User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/18

This is definitely your fault and not mine

Someone who clearly has no idea how JS works managed to have the second-precision datetime span titles in cuStaleness running on local time instead of UTC all this time. Pedants may point out that I wrote the entirety of that feature, but this is Wikipedia, where we care about verifiability, not truth, and fortunately I have references saying it's your fault. H/t Apaugasma for pointing out I had the chronology wrong for some sock creations. I must now redress my resulting humiliation, so en garde!

Patch. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this documented malfeasance worthy of an indef block, or should it be a week-long block with a severe warning? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. It's all my fault, I admit everything, and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. Just don't take me to WP:XZQ, I beg you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: How about we compromise: Indefinite, but try to remember to unblock after a week, to reward WK's contrition. If you forget, WK can take you to XKJ, and then everyone's happy. I think. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Pssst. Dare you to change MediaWiki:Noarticletext to {{#iferror:{{#invoke:String|match|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:X[A-Z][A-Z]$}}|{{No article text}}|{{soft redirect|Wikipedia:Administrative action review}}}}.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I ... shouldn't be able to do that, should I? I'm not an interface admin. But the tab says "edit source", not "view source" (too chicken to try it, no time for desysop case this week). I'm misunderstanding something, but too dumb to figure out what I'm misunderstanding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

OIC, I can edit MW-space pages, but not MW-space .js or .css pages. Still pretty dumb tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

User talk:Floquenbeam

LOL, you're welcome. [Smugly:] I don't do these things to be thanked! [Insinuatingly:] I do them to be paid! Bishonen | tålk 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

Features for new users coming soon (and mentors, like you, wanted!)

Hello. As you're currently listed as a host at the Teahouse, I wanted to make sure you're aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each users will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.

• Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
• There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
• Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.

To spread the load on our current list of around 65 mentors, I'm reaching out to ask if you'd like to help out and sign up as one? The workload is relatively small; User Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we already get at the Teahouse and elsewhere, and I've had just the one in the last 3 weeks. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, click here.

If becoming a mentor and being available to help new users on their first few days here interests you - just as you already do at the Teahouse - then please consider signing up at Growth Team features/Mentor list. Existing users can already 'opt-in' to seeing the Newcomer Homepage features via their Preferences.

Thank you! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What can I say but lol?

Thanks for your interventions. Saved me a lot of bother and it’s always encouraging when people help me on my talk page. Especially now. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I did consider pointing out here, preemptively, that I'm not Doug Weller either. But then they'd have to read my post all the way through to notice it... Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC).

Of course, Doug Weller, any time. I was very sad to haer about your diagnosis, and I'm hoping for only good news for you from here on out. I'm glad to hear I was helpful to you, even if it was just in the smallest of ways. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Mass Rollback script

Hope this finds you well, Writ Keeper. Look, I know you kind of inherited/rescued this script—and thanks!—but do you know if there was any documentation that came with it? I know nothing about scripts; but if there's anything I can knock, I'll be happy to blue link the page. (I had a query, is why I asked]].) All best, SN54129 18:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I kinda doubt it, and I've changed the functionality significantly over time anyway. I'll do a writeup later today, hopefully. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem at all, and thanks for the reply. SN54129 19:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 (and Mutt_Lunker): User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRollback is now a blue link. :) Let me know if something in the documentation doesn't make sense or could be worded better (or feel free to update it yourself!) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts guys. I'm at the stage of never having installed or used scripts and not knowing how to do so, so the chances of me missing the basics or doing something daft are fairly high. After searching around as to what to do, I think I may have installed the script, by going into my preferences, gadgets, advanced, then checked "Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files"; the option to install then appeared above the script, so I did. Is that the correct course of action?

User:Serial Number 54129 did a rollback on the contributions of User:75.169.140.50 (which I had also been trying to plod through, piecemeal) and it would be useful to address what is plainly the same user at User:75.169.162.15. Is "special contributions" the same as "user contributions"? Since installing the script, when I go to User contributions for 75.169.162.15, I don't see any "rollback all" or "rollback some" buttons, though I do have a square check box to the left of each listed contribution which I don't remember seeing before, if that has some relevance. Haven't been able to rollback all though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: Hmm, what skin are you using? If it's the Vector skin (the default), the buttons might've been added as entries under a "More" menu toward the upper-right of the screen (next to the search bar). Is it there? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ha, that's the ticket! Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem at all! Added a note about that to the documentation, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	User:Writ Keeper/uw-lit1, uw-lit2, uw-lit3, and uw-lit4 are a humorous response to the frequent misuse of the word "literally". Anerisys (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Incel article

The article has nearly eight thousand words and only two pictures. The section the picture was in is discussing this person, I'm sure readers would be interested in knowing what he looks like. Please consider reverting your hasty revert. ShaveKongo (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My revert wasn't hasty, and I will not reconsider it. If people are curious to learn more about Elliot Rodgers, they can click on the link to the main article on the subject and see a better picture of him there. A picture of Elliot Rodgers doesn't add to people's understanding of the incel topic even remotely, and it's not a high-quality image. "Eight thousand words and only two pictures" is irrelevant; not every article needs pictures (and this picture would only be directly relevant to ~200 of them anyway). This article doesn't particularly need pictures, it certainly doesn't need pictures of this person, and it *definitely* doesn't need this picture. Feel free to open a section on the talk page about it if you feel so strongly, and if a consensus forms to include the image, then of course it can be added. But no, I don't agree myself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Well if you won't see reason regarding this picture I'll just have to look for additional opportunities elsewhere in the article for pictures. Thanks for your consideration.ShaveKongo (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for script instructions

Hiya, Writ. I saw your mass revdel script mentioned at ANI, and was reminded that I've got it in my monobook.js, but I've never understood how to use it. :-( (I also have your mass rollback, which I can use, since it makes a "rollback all" and a "rollback selected" button appear at the top of contributions pages.) I don't see any "revdel all" button or the like. Could you tell me what to do to use it? Bishonen | tålk 21:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC).

Sure, Bish. So, the script is used on user contributions pages. If you go to someone's contributions page, such as Special:Contributions/Writ Keeper, you'll see the words "revision deletion" between the "newest/oldest/newer 50" thing and the list of contribs itself. If you click on that, then that will expand the interface. It'll apply revision deletion or oversight, with the corresponding settings and rationale that you select, to any of the revisions you've checked the box for. Note, of course, that htis only revdels those specific revisions; it might be worth checking teh page history, too, to see if there are any other revisions that also need to be revdeled, per usual (and there's the normal Wikimedia interface for that.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Now this has me thinking whether it would be feasible to build in a check for whether the content was removed in the next edit. A check of when it was removed would be too complicated, I think, but a warning, either before or after revdel, saying "Content added to $page at $timestamp was not reverted in next edit; see page history" could be nifty. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I had thought of that, but the number of API calls required to retrieve the data is a bit much. However, what we could probably do is check for the reverted tag, and show a warning if it's not there. Still not perfect, especially since the reverted tag can pop up even with some intervening edits that also might require revdel in this hypothetical, but it might be a decent and quick heuristic...does that sound like it'd be useful, Tamzin (or anyone else)? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, that would catch some of the cases I have in mind, but wouldn't catch something like a revdellable edit that was reverted, but only 7 edits later. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

And there it is. Thanks very much, young Writty. (Sorry, I've started calling most everybody "young". Pay no attention, it's just Bishzilla getting into my brain.) Bishonen | tålk 07:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC).

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on proposed talk page design changes

hi @Writ Keeper – would you be open to looking at the design changes we – the Foundation's Editing Team – are planning to introduce for talk pages and sharing what thoughts/ideas/questions/concerns/etc. they bring to mind?

Here are some links to two prototypes if you end up having the time to look at them:

• Vector (2022): https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York&useskin=vector-2022&uselang=en
• Vector: https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/6c2b1c9b3e/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York&useskin=vector&uselang=en

And for some added context:

1. This pages contains information about the impact these changes are intended to have: Talk pages project/Usability#Objectives.
2. I'm Peter 👋🏼😊 I work as the product manager for the Editing Team. I'm reaching to you in response to @Pelagic making – what I thought was, – the wise suggestion of reaching out to interface admins for feedback considering the unique perspective and expertise they've developed on how pages are laid out and presented to people.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Black Manosphere subsection removal

The Manosphere article is incomplete and invalid without SOME MENTION of "The Black Manosphere," which has been in existence since 2015. You also have no mention of "The 21 Convention," which is the most well-known yearly conference associated with The Manosphere. Trust me: I've been studying The Manosphere and the many well-known personalities associated with it since the 2000s, and the current Wiki article is incredibly incomplete. Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but if you want the article to contain an entire section on a subject, you will need more sourcing than a single opinion piece. Remember that Wikipedia is not about "all information that exists", it's about "all information that can be reliably sourced". Coverage in the article should be roughly proportional to coverage in reliable sources. This is nothing personal, just me making a rhetorical point, but I don't trust you; Wikipedia doesn't trust any one person's word by design. We only trust what's in reliable sources. So if you want this stuff covered, you need better sources. I don't have any objection to including any of the stuff you've been writing about, provided it is well-sourced, but so far the sources have been lacking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'd note that if you want to include brief mentions of these things in other sections, the sourcing burden will be lighter than trying to shoehorn an entire section for them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I will do my research and look for more sources Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear Reactor Article

I see that you have deleted almost all of the article ThorCon_nuclear_reactor including the figure showing how it works. You have replaced a fair and balanced Critiques section with a link to one side of the debate. Are you anti-nuclear? I'm not here to debate. I just want to know if you would like to make this article useful again. What do readers want to know? I suggest: how it works and how it compares with conventional reactors on the four key issues of safety, waste management, weapons proliferation and cost. David MacQuigg 10:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The first concern for Wikipedia articles is verifiability, through citations to reliable sources. I'm not going to dig through the diffs of the edits I made for someone who explicitly isn't interested in improving Wikipedia (hint: Citizendium talk pages are never going to be an appropriate external link), but if I recall correctly, most of the article was sourced to the company's own statements, which are not reliable sources and lend to the overall promotional tone that pervaded the article. And not that it matters, but no, I'm actually quite supportive of nuclear power, thank you very much. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, since these reactors don't exist yet, the answer to "how they work/compare to other things that exist" is "they don't". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I do want to see Wikipedia improve. The problem I see with the Wikipedia ThorCon article is over-zealous enforcement of the rule on sources by people who have little knowledge of nuclear power, but plenty of prejudice following the group-think that has been established in our general population. My objective was to have an article that addresses the concerns people have on safety, waste management, proliferation, and cost. It is easy for an anti-nuclear organization to make untrue statements, like the UCS statement about "all molten salt reactors". Those statements can be refuted with information on specific designs, but that information can only come from the designers themselves, which violates WP's conflict-of-interest rule.

Citizendium has a better way to work with a controversial topic like this. We start with a top article that raises the questions and sets the scope of the debate. Then we invite the designers of the new reactors to respond. Each gets one article, specifically on their design, and they can write it as they wish. Then the critics can write what they want on the Discussion page. Each side gets to make their best statement on a narrow topic. We avoid FaceBook-style endless debate by allowing each side to edit their criticism and response until we have the best argument from both. The ThorCon article is our most fully-developed example. We are working on others.

We work with both sides to avoid overly promotional material and clever debate tactics that have no place in an encyclopedia. What do you see as "overly promotional" in the ThorCon article? Is there a better way to achieve our goal - a clear presentation of the facts and a fair statement of both sides on the remaining controversial issues?
David MacQuigg 14:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to restate the obvious, but Wikipedia is not Citizendium. Wikipedia *only* cares about what independent, reliable sources say about a subject; it does not care about "addressing concerns" or whatever. The best way--the only way--to write a better Wikipedia article is to get more, better, independent, reliable sources and stick to them. I'm glad you like Citizendium's model, but that is not relevant to how Wikipedia works, and we're not going to make an exception just this once.

Also, should probably not leave this unstated, but I have no personal opinions about this reactor design whatsoever. Wanting a neutral, sourced Wikipedia article is not the same as being "prejudiced" against ThorCon, and for that matter, being against ThorCon does not make one against nuclear power as a whole. I'd caution against that line of argument if you want to be taken seriously here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that Wikipedia is not Citizendium, and I don't care what are your personal opinions about this reactor design, and I am NOT trying to Right a Great Wrong. Why do you raise all these personal issues instead of just answering my question?
I am trying to get "the best obtainable version of the truth" as Bob Woodward has said. One last question - why do you treat Union of Concerned Scientists as a reliable source? They raise millions from anti-nuclear contributors and that income depends on their spreading misinformation on nuclear power. See the example you deleted.

David MacQuigg 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You led this section off with asking me if I was personally anti-nuclear, and went on to talk about "over-zealous enforcement of the rule on sources by people who have little knowledge of nuclear power, but plenty of prejudice following the group-think", so I'm not sure why you think *I'm* the one raising personal issues. But regardless, I *did* answer your question: the best obtainable version of the truth, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that reflected in independent, reliable sources. Find some. That's all there is to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have asked if you were anti-nuclear. I stand by my criticism of Wikipedia, however. Let's assume good faith. You have raised some strong criticism of the article, but have not provided any helpful specifics. Let me repeat the questions. What do you consider "overall promotional"? Why do you believe UCS is a reliable source? David MacQuigg 23:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating this with you on this page. Feel free to take your concerns to the talk page of the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy Tenth Adminship Anniversary!

10 years? Shit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Rookie. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time

For you to consider higher office. With the end of year Arbcom elections rapidly approaching, it would be nice seeing you on the ballot; even nicer seeing you take a seat. You'd have my support and I suspect many others would be equally glad to apportion support. Best regards and be well --John Cline (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Another pull request

Hello WK! We've just had a whole kerfluffle with a bot over at AN/I that led to k6ka having to (or getting to, depending how you look at it) revert 6,000 edits. I got a few hundred myself with massRollback, and noticed afterward that the script hadn't honored the bot=1 in the URL. Well, why would it?, I realized, when I thought about it after. But it occurred to me that that would be a good feature to have in massRollback for admins. I've whipped something up at User:Tamzin/massRollback.js (compare), and have tested it successfully on testwiki (see testwiki:Special:RecentChanges with hide-bots disabled); also tested on my alt there to make sure I didn't break it for non-admins. Would you be interested in adding this to the script? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hm. I definitely like the idea, and thanks for the PR. I am a bit concerned, though, about building in the bot flag, given the potential for abuse (ref. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman). Not that my script is a gadget that needs to go to the IANB or anything, but I feel like we should probably get some kind of consensus for that first. Also, purely from a UI perspective, I would rather figure out a way to work it into the edit summary prompt, rather than having a separate button, though that might not be super feasible. (Also, I'm not personally familiar enough with the bot policy to know whether there are rules about flagging a human editor's edits as bot edits.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Marking as bots is limited to admins, global rollbackers, and stewards (although the forked script as written only gives the option to local admins; not sure it's worth the extra API call to expand that). The only actual mentions of it I can find in policy/guideline/infopages are a single list item at Wikipedia:User access levels (not mirrored at WP:MOPRIGHTS) and something at WP:GRP saying GRs can use it. So I'd assume it just falls under common-sense usage. As to whether admins would use it responsibly when having so ready-made a way to deploy it, we could modify the prompt for those options. WARNING: Selecting this option means your rollback will not show up on most users' watchlists. Only do this if your reverts are non-controversial and you are making a large number of them. And then could even add a second prompt, You have selected to mark your rollbacks as bot edits. Please click "OK" again to confirm that this was your intention. If you intended to make a regular mass rollback, please click "cancel" and start over.

Or could make that part of a checkbox on the prompt (or however such things are done), but honestly it may be less obtrusive (and less tempting, and maybe even less of a misclick risk) to have it as separate buttons from the start.

The other option here, I guess, is intentionally keep this a separate script so that it only gets installed by people who've given it at least some thought. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've given the bot buttons a pink background now, which I think does a pretty good job of making them a bit foreboding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ran quarry:query/68825 to see how often anyone does this. Acknowledging the possibility of a false negative on anyone with "bot" in their name, and noting that the reverted edits also get marked as bot, it's just me, NuclearWarfare, and global rollbacker QueerEcofeminist. All three are single edits: Mine was to test the function in anticipation of using it on Cewbot; not sure if NW and QEF have scripts enabled that did it, or something. But, TL;DR: usage rounds down to zero at the moment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) From an IAdmin perspective I'm not really concerned, this doesn't give the admins access to do anything they can't already do. Using an "option" sounds useful, but actually using rollback+'bot' when doing mass-rollbacks is really what that capability is specifically designed for and should probably be encouraged if actually doing a "bulk" batch of these. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper/sandbox

Hello, Writ Keeper,

I don't understand why you are tagging your own sandbox as an attack page and asking for it to be deleted. First, it isn't an attack page. Second, you could just delete it yourself if you don't want it. Are you trying to gauge reaction times of other admins to a page labeled an attack page? It's just a curious thing to do. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Liz, I'm testing a new user script that I wrote. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Article space creation block

(was "Although *I* couldn't do this if my life depended on it, I *suspect* it might be easy for a competent person to do" until I retitled it)

Let's say someone is currently topic banned from creating new articles in article space (they have to use draft space and AFC), but they're allowed to edit existing articles. And they keep forgetting which space they're in, so they keep creating an article in article space by accident, and get blocked for it. Am I right that it would be easy for them to voluntarily add something to a .js or .css file that would prevent them from creating an article space page, but not prevent them from editing one? Or is my understanding of that stuff really bad, and it would be hard?

(p.s. Hi WK! hope all is well) Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Floq! All is as well some could expect, hope it's the same with y'all! No, you're right, that should be pretty easy, I think. Trivially avoided, if one wanted to, but as a voluntary measure, pretty sure it could be done. Lemme see what I can cook up in a bit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) one day phab:T275037 may deliver this capability (don't hold your breath). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Floq: check out User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/mainspaceCreationBlocker.js; should do something like what you're thinking about, with "helpful" nudges to go to Draft space instead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

WK, thanks so much. As usual, you rock. I'll let the user know that this is an option for them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, Floq, I don't think FA would be able to edit their common.js page while blocked, and you won't be able to, either; you'd need intadmin access to edit someone else's common.js. I can do it for you if needed, or y'all can just wait for the block to expire. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to tell @FloridaArmy: FA that we'll have to wait for the block to expire. I'd forgotten that admins can't edit other users' .js pages anymore. But TBH it might be better for you to do it. You know more .js stuff than FA or I do, and from FA's talk page, it sounds like they'd have been happy for me to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Weasel words, lack of NPOV, etc. on article: Gab (social network). The discussion is about the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network). Thank you. --~~~~ Commandur (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semiprotect all

Hi, Writ. I think I must have semiprotected my entire userspace — this lot — using your User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massProtect.js script, at a time when a troublesome vandal was writing obscenites here and there in it. That was rash of me! Now that a helpful IP is trying to help make my archives searchable, see [1], apparently I need them all unprotected. All the archives, I mean. Can I reverse the "semiprotect all" in some way, or do I have to unprotect all the archives individually? Bishonen | tålk 17:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC).

Hey, Bish, not sure if you still need this, but I've added a button to unprotect everything, alongside the other two. I was going to change it up and have it work a bit more elegantly, similar to how massRollback works these days, but the Mediawiki API is...not cooperative. So, hopefully this'll do. One note, though, if you plan to continue using this script in the future: *any* button you press will completely remove move protection, even if you're adding/increasing edit protection (this is the uncooperative bit). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You modified the script for me? Thank you very much! Bishonen | tålk 16:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) @Bishonen FWIW, Twinkle (via p-batch) can do this do, go to a page like Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:Bishonen and then you should be able to use the twinkle control. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm, good to know (especially since I didn't burn a bunch of time/effort on the more complicated thing). I didn't see that because apparently I had specifically hidden those tabs, presumably to declutter Twinkle on Monobook...but that was so long ago, I'd completely forgotten that I did it. But anyway, Bish, you're very welcome; it was no trouble at all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Need your input on a policy impacting gadgets and UserJS

Dear interface administrator,

This is Samuel from the Security team and I hope my message finds you well.

There is an ongoing discussion on a proposed policy governing the use of external resources in gadgets and UserJS. The proposed Third-party resources policy aims at making the UserJS and Gadgets landscape a bit safer by encouraging best practices around external resources. After an initial non-public conversation with a small number of interface admins and staff, we've launched a much larger, public consultation to get a wider pool of feedback for improving the policy proposal. Based on the ideas received so far, the proposed policy now includes some of the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, best practices for gadgets and UserJS developers, and exemptions requirements such as code transparency and inspectability.

As an interface administrator, your feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome until July 17, 2023 on the policy talk page.

Have a great day!

Samuel (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Security team 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

itts been a long tme since he logged on so can you please leave a massage on my talkpage the is an article i want to talk to you about. your faithfully Lilitha Sqokwana Lilitha Sqokwana (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hey there can you plz help me with something,also thank u for your great ork,lots of love😘❤😘{lilitha}

Lilitha Sqokwana (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lilitha Sqokwana: Hi, what can I do for you? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

i want to know whethe here in wikipedia can work with someone on the same article.... Lilitha Sqokwana (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If you're asking whether two (or more) people can edit the same article, then yes, that's quite common. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

i mean like to share byline. Lilitha Sqokwana (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lilitha Sqokwana: For the most part, there is no concept of a "byline" on Wikipedia; every article is owned by the community as a whole. The most there is is the edit history of a page, which will have an entry for each edit, attributed to the editor who made it. But there's no overall "author" of any page on Wikipedia, and there's no concept of ownership of a particular page. You can check out WP:OWN for more information. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

A ridiculous cat

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: if it gets me pictures of said ridiculous cats, you can revert me whenever you want! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Explain why I was banned on editing Rachel Levine pagr

Explain 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, this now-revdeleted edit was more than enough to justify the partial block, but then you went on to make this and this, both of which misrepresent sources to push your obvious anti-trans person agenda, along with making disingenuous suggestions and general trolling. This is not an acceptable pattern of behavior, and so it has been put to a stop. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@24thHusbandofDraupathi be exceedingly glad Writ Keeper saw this and not me. I would have given you a sitewide block without a doubt in my kind at it being the right call. Tread carefully. Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record: I absolutely would've supported another admin's choice to implement a sitewide block, and any further disruption elsewhere will have me act accordingly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I accept I didn't read the article and even admitted in one of the replies. But I don't get when did I troll? Care to explain? Is it trolling to ask a honest question if the world "mother" is transphobic? 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You referred to a human being as “this thing”. If you really think that isn’t trolling, I’m going to just go ahead and block you. Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not what you asked, and in any event it's not an honest question; what you're doing is called sealioning. I would advise you to drop this and stay far away from this subject; you are on extremely thin ice, and you're currently busily hacking around your feet with an ice pick. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Quick note on Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer.

Can you drop protection to semiprotection? The actual script is located on a protected subpage; thus there is no need to have this page protected. Awesome Aasim 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Explain please

diff --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh no! Sorry, it was a misclick, Tagishsimon. I noticed it at the time, but it didn't look like the rollback actually went through. My bad! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Very old unblock request

...from Saucysalsa30, which someone should resolve one way or another. They messaged in the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel, asking for advice on why it's taking so long. I know this is pretty stale, but the original blocking admin is...unavailable for further comment, and since you seemed to have a productive dialogue with this user, I was hoping to get your opinion about their new unblock request. It's been languishing for 3 months or so, so they definitely deserve a response one way or another. I'm not super impressed by the request itself, as it does seem to be lacking in specifics, but I think that might be because they were specifically advised to keep it concise. If I combine it with the contents of the conversation you were having with them, (and also their patience in waiting for so long...) I'm inclined to unblock. But I also see they have somewhat of a history...what say you? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Writ Keeper, thank you for the note.

I agree that this situation is a bit "messy", due to the recent discovery that Lourdes was a banned editor. There's been a discussion of their actions here.

That said, I think the block review by User:Z1720 stands.

this AN/I thread in particular, is worth reading, I think.

And in light of the various AN/I thread(s), and their previous history of interacting with others, I would be hesitant to unblock. In my discussion with the editor - one who has a history of WP:GAME - I saw a lot of words, but not much in the way of applied understanding. Though I suppose I could understand a WP:ROPE perspective here.

If you do decide to, I think I might suggest that the timer on their arbcom restriction not include the time they were blocked. (I'm not sure of the process, but perhaps it should be reset - might need to reach out to arbcom on this?)

Anyway my short answer is what I said on their talk page, I'm not comfortable doing an unblock at this time, but would not oppose another admin's assessment to do so.

Thanks again for the note.

And I hope you and yours are having a good holiday whatever you may celebrate : ) - jc37 22:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37, @Writ Keeper, just as a heads up, I've offered them a (rather stringent) conditional unblock. Please take a look and let me know if you see any obvious flaws in this approach. – bradv 03:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Script

Gee, a blank talk page. Unusual. I need script help, please, and I think it's yours, but I'm so bad at this I'm not sure. When I look at a report at SPI, some script bolds the creation date of the oldest user, but sometime recently it stopped working. Can you see which script it is and who "owns" it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The benefits of flying under the radar. :) It's probably mine; I recently made a change to it, so that might've messed something up. I'll take a look. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nudge

See this from a week ago. Don't you want to fix it before Christmas? :p --Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Fine. Merry Christmas, ya filthy animal. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Which filthy animal? There are so many. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. (I come a day late ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not as late as I am in acknowledging it though, so you still come out on top. ;) Thank you Gerda, and I hope you have a wonderful holiday season and a marvelous 2024. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Writ Keeper, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 01:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a merry Christmas. *bang bang bang bang bang bang* And a happy new year. *bang bang bang bang bang bang*

The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

iadmin flag

Hi WK, your IAdmin flag is up for removal (Wikipedia:Interface_administrators'_noticeboard#Inactive_interface_administrators_2023-12-28) due to inactivity - do you plan on being active in this area any time soon? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Generally, yes I plan on keeping an eye on the intadmin edit request category, but I'm not sure how much actual intadmin tool use that will generate, so I don't know if that qualifies to keep the bit. I'd say I would vaguely like to keep the bit active, but it's not a problem to remove it per the strict activity requirements. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Basically "anything" does it - feel free to change the 4's to 5's on User:Xaosflux/minerva.js to "renew" this, else I'll pull and you can ask back at anytime via WP:BN. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

All right, I've renewed. Thanks, Xaosflux. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Does anyone know how to change the RefToolbar so that it is compatible with sfn?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

hello, thank you for helping my edits. how could i source something?

i am a new editor who added edits on the article homonculus. ChernobylK1d (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, ChernobylK1d, and again welcome to Wikipedia! So, first let me give you an explanation as to why specifically I reverted your edit. Wikipedia's fundamental content policy is verifiability, which means that *everything* in Wikipedia must be able to be attributed to a reliable source that backs it up. The reason for this is pretty simple: since Wikipedia is written almost entirely by anonymous volunteers, we can't trust any particular editor's word on whether a particular piece of content is actually true or relevant. The only thing we can actually begin to trust is a reliable source, so reliable sourcing is the foundation of Wikipedia's content. This also means that something that *isn't* covered in a reliable source cannot be included in Wikipedia, since it would not be verifiable. That's why I reverted your edit; I made a quick check, but I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the Youtube channel you mentioned; since I couldn't verify it, and there weren't any sources in the edit itself, it should be reverted.

Now, an important sidenote is that: not everything that *can* be attributed to a reliable source *should* be put into an article--there are other content policies, such as neutral point-of-view or the collection of things that Wikipedia is not, that still might mean that an otherwise verifiable tidbit shouldn't be included in an article. These questions ultimately are subject to consensus among editors, which is another core principle of Wikipedia. But verifiability is a necessary step, even if it isn't always sufficient on its own.

So, your challenge is to find reliable sources that discuss the channel you're talking about. You can read about what constitutes a reliable source here, but in a nutshell, it's going to be things like scholarly papers or news articles from organizations with a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. For your specific edit, you'll want to specifically find sources that discuss the Youtube channel in question within the wider context of homunculi as seen in popular culture; this will build a case that this Youtube mention belongs in the Homunculus article, rather than somewhere else. There's more guidance for this specific case here; specifically, note that it says: Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. You instead should try to demonstrate that the Youtube channel has had a significant impact on the wider cultural perception or understanding of the topic of homunculi, through coverage of this specific angle in reliable sources. I don't want to mislead you--I don't think it's likely that such sources exist, which is why I removed the material (as well as the material directly above it, which was added by a different user but suffered the same problem). But, if you feel like you can find sources in newspapers or something like that, then go for it, and armed with those sources, you could re-add it to the article.

If you do manage to find sources, then you can find more information on how to actually include the citations at this help page.

Let me know if you have any other questions! Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you very much. I have found a source that is the everybody wiki. i will practice writing the newer addition. ChernobylK1d (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@ChernobylK1d: Unfortunately, wikis (including Wikipedia itself) are not reliable sources. They all run into the same problem that Wikipedia does, which is that they're written by anonymous people with no fact-checking. A link to a wiki won't work as a reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

massRollback question

massRollback is super helpful for dealing with vandals. Thanks for writing it.

Would it be possible to load the massRollback menu items in a new section at the bottom of tools like "Mass Actions" with "Rollback all" and "Rollback selected" under that? Putting the elements into the "Actions" section causes everything below it to shift as the page loads and I've accidentally clicked on the wrong thing more times than I want to admit. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: It should be possible, though I might fork the script. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: Actually, it turned out to be easy enough that I implemented an option to do this in the main script. All you need to do is to copy and paste this line: wkRollbackPortlet= "p-tb"; into your common.js, right above the importScript line for the massRollback itself. That should move the buttons to the toolbox. HTH, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, that is perfect! This is a tiny thing to be particular about, but could you add an option to capitalize the two options in the menu (i.e., "Rollback all" and "Rollback selected")? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Megamind

There was nothing wrong with the edits. You didn't point out anything wrong with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:B800:EB4:E4D1:7F1F:141F:1EB3 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop it please. Atleast elaborate what is the problem with the edit. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:E4D1:7F1F:141F:1EB3 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKEVASION says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block", which you and I are both well aware. As for the edit itself, scanning it briefly, it looks like it's promoting some random Youtube channel and their opinions about the movie. I freely admit to not looking too much closer, since the aforementioned link doesn't require me to: "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from ExclusiveEditor

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § AI for WP guidelines/ policies. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick note on Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer.

Could you consider dropping protection for the page to XCON? The script for the page is hosted actually on an already protected subpage. The subpage could be moved to MediaWiki space as a JS file to ensure interface administrator protection. Awesome Aasim 01:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Awesome Aasim. Sorry, but no, I won't downgrade the protection of the page. The script itself might be hosted on a subpage, but the page itself is instructing people to copy and paste Javascript into their common.js file, including a code snippet that *is* stored directly on the page, so the potential for malice is just too high, especially when it's for a script that, by definition, users will probably install and then not monitor their account for a while. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... the part that reads

::	var date = { year: 2019, month: 2, day: 6 };
::	var time = { hours: 20, minutes: 22, seconds: 0 };
::

is actually an excerpt from the script on the protected subpage. In any case, I can see now that changing the protection is too risky. I also think the actual script code should probably be moved into a MediaWiki: subpage so that only interface administrators can edit it. Awesome Aasim 21:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I need a script

Can you provide some magical software thingy that, before saving my edit, checks for some combination of {[, [{, ]}, or }] and prevents the edit being saved? Preferably with a friendly message along the lines of "hey moron, you just did it again". If I felt like it was other people besides me, I'd suggest an edit filter (I don't think those characters in that order would ever make sense). But I think it's just me.

In other news: hey stranger, how are things? Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Floq: Okay, that was harder than I was expecting, but here you go: User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/syntaxChecker.js. As usual, install by inserting the line mw.loader.load("/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/syntaxChecker.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); into your common.js page. If you mismatch square and curly braces next to each other, it should give you a popup when you try to save the edit, alerting you and asking if you're sure you want to save the edit. If you hit cancel, it should then highlight the mismatched braces for you in the text field. It's designed to do its best to *not* ask you about any mismatched braces that are already in the page before you started editing, but the detection algorithm is fairly primitive, so false positives are likely in complex scenarios. Also, I have it disabled in article space, but let me know if you either want to enable it there too, or if there are any other namespaces you would like disabled.

In other news: things are going all right. Some positive IRL developments. Keeping half an eye on Wikipedia as time permits. Same ol', same ol', I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble; thanks so much for the effort, WK. I always forget that WP doesn't save what I type, it saves the entire page again; I can see how that complicates things. I'll install it in a bit, and it will likely be triggered at least once by the end of the week! Glad to hear things IRL are going well. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

{[shouldn't be able to save this.}} Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It works fine when editing the source, but doesn't seem to handle using the reply-to link. BUT this is going to help me about 95% of the time, since it most frequently happens when I'm archiving a thread or handling an unblock request, where I'm not using reply-to. So thank you, and please don't spend any time trying to handle this edge case. This will help a lot. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point

You raised a fair point at WP:AN [2] before it was closed, and I wanted to explain. Seldom do I ask for review, but this instance had three factors that made me to decide it was best to get a review. One, the editor in question had a strong recent history of using the admin boards, including ANI, AN and XRV in the past week. By asking review myself, I was removing the necessity of them asking to have the block reviewed (and them participating) at one of those boards because it was already being reviewed by the community. Second, there was a mental health element to the block, and this isn't a common thing. Additionally, I didn't just jump in and block, but had been involved in discussion with them, trying to avoid the block in the first place and closing two admin board discussion with them, so there was a possibility that some would have seen my efforts prior to the block as problematic or wp:involved. In short, asking for review was the lesser of the available evils, from my perspective. In the end, the editor agreed he needed to be blocked, and in fact, was basically asking for it before the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Promanowski

Perhaps time for talk page access to be revoked? Still using the nazi card in their unblock request. Theroadislong (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Meh. I see that Yamla has declined the unblock request, and I'm inclined to let it be. I know I'm probably being too soft on this person, and that they'll probably end up with an indef in another day or two; certainly if any other admin wants to make a different choice, that's fine by me. But if their disruption is currently contained to their talk page, then I feel it's best to let sleeping dogs lie, even if they're growling in their sleep. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, it might be a kindness to let them know asap that WP isn't really for them. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I'll certainly sign on to the note you left on their talk page just now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you ever want to stop being so nice and AGF-y, and I can teach you all about the Bad Cop dark side. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Please revoke TP access for the editor just blocked for legal threat

Weird threats 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Their latest posts did not repeat the legal threat, so I'm going to refrain from removing TPA for now so that they can read my most recent post explaining the situation; however, if the personal attacks continue from here on out, removing TPA will be done in short order. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I knew we could rely on you. Detestable article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a stench of UPE coupled with potential sockness, based on the people attacked in the article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, undoubtedly, but it'll take a user with higher-power goggles than mine to root all that out. I'll see if I can formulate an SPI report, though I'm not sure precisely who the master would be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I have no goggles at all. BTW I think we are seeing block evasion by an IP right now. This will run for a while, I think. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep, consulting with a friendly CU about a rangeblock. It's a pretty big range, so somewhat worried about collateral damage. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

And rangeblocked. Hopefully that gives us a break. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That was quick. Haha!

I left User:NMCDPIO the welcomevandlism, jump to my Contribs, see ‘current’ no longer there, you’ve already gone in with the block. That was quick and then some! Did I cause you an Edit Conflict? Sorry if i caused such! MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all! Actually, thank you for adding a welcome template. I deliberately went for a soft block because this is probably an editor who is in good faith, but just deeply misguided about how Wikipedia works. Glad they got hopefully the most welcoming version of a block that they could. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you revoke TPA for this IP address?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.253.26.87 Thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Malcolmxl5 beat me to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, saw a request at AIV. May need to keep an eye on the /24. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Writ Keeper/Archives. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What other powers do I have that I simply had no idea I could do?

If I can change the "content model" thru a harmless-looking link on an obscure page, or using a long "Special" page I didn't know existed, I wonder what other things I can do. Is there a:

• Special:IncreaseBankAccount? (redlink, rats)
• Special:NoMoreWinterEver? (ditto)
• Special:SlayThineEnemiesButNotReallyDon'tBlockMeForDeathThreats? (d'oh)

Maybe adminship is a BIGDEAL after all?!? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) there are a bunch of really niche tools, see Special:SpecialPages - not admin-only but you never know when you you may need to write in all hieroglyps (Special:Hieroglyphs). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Question Regarding Edits

forgive me if this is not the correct spot for this question. I have been observing Wiki and how people interact for about 4-5 months before choosing to set up an account and try to help. Ive noticed that there are a lot of page that have notices on them that say they need editing or citations or other work. In many cases the article requires quite a bit of editing to get in alignment with verifiable sources as well as read well.

What I have observed however is that often times contributors will make an edit, which includes citations and in short order (less than 5 minutes) someone comes along and reverts their edit and deletes all the work they did.

This confuses me because I dont understand how a person can read and check citations (multiple) in 10 minutes or often times less and decide the edit should be removed. Then I question if people are deleting contributions because the facts are not accurate or simply they dont like the facts which are documented and cited.

I understand their is an arbitration process for these type circumstances however, id like to believe im not the only person on the planet that doesnt like conflict and wonder how people can contribute and not have their word deleted BEFORE there has even been a discussion about what they may have contributed. Otherwise I forsee conflict averse people just choosing to observe and staying about the fray...

I guess I am asking. is there a way, when there are larger edits required /being asked for, is there a way for people to edit/contribute and when complete send directly to an admin for review and publication before it is tossed in the lions pit of people quick on the delete finger? RFAvaria (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, RFAvaria, welcome to Wikipedia! It's difficult for me to give you a straight answer because a lot of times it depends on the specifics of the case. Is there any particular edit you're thinking about, or any particular reason you're reaching out to specifically me with your question? (Which, to be clear, you're more than welcome to do regardless! I'm just wondering if there's something specific in your mind that brings you to me.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Good morning, I apologize I just reached out to you specifically because I read a lot of profiles and your seem to touch on the questions I was having regarding how to best navigate Wiki.... I dont have a specific case in mind of areas of conflict I was just hoping to be able to leverage my knowledge of US history and many of its subcategories to help add the information to pages that I see have flags on them. Unfortunately some of these pages are quite inaccurate or lack citations or both and I just fear doing a lot of work on something, citing properly from actual books that are from primary and secondary sources and then because someone doesnt like it ..it just gets deleted. I love reading and like history, more of an introvert so I just want to stay away from conflict wherever possible and when I saw that happen to others it gave me a bit of a stress response. But I am here to help the team and if I can help in an easy way that keeps everyone happy. im happy to contribute... thanks for the quick response, I realized after I hit submit that it said you were busy IRL so I was worried you might not see the question ... have a good day RFAvaria (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@RFAvaria: No need to apologize at all, I'm just curious what profile you read; I'm not sure what you're referring to, especially not something that said I'm busy IRL. You're welcome to ask questions. Anyway, there are any number of reasons that an edit might be reverted, despite the presence of citations. For one, not all citations are created equal; it's not uncommon for users to make edits with citations to obviously unreliable sources; one example might be a citation to the UK publication Daily Mail, which has been determined by community consensus to be a wholly-unreliable source. So, an edit that cites only the Daily Mail could safely be reverted just by glancing at the citation's URL, without having to actually examine the linked webpage itself. It's also sometimes the case that people keep trying to reuse a specific source that's already been rejected, or one that an editor is already familiar with and can tell is being misused out of hand, or it's a primary source in a context where a primary source is inappropriate, or it's not a problem with sourcing itself but with the wording and language used, etc. etc. Like I say, it's really impossible to say without getting into the specifics of the edit, but there are certainly plenty of reasons that a quick revert might be legitimate. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

ok that makes sense.... I will try my best and see what happens. I haven't had a television since 2012 and I was a LOT of books, especially in winter, I was just hoping that I could put some of the things I learned to good use. thanks again for the response and I dont really have any other questions at this time but will try to add citations on some pages that have flags or are asking for historical clarification and if something arises I will ask... thanks !! RFAvaria (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask you another question?? Someone just removed contributions that I made.... which they said they believed to be infringing on copyright material and they said was "a lot of junk". I wrote all of the content myself. I recognize that history can sound similar, however there are only so many ways to say "the sun is hot" without someone coming along and replying someone else said the sun is hot.

Nonetheless, I am really confused because I have tried ro only work on pages that pop up on that random generator and pages of interest that have notes at the top saying they need work. So I tried to put in the work and it was all just deleted. I asked the person what they thought was infringing on copyrights but I have not heard back. This is just very odd to me and looking forward to insights on how to navigate this. thanks !! Have a good day RFAvaria (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper hey there, question.. on the Pierson v Ray case citation, are you saying the SCOTUS case itself needs to be cited? the previous paragraphs that were already there were discussing how people were moving (Great Migration) in large part because of the violence experienced in the south by the KKK. Im just not sure what part you are wanting a citation for .. thanks !! RFAvaria (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

are you saying you think it needs a citation to the case??

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/386/547/

or an analysis of how it promotes abuse?

https://gatewayjr.org/qualified-immunity-a-get-out-of-court-free-card-for-abusive-police/ RFAvaria (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

RFAvaria: I am saying that the analysis requires a reliable source, yes.

You seem to have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is and how it works. Wikipedia's fundamental content policy is verifiability. That means everything--every fact, every number, every analysis, inference, interpretation, meaning--in a Wikipedia article must be attributable to a reliable source. While that doesn't necessarily mean that every word or sentence must have an explicit footnote providing the citation for it, it does mean that, if any part of an article is challenged, there must be a reliable source directly and explicitly supporting it that can be provided, and probably added to the article as a citation. Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia for this reason; you cannot insert your own analyses, interpretations, or opinions into an article because they are, by definition, unverifiable in published reliable sources. The reason for this policy of verifiability is that, even if you are a genuine authority or subject matter expert in a particular field, there is no way to prove you are who you say you are, or that you have the credentials that you do. So we can't just take your word for it; we need published reliable sources to be able to begin to trust anything that anyone says about anything. This is not theoretical; Wikipedia has been burned in the past by people who have claimed false credentials and used that feigned authority to insert nonsense into articles; see also the Essjay controversy.

So, when you write that a particular court case has the effect of licensing police officers to abuse people in the same way that the KKK abuses people in the Jim Crow South--says who? If the answer is "you", then it is not acceptable for Wikipedia, regardless of how correct or obvious it may seem. If the answer is "the opinion piece in a magazine" that you link to here, then that raises several more questions. First and foremost: that opinion piece needs to be cited in the Wikipedia article as the source for that analysis. Second: you need to make absolutely sure that the source directly supports what you're writing. I don't see any sort of claim in the article that the 1967 Supreme Court decision allows the police to do what the KKK does, or anything close. It looks like you are synthesizing a new statement out of other separate statements in the article; this is a form of original research that is also prohibited. Third and final, you need to ask whether this source is actually reliable. I'm not familiar with the Gateway Journalism Review, but this piece is posted in their "news and opinion" section, and this piece certainly reads like an opinion. Opinion pieces are seldom reliable, as they are not subject to the kind of review and fact-checking that true scholarly or news publications undergo. Given that the author does seem to be a professor, it might be permissible to use as attribution for their own opinion, but you have put their assertions in Wikipedia's voice. That requires a much higher standard of sourcing (and even the former requires evaluation on whether including this professor's opinion is undue weight).

Also, I'm really sorry to say this, but many of your changes have typos, ungrammatical constructions, and the like, that just aren't ready for primetime. I'd strongly recommend that you slow down on your changes and start by suggesting edits to be made on the talk pages of articles, rather than directly posting them; you're generating a significant amount of text that requires a significant amount of cleanup, on both the editorial and the proofreading sides, and I think slowing down and learning a bit more about how Wikipedia works might serve you well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback it is not my intention to cause anyone undue stress. If there are issue with grammar I apologia as English is not my first language. But that is no excuse but I do my best.

regarding the excerpt , in the second link it drew the corollary between the police and the kkk. It was showing how in the migration people were moving from the south because of concerns of violence with the KKK and specifically to places like Chicago. Then the second source shows how Chicago had issues of violence with police, essentially trading one form of violence for the other.

So its not me saying there was violence in the south with the KKK, and its not me saying there was violence in Chicago with the police, and the data shows the migratory patterns from the south to Chicago. If all if these are facts that have been cited, then isn't it ok to connect the events with the statement that they were traveling from one form of violence to the other?

Or are you saying that connectors like that are not allowed they have to be left to the reader to realize? Not trying to belabor the point just want to make sure I understand what you are telling me. thank you RFAvaria (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that connections like that are not allowed, as they are synthesis, a form of original research and therefore prohibited. And, I am saying you should not even imply that by suggestively putting facts next to each other, since that is effectively doing the same thing. We write strictly from the reliable sources available to us; if the sources don't say it, we shouldn't say it (or even imply it) either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

User:ZamZam Stranger

Hi Writ Keeper. You indefinitely blocked ZamZam Stranger about a little over a month ago for disruption. They're back and are posting more WP:RGW type of stuff on their user talk page. Since they seem to be mentioning real people by name, some of what they've posted so far might even be a BLP violation. It's doesn't seem as if they're too interested in using their user talk page for WP:UNBLOCK; so, maybe their TPA should be taken away. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Marchjuly; looks like Primefac already handled it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Since it didn't seem like they were going to stop and I wasn't sure when you'd be back, I emailed OVERSIGHT and asked them to look at it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)