Wiki Article

User talk:Polygnotus

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Eine Treppe

The Signpost: 1 December 2025

[edit]
  • Comix: Madness
    It could happen to anyone.

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Reform_UK "leader in" in phrase "Farage stepped down as leader in March 2021" is not promotional GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #708

[edit]

Tech News: 2025-49

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I see you are active at the Teahouse, so I put you in as a featured host (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/10). Feel free to customize the picture to your liking. Interstellarity (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity Thank you! I have added an image. Polygnotus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translated

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from nl:Graf met de handjes to Grave with the Hands. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian I started the article, but as far as I can remember I didn't actually use the Dutch article. I don't see Wikipedia as a reliable source so I am more likely to just use the sources themselves. I can add a null edit tho if you like. Polygnotus (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need, I did that for you.
Meaning no disrespect to your memory (mine's rubbish), I'd find it hard to believe that you didn't draw from the Dutch article: compare this revision[4] with [5], and if you'd like a particular example them look at the paragraphs:

The cemetery Nabij Kapel in ’t Zand, colloquially known as "Oude Kerkhof" (the 'Old Cemetery'), originally served as a Jewish burial ground. By the late 18th century, it was expanded to accommodate other residents of Roermond. Architect Pierre Cuypers undertook a redesign of the cemetery in 1858, creating separate sections for Catholic and Protestant burials, divided by a wall.

(from the former)
and

The cemetery "Nabij de Kapel in 't Zand," popularly known as the "Oude Kerkhof," was originally a Jewish cemetery. At the end of the 18th century, it was expanded to include burial space for other residents of Roermond. Architect Pierre Cuypers redesigned the cemetery in 1858. Among other things, a Catholic and a Reformed section were established, separated by a wall.

(from the latter)
GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian Thanks. It is certainly possible, but I can't really give a definitive answer so I go with a politicians "can't confirm or deny".
It is also possible this comes from the same source. I probably still have the backup in cold storage somewhere, so I could probably look it up if you want, but I do not remember so far back. Polygnotus (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied", that's my motto!
Possible, but I hope not. I translate articles from other Wikipedias sometimes (though not for a while - Lee Dong-hwan (diplomat) is my last, I believe). It's fine. You have to check and source everything, but it's free content so you can pretty much do what you like with it. Unless your same source happens to be public domain, learning that you both took closely from a 3rd party source would be very scary. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian My wife wins every discussion because she just sounds so confident and I have no clue if what she is claiming (but you said...) is true or not so I just fold in every debate. If she wanted to she could take advantage of my terrible memory so I just have to hope she doesn't. Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of best-selling video games on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 08:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #709

[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

added
readded Valereee
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Spicy

Technical news

  • Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
  • Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous


Tech News: 2025-50

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DuplicateReferences false-positive

[edit]

Gregory Retallack https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Pbio...21..393W — GreenC 18:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claude vs Gemini

[edit]

Thanks for the info. I haven't tried Gemini, will do so soon. Do you think Claude is better? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus Less bad. I strongly prefer Claude. Polygnotus (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would gladly take the key if you have working ones to share. Best email me at my name at gmail. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Take what you received by email and add this to it -7Iw3jtUTRRTeDG5ktvNPczCD6w-uEXo1QAA and then you have a working Claude key. Autoreload is disabled and you got a couple bucks. Polygnotus (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Any estimate what is the cost of a single article run? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus 2 or 3 USD cents maybe? Depends a bit on the length of the article. You can do about 160 articles with what is left in the account I think. Polygnotus (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 23

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 04:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. About 16 days ago, you reached out to me saying that you wanted me to "take a look for errors and omissions" in Pilot deviation. And you later said, "I find it difficult writing about a topic I am no expert in." which, I think, casually means that you're calling me an expert in that subject of article.... no? So I was just curious as to why you reached out to me and how you knew I basically existed since we never interacted before. I'm not saying that "Why in the world did you reach out to me?", I'm just saying, "Huh, I'm curious why you reached out to me, very interesting". No offense given here, just purely curiosity. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, we technically did interact before. I use your duplicate ref detector script and it's really great and helpful. Thank you for that. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivebeenhacked Hi! Hm, I don't really remember and I don't store my browser history that long. Possibly because you were listed on WikiProject Aviation and I liked your username? I am not sure. Polygnotus (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand. I was just being curious. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #710

[edit]

Tech News: 2025-51

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Test

[edit]

This is a test. PolygnotusTest (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a test. PolygnotusTest (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passwords

[edit]

I'm curious about your comment "The kind of people who need help when they forget their password should use Bitwarden not KeePass. And most people who use KeePass should probably use KeePassXC". Why do you think Bitwarden and KeePassXC are better than Keepass? And p.s. I don’t use any browser plugins for passwords; Keepass can do autotype and of course copy/paste is easy enough. David10244 (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 Relevant Teahouse link.
  • The KeePassXC website explains why KeePassXC is better than KeePass (They may or may not be a bit biased. Possibly.) and mentions one of the problems with KeePass. It also explains why KeePassXC is better than KeePassX.
  • I think that most KeePass users don't need help when they lost their password (being relatively nerdy and more educated on the topic, on average, in my estimation), and Bitwarden is more userfriendly for a wider range of people.
Polygnotus (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus I'm a bit late, but thanks for the info. The supposed disadvantage that KeePass only works on Windows, and requires the .NET runtime, is not a disadvantage to me -- because I also only work in Windows, and I write code that uses .NET. 🙂 I don't use any KP plugins, and I have not considered KeePassX.
But I am now experimenting with KeePassXC, based on your comment. I think it looks slightly better than KeePass -- although not by a huge margin. I haven't decided whether to switch yet.
(Your link labeled "problems" goes to the FAQ page. The FAQ page doesn't really explain why KPXC is better than KP except for that one cross-platform thing. The other Q&A's apply to KP and KPXC both, or apply to all password managers... And yeah, I am nerdy enough to not need something that might be great for a wider audience. But now I understand what you meant by "the kind of people...")
I appreciate you taking the time to answer. I'll keep experimenting with KPXC and see how it goes! Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2025

[edit]

If you want the section hatted, please hat it. Don't just undo me without actually hatting things. I've made the a similar request to PresN on their user talk as well. Right now both of you are reverting me, which means both of yall's extended bickering is on the page in a format that negatively affects the actual discussion of the topics. Soni (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni Yeah I saw you hatted it but that was undone unfortunately. Generally speaking I prefer hatting over cutting and pasting because hatting ensures the timeline is still easy to follow. Often but not always it is best if someone uninvolved does the hatting. I did make a script for that at some point but it is far from production ready:
User:Polygnotus/Scripts/Timeline.js
It shows a slider under the section headers. If you click it and move your mouse to the left and right you can travel through time. It only appears on talkpages when there are 10 or more messages in a discussion. This can be helpful when many people participate in a multi-threaded discussion. Polygnotus (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Merry Christmas to you!

[edit]
@Dr. Blofeld Thank you! Merry Christmas to you and yours and various others. Polygnotus (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your archives

[edit]

Hello, Polygnotus! Not here to get on your case or anything, just curious: is there a reason your last twenty or so archive pages have only one topic each? Or is it perhaps an incorrect bot-instructions configuration? (As a manual archiver myself, I have little idea how those work.)—Odysseus1479 21:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Odysseus1479 Yeah its because I messed up with some script or bot setting and then instead of dealing with it I just shrugged and ignored it. Polygnotus (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #711

[edit]

Tech News: 2025-52

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho!

[edit]
@WereSpielChequers Thank you! Merry Christmas and happy holidays and all that! I recommend picking a handful of holidays and celebrating them all at the same time! Polygnotus (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I tried SectionLinks but uninstalled it because the icons were too big. Adding a class would let users customize to their preference. How about, |class="sect-link", |class="sect-link-perm", and |class="sect-link-oldid", or you pick. Also, I don't know if there is a way to offer options in a script, but I'd rather have the icons after the section name (and also superscripted and small, but I can do that with the classes). Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Good idea, thanks!  Done Merry Christmas and happy holidays! Polygnotus (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot Please test User:Polygnotus/tmp/SectionLinks2.js and let me know what you think.
I don't know if there is a way to offer options in a script Kinda sorta, it can store settings in localStorage. Not ideal but better than nothing. Polygnotus (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think you can db-g7 User:Mathglot/Foo.js at this point. Polygnotus (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it; not doing what I expected; not seeing any icons (with ...2) but maybe something's up with my css. With the main script, I get the icons for H2 headers, but not H3, or H4. Currently installed is SectionLinks2.js; test bed at User:Mathglot/sandbox7. Feel free to add more tests there, or copy to jump-start your own. May not get back to it tonight, not sure yet. Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot I should probably add h2/h3/h4 as a setting. Snævar's comment here led to Quarry 100236 and then I posted the output and Wikipedia:User scripts/Most imported scripts to Claude and it spit out:
  • Position 143: User:Quarl/util.js - 161 total users, 16 active users, inactive for 7,256 days (~19.9 years)
  • Position 212: User:Topaz/comm.js - 101 total users, 1 active user, inactive for 7,276 days (~19.9 years)
It isn't correct, but its worth further investigation.
I have to do some things but will probably return to this soonish.
Note that the last line of User:Mathglot/common.js contains a typo.
Compare:
importScript( 'User:Polygnotus/tmp/SectionLinks2.js // assisting testing...
importScript('User:Polygnotus/tmp/SectionLinks2.js'); // assisting testing...
Your common.js also imports User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/generatedoi.js which won't work since that url is a 404.
Polygnotus (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self look at [16] test here User:Polygnotus/tmp/testsectionlinks
Oh, thanks for the tips! If I'm not around later, I'll be back tomorrow. Happy holidays! Mathglot (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ran into a more serious problem that is a dealbreaker for me, though perhaps not for others. I use script User:BrandonXLF/ShowRevisionID which adds revision ids to history and contrib pages. This is like a killer app for me, and I depend on it. The SectionLinks script somehow interacts with it, so that when both are installed, ShowRevisionID stops working. Not sure what is going on, or which one should be changed, but maybe you could look into it. If the locus of the problem is in his script, Brandon is around, but not a lot, and if you feel like forking his script instead of waiting and adjusting it so it plays nice with SectionLinks, I'll install both; otherwise, I'll just keep his, as I can't do without it, now. (Sort of like mobile phones, that none of us knew we needed until we had one.) Anyway, happy Holiday, and talk when you get back! Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot The SectionLinks script does not and cannot interfere with the ShowRevisionID script.
The reason you experienced problems is because part of the last line of User:Mathglot/common.js is missing.
Remove the last line and use this instead:
importScript('User:Polygnotus/tmp/SectionLinks2.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Polygnotus/tmp/SectionLinks2.js]]
Polygnotus (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Polygnotus, 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 2026.
Happy editing,

Abishe (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Merry Christmas! Polygnotus (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #712

[edit]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Exomoon "massive" in phrase "signature, massive" is not promotional Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have login problem by PAWS?

[edit]

Hi, Polygnotus. I see you uses the tool PAWS. I cann't login to https://hub-paws.wmcloud.org/ since last Saturday. I reported that at [17], but I cann't still login. I have not access to Phabricator to see of somebody is working about it or not. But my first question is maybe I'm the solely who have problem to login. I ask you, can you login to https://hub-paws.wmcloud.org/ nowadays? If you have too problem, do you know somebody who can help us? Thank you and sorry for my English. Leonprimer (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonprimer Hello! There was a problem, see T413510. It is fixed now. Polygnotus (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at User talk:Hoary on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Polygnotus!

[edit]

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

Volten001 05:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy new year! Polygnotus (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Crisco on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 21:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #713

[edit]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Rock_wren "leading" in phrase "leading up to" is not promotional(cool script btw) monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Close to 40k edits in 3 years... Wow! This barnstar is to appreciate that and more. Keep it going! Volten001 05:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Happy new year! Polygnotus (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration


Wikidata weekly summary #714

[edit]

Tech News: 2026-03

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Relevance"?

[edit]

At one time this set up the later development of Dee Dee trying to blame some of Gypsy's purported issues on that accident. I'll have to look through older versions of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, unreliable source allthatsinteresting says: Then, when Gypsy Rose was around eight years old, she fell off of her grandfather’s motorcycle. Dee Dee took her to the hospital, where she was treated for a minor abrasion to her knee. But Dee Dee was unconvinced that her daughter was healed. She believed that Gypsy Rose would need several surgeries if she ever hoped to walk again. Until then, Dee Dee decided, Gypsy Rose would remain in a wheelchair as to not aggravate her knee further. Polygnotus (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case Ah here we go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOQcOQ4Mk_I&list=PL2h7Wy4Xi82iPibi7LEZNErOBJavQ3Zqh&index=2 Polygnotus (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lactalis on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 12:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 1

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 00:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 25th Anniversary of Wikipedia!!

[edit]

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #715

[edit]

Tech News: 2026-04

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Stephanie_S._Watowich "outstanding" in phrase "Award for Outstanding" is not promotional pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 14:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

FlyingDog "a record" in phrase "a record label" is not promotional pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 14:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DuplicateReferences false-positive

[edit]

Valentino (fashion designer) https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/08/archives/its-more-dazzle-for-the-new-valentino.html Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

[edit]
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Rafaelthegreat submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Polygnotus to be Editor of the Week for their amazing scripts and teahouse work. This user has made many wonderful scripts (like the AI Proofreader which I use and is very helpful) that help out very well. He even helped someone create a script! We should all thank them for their incredible knowledge of scripting and code (look at their user page!) And when Editor Oshwah was not online, this user skillfully responded to tricky questions at Oshwah's talk page. They even respond to questions at WP:TEA! This nomination was seconded by Bunnypranav, TechnoSquirrel69 and LuniZunie

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Tireless Contributor
Polygnotus
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 25, 2026
Nominated to be Editor of the Week for their amazing scripts and Teahouse work. Polygnotus has made many wonderful scripts such as the AI Proofreader which many editors use as a helpful tools in article creation. He has even helped an editor create a script! Their incredible knowledge of scripting and code is second to none. And when Editor Oshwah was off-line for an extended period, Polygnotus skillfully responded to tricky questions at Oshwah's talk page.
Recognized for
creating numerous scripts
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 15:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is very nice to hear! Wikipedia can feel like shouting into the void sometimes so its nice when someone notices. Thanks again, Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Very well deserved =) LuniZunie(talk) 19:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank god I didn't waste those 17 months writing my acceptance speech! Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

talk page comment conventions

[edit]

A (now-inactive) user created User:IndentBot, which fixed inconsistencies in wikitext list markup, but they stopped running the bot, possibly because many users get cranky when the bot makes an imperfect edit, or when they disagree with its edit. (It used to save me from making lots of edits to improve accessibility in discussion threads.) For this particular situation, since only the arbitration clerks and arbitrators can copy edit the comment in question, a script would help only if they wanted to use it.

I have a custom stylesheet (see User:Isaacl/style/discussion-threads) that adds a vertical bar to the left of lists used within discussion threads and alternates between two different colours for the background of each level of nested list. With this stylesheet, it's easy to spot changes in list style type, as the vertical bar will be interrupted. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Surrey_County_Cricket_Club "historic" in phrase "historic county" (also "historic counties") is not promotional (the countries of the British Isles have historic counties and England has ceremonial counties.)
PS: The phrase "historic offences" appears quite a lot too, to literally mean offences that were committed long ago but where a perpetrator is now held to account. There may be similar ones like "historic crimes". Komonzia (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Germanwings_Flight_9525 "expert" in phrase "expert support" is not promotional birdn4t0r (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Germanwings_Flight_9525 "exceptional" in phrase "exceptional cases" is not promotional birdn4t0r (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Getting_Killed "a record" in phrase "a record label" is not promotional. Also include the phrase "a record producer" Cattos💭 16:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

[edit]

... for maintaining your cool with this PITA. It's hard to know what the dumbest aspect of his argumentation is:

  • Is it that he still, at this late date, thinks that the size of the wikisource (not not images, templates, and Wikimedia-added gadgetry and administrative debris) is the main determinant of load time?
  • Or is it that he actually appealed to some nobody's blog [31], wherein the nobody (citing some other nobody's blog) actually informs us that if tabs, empty lines, and comments were removed from his university's homepage "from the start of the year to 25 October 2020, we could have saved 2.2GB of bandwidth ... and reduce our carbon footprint"? 2.2GB! Imagine! (And the carbon footprint just has to be intentional self-parody.) I don't know what's stupider -- being the guy who says such a thing and puts his name on it, or being the guy who cites the guy who says such a thing.
  • Or perhaps you have your own favorite.

He poses as some kind of technical expert, but it's clear he's just a script kiddie. I always suspected it, but when he wrote that my talk "is still lagging real hard and I still couldn't type a medium-sized word without the edit page going unresponsive for like 10 seconds" [32] it became certain that he was either not using section edits, or was using that stupid Reply tool, or had some kind of syntax highlighter or other stuff installed -- or all three -- and that he either doesn't understand the significance of those, or does but expects others to cater to his personal preferences (which he's now explicitly said). Congrats for forcing that out into the open.

The parallels to the insane proposal for an "Article Breakup Committee" of long ago [33] ...

I am interested in starting a small "long article" breakup committee ... First, an editor tries to establish consensus: the issue is brought up on the talk page, and it is suggested that the regulars break up the article into subtopics, with short summary paragraphs (w/ main article attachments) ... so that the main page gets below a certain limit. Second, if plan #1 stifles out in argument and indecision to act, for a number of consecutive weeks, than an breakup arbitration committee notice is placed on the talk page, putting an ultimatum deadline, such that either the regulars break up the page to below a certain limit by that date or an external breakup committee, enforced by a team of administrators, will do so.

... are really striking. That guy called anything over 100K a "super long page", which even 20 years ago was stupid. And like our friend today, he didn't seem to understand about templates, images, and so on, but was certain of the righteousness of his cause.

Anyway, thanks for doing what I probably could not have done without losing my cool, which is make it clear to all what the true source of his trouble is. Hopefully it's finally dawning on him what a fool he's made of himself. EEng 18:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng The best bit is obviously do you pretend to know better than me how my device works in response to Guy Macon.
I have the filenames of c:Category:Large images so I can make browsers struggle with less than 75KB of wikicode. Polygnotus (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I share most or all of the above opinions, I prefer to avoid getting into a fight, and don't need to be pinged. I believe I made my position on supposedly overly long wikitext perfectly clear in this comment:[34]
And yes, I probably do know better than he does how his device works.
Speaking of large images, I may have created the smallest image on Wikipedia that actually shows the user something useful: [35] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon One time I discovered codegolf.stackexchange.com and https://www.dwitter.net/ and then I somehow lost about two weeks of my life. Polygnotus (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop closing discussions while involved

[edit]

This is the second time in two days [36] [37]. You are in violation of WP:INVOLVED/WP:BADNAC because you extensively commented against my proposal and made public your opinion about how this discussion is a waste of time. You were told so the first time. You ignored me regardless. You provide no rationale whatsoever.
This is not how requests for comment are held, and as an experienced user, you must know this. Also, to preempt your argument, The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 20:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki You are "in violation of" [sic] WP:BADRFC, WP:BADGER, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:WIKILAWYER and various other uppercase shortcuts. Wikilawyering doesn't work with experienced users (especially not those who made WikiTextExpander).
Do you really think re-opening that discussion is going to somehow lead to the result you want? Do you not see how closing it is in your advantage? Can you not predict the future? Extrapolate from the data points you have. You are 66 edits deep in that discussion and there is just one person who was working towards a solution. Polygnotus (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Balls deep
To the first paragraph: Wikilawyering is providing tortured reading of policy to fit your argument. You were given the literal reading of WP:INVOLVED - you are party to the discussion, you don't get to close it. It can't be clearer than that. And you were balls deep in that discussion as well, with 40 edits.
To the second paragraph: at least half of the edit count could have been avoided on VPI if people cared to read its contents. While reading some of the other arguments, I could not escape parallels with debates over the attire of the sexual assault victim on the night she went to the nightclub. The one person who actually worked towards something is to be commended for spending time thinking about alternatives and proposed at least something. This is constructive debate. Most other editors flat out refused to help. It's their right but also they don't get to say that the discussion was not productive. You shut this all down.
Just because the original proposal wasn't going to pass doesn't mean that search for solution could not be happening.
Guy Macon I know what WP:INVOLVED stands for, it has been long accepted practice that non-admin users closing discussions assume admin responsibilities and accountability, even while not using admin tools, because closures are generally the domain of administrators. That's WP:NACINV. It was a shorthand. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 20:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki Can you do me a favour and never make Godwinian-like comparisons to debates over the attire of the sexual assault victims again? It makes you look really bad, and I am sure that is not your intention. Thanks. You are comparing people to rape apologists for disagreeing with you. I have seen people blocked for less. Fun fact: Mike Godwin worked at the WMF.
Just because the original proposal wasn't going to pass doesn't mean that search for solution could not be happening. I started the "search for solution". And now you have a Phab ticket authored by Quiddity. No one else was searching for a solution.
Thanks to me you literally have the best result you could've hoped to achieve from that discussion: an actual WMF nerd who can actually do something to fix the problem.
Closing that discussion is saving your ass from yet more pile-ons; Wikipedians are herd animals. So instead of complaining about it you should thank me for that as well.
Subscribe to the Phabricator ticket over at T416247. Polygnotus (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki You are "in violation of" posting a purposely misleading user warning to this page. Try actually reading WP:INVOLVED. Polygnotus is not an administrator and closing a discussion is not a use of administrator tools. Please don't pick random policies and accuse people of violating them when they clearly do not apply.
Polygnotus, per WP:NACINV you should have posted a call for close instead of closing the discussion yourself. Please don't do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a draft essay arguing the opposite point in Sublime Text, which has equal weight. Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

[edit]

You violated WP:1RR on 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting with this edit. Please self-revert. Longhornsg (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, explain your edit summary you can't link these things per NPOV in response to an accurate sourcing of an RS (that you admit is an RS). Longhornsg (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I replied over at Talk:2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting#NPOV. Polygnotus (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #717

[edit]

Tech News: 2026-06

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 2

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 02:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ram Krishan Goel

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Polygnotus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ram Krishan Goel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Castro_Peak_Lookout "historic" in phrase "Historic Lookout" is not promotional pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Melania Trump and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-referencing: Update

[edit]
Sub-referencing example

Greetings from WMDE Technical Wishes! In September 2025 we deployed sub-referencing to German Wikipedia to make re-using references with different details easier. Thanks for piloting and helping to improve the feature!

We recently published our insights and next steps in our report. Some highlights:

  • Over 6,000 Wikipedia articles use the new feature, with a total of over 15,000 sub-references created to date.
  • There are both experienced editors in featured articles (e.g. de:Explosion des Oppauer Stickstoffwerkes) and relatively inexperienced VisualEditor users (e.g. in de:Schmerzhafte Muttergottes (Guido Cagnacci)) using the feature. The majority of all sub-references (approx. 90%) are created in wikitext, yet over 300 editors have used the function in VisualEditor alone.
  • Workarounds like <ref name="Miller" /><sup>p. 44</sup> (in the reader view [1] p. 44) have been replaced entirely by sub-referencing, which means that the complete reference information – including the page number – is now visible in both the reference list and in Reference Previews.
  • Sub-referencing is used with lots of different citation details – predominantly page numbers, but also details such as chapters, paragraphs, quotes or video / audio timestamps.

What has happened since September?

  • We ensured that re-used sub-references actually appear as re-used in the reader view and in VisualEditor.
  • We've made some cosmetic changes to the reference list: Initially, multi-line sub-references (e.g. quotations) were not displayed ideally, and two-digit sub-reference numbers were not indented correctly.
  • In VisualEditor, we have provided a feature to choose whether changes to re-used sub-references should affect all uses of the same sub-reference or only the one currently edited.

What's next?

  • We will deploy sub-referencing to additional pilot wikis next week: Polish Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipdia and seven smaller wikis (phab:T414094). All of these projects have been notified in advance.
  • We are working on technical adjustments to make sub-referencing usable in all wikis that use variants of the {{Reflist}} template.
  • We are continuing to address community feedback: Among other things, we are currently exploring various ideas for visually improving reference lists with lots sub-references (e.g. de:Liste der Straßen in Bad Honnef#Einzelnachweise und Anmerkungen).
  • In addition to sub-referencing, we are looking at other reference-related improvements: We are considering general improvements to Reference Previews or solving issues with automatically created reference names in VisualEditor – there will be announcements and community consultations on this in the near future.

More information about sub-referencing on our project page, more about our learnings and next steps in our report. All the best from WMDE Technical Wishes!

PS: You've recieved this message because you subscribed to our newsletter. Remove your name from the sign-up list if you don't want to receive further updates.

--Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Richter (WMDE) Wooooohoooooo! Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #718

[edit]

Tech News: 2026-07

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Arbitration

  • Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous


ai;dr

[edit]

I saw that post, immediately thought we needed a Wikipedia template/redirect for it, and found you'd beat me to it. Is there a suitable equivalent for the {{end}}? Then it could be added to the table in the template doc. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Ha I had just db-g7'ed em for exactly that problem. But perhaps you are more creative than I am? Polygnotus (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) How about {{drai}} or perhaps {{dr;ai}}? Somewhat echoes the beep-boop scheme.—Odysseus1479 07:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Odysseus1479 Thanks, that works.  Done Polygnotus (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am duly impressed by your psychic powers!   Maproom (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #719

[edit]

Tech News: 2026-08

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

[edit]
  • Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
    The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.
  • Crossword: Pop quiz
    Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 3

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 23:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Moqui_Lookout_Cabin "historic" in phrase "Historic Lookout" is not promotional pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Planning help pages for AI workflows

[edit]

I'm contacting the members of WikiProject AI Tools because there is a related discussion about creating help pages on using such tools on Wikipedia. You are invited. It's at Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Planning help for AI workflows. See you there!    — The Transhumanist   14:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI RfC analysis

[edit]

You mentioned a Claude analysis of RfC’s. I’d love to learn more.


Look at this answer… ChatGPT knows you!

Prompt: Have there been previous conversations about whether RFCBEFORE is mandatory.


Yes — there have been actual discussions on Wikipedia’s talk pages about whether RFCBEFORE should be considered mandatory before starting a Request for Comment (RfC), and those discussions are visible in archived talk pages. Here’s a summary of what editors have been debating:

🗣️ Talk page discussion on

Talk:Requests for comment

On the Wikipedia talk page for Requests for Comment, editors debated recent changes to the wording of the guidance around RFCBEFORE (the guideline that recommends having a prior discussion before initiating an RfC). This section of the talk page (archived) became the focal point:

  • One editor (WAID) had edited the Requests for Comment guidance to include a clarification that “RFCBEFORE good advice, but it’s not required.” Another editor, Polygnotus, reverted that change because they felt it was functionally creating a new rule and could be misused to shut down RfCs.  
  • Some editors argued that RFCBEFORE should be mandatory — in other words, editors should always try to discuss an issue on talk pages before tagging it as an RfC, and failing to do so could be a reason to close an RfC. Others pointed out that the existing wording uses “should,” which technically means optional in Wikipedia policy language.  
  • Several editors supported the traditional approach — that prior discussion is strong advice but not an absolute requirement — and that an RfC can be opened even if pre-RFC discussion hasn’t happened in every case.  
  • A few comments pointed out that making RFCBEFORE “mandatory” (a hard rule) could encourage procedural debates instead of substantive discussions on the topic itself.  

📌 Key takeaway from the talk page

The consensus on that talk page was not that RFCBEFORE is strictly mandatory. Instead:

  • Most editors treated RFCBEFORE as a strong recommendation — something you ought to do first — but not a hard requirement that automatically invalidates an RfC if not followed.  
  • Some editors explicitly opposed granting it mandatory status and expressed concern about procedural rigidity.  

If you want, I can pull a link to the exact archived section where this debate happens so you can read the full thread yourself. Dw31415 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dw31415 Just messing about a bit with Sonnet 4.6. If you don't have a Claude API key gimme a shout and I'll make one for you if you wanna test it. Polygnotus (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I’ll take a detailed look later Dw31415 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

[edit]
A ridiculous cat

Information icon 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) 06:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir That is an excellent cat. Polygnotus (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #720

[edit]

Tech News: 2026-09

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Draft:Baby_Globe "promising" in phrase "An editor has marked this as a promising draft" is not promotional (see {{Promising draft}}) dot.py 07:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Logical quotation autofixing

[edit]

No worries on the revert. But I don't think fully-general automatic punctuation shuffling is the right approach: comparing your automated edit to my fully hand-crafted one, we see that yours moved the terminal punctuation out of longer quotes where it's possible that the original had terminal punctuation, in which case keeping it inside the quote would be correct; I didn't bother chasing up the sources for the quotes to check and left them as-is on the precautionary principle. I find it difficult to imagine an automated tool getting these cases right. (It also missed a case where a full stop was inside italics rather than quotes proper, but that's not fundamental to the approach.) One easy case that probably can be reasonably automated is single words inside quotes with punctuation, which will almost never be correct (and which usually draw my eye, annoy me, and make me fix the whole page). Polyphemus Goode (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyphemus Goode Good point. Life would be so much easier if we could just shorten such quotes by 1 char. Polygnotus (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DuplicateReferences false-positive

[edit]

Abortion in Illinois https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6289084 J11csd (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting DetectPromo false-positive

[edit]

Revival Process There are many false positives on this page. I would love if you could take a look at them. Here is one instance as an example: "The regime had already banned some distinctive markers of Muslim identity, such as religious clothing, leading to the widespread use of replacements for these articles." Where the flagged word is "leading." This example is "leading to."

I apologize for writing directly on your page, but this is where the tool directs to. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]