. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my initial comment on this talkpage, they told you it was okay to remove blatant vandalism. The example you gave when asking for permission was is editing somebody else's comment and/or template to include crude vandalism along the lines of "i fucked your mom," making it appear that they originally said it. Please stop misrepresenting the discussion which you are relying on for "permission". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not have time for this and am done engaging with you. Invent policy somewhere else. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with #NOV24, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope no one yells at me for doing this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to deal with it when I received it, so I forwarded it to a group of functionaries responsible for a similar task. They have declined to take action at this time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Propose to create page of block discussion in noticeboards. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 21:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnomingstuff. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are you finding the old test edits on talk pages? I'm curious. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I search for common words and phrases used by vandals or in nonconstructive edits (I think a lot of the recent stuff comes from text-to-speech). For nonsense-type phrases, I use wildcard patterns like "as*df*". To narrow things down, stuff like "UTC [phrase]", "[phrase] preceding", or "[phrase] [first number of network address]" will pick up a lot of drive-by edits. I don't really mess with regex much, it's bad on the server and not much more helpful than plain wildcard search.

This isn't perfect -- some stuff is obviously disruptive, others are a judgment call. It's not comprehensive at all -- it only identifies individual edits and doesn't really work at all for finding blanked comments or subtle vandalism, only really for low-hanging fruit. It's just that there's 20+ years of low-hanging fruit. It's pretty much what I was doing before for article space, but after doing countervandalism for years I'm pretty sure I and others have gotten rid of a lot of the really egregious undetected stuff there. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work. I doubt many people have thought of doing that before. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wish a lot of it had been done at the time, the bots are a bit better now at least. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this as great work! Are you just using Special:Search, pywikibot, something else? Tule-hog (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just use the regular wikipedia search, with search patterns that filter out as many false positives as possible, and make the preview actually show the relevant text so I can just scan the results page and not open every single link. Usually this means narrowing down to the start or the end of the comment and/or using "insource":

• Older unsigned comments (2000s to 2010s), which are more likely to be unconstructive, get picked up with "[keyword] preceding". Around 2006 the text apparently read "the preceding comment" but those aren't really common at all.
• Many but not all topic headers are caught by insource:"UTC [keyword]". The ones that aren't caught are the ones at the top of the page where the wikibanners are, so the last word could be "low", "mid", "high", "top", "NA" etc. Or sometimes when the previous comment has things like span tags, templates, etc.
• Recent (~2021 on) IP comments can be picked up with insource:"[keyword] special contributions" (not to single out IP editors, but the syntax for registered users is just impossible to filter out false positives with unless the keyword is blatantly obvious vandalism).
• Recent edits are caught by insource:"january 2025 utc" [keyword], or "6 january 2025 utc" etc. The recent ones are what I am trying to focus on because whenever the archive bot decides to automatically archive the page (I've seen turnaround times of literally 1 day from comment to archive), I can no longer revert them without getting yelled at (see above).

Keywords can vary, a really common one is students using the talk page as a Google search/ChatGPT query for homework, so the subject header is a school subject like "biology" or an abbreviation ("SST" = "social studies", "GK" = "general knowledge" etc.) Or sometimes it seems like people trying to activate text-to-speech, so the last part of the comment is "female voice", "soft", etc. Probably lots of keywords and patterns I haven't thought of. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your work cleaning up talk pages. C F A 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gnomingstuff. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Gnomingstuff Thank you so much for your time! Have a great weekend! Phoebezz22 (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]