Jump to content

User talk:Extraordinary Writ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main Source To Create Wiki Article

[edit]

I just want to ask that I know how to create articles, but I want to know which information, links, notability, and relatable sources are required. --YAKSH75 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YAKSH75, Timtrent has put some good information about this on your talk page, but the most important thing is finding sources that are reliable and that talk about the subject in detail. Is there something specific you were wondering about? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 70

[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025
  • New collections:
    • Times of Malta
    • Africa Intelligence
    • Intelligence Online
    • La Lettre
    • Glitz
  • Spotlight: Wikimania
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Extraordinary Writ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Request for comment in RM discussion

[edit]

Dear Extraordinary Writ,

You recently closed a previous discussion that I started relating to renaming various Gaza war university protest-related articles. Thank you for your help with this, and I apologize for making multiple decisions that resulted in the discussion being unwieldly.

I am requesting your feedback, or closure, of a new RM that has been opened regarding these articles. I left a comment advocating for opening a new RM with a more narrow view given developments in Talk:Gaza genocide regarding WP:Wikivoice, which you referenced in your closing comments.

Your advice would be appreciated for how best, and if, to proceed with closing the current RM and opening a new narrower RM in its place.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexandraaaacs1989. I prefer not to close an RM for the same page twice (as suggested here), so I'll leave this for someone else, but since it's been a week and everyone but the nominator thinks the RM is too broad, I suspect it'll be dealt with pretty soon.
It looks like you're not interesting in opening an RM on the genocide point anymore, so I won't say anything on that. Certainly no one is prohibited from starting a new discussion on that front (I don't even think I have the power to do that), though people obviously have to use their judgment on what's going to be a productive use of the community's time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Extraordinary Writ, thanks for letting me know. Though I initially said I was uninterested in new RfCs, the titles are starting to bug me again so I will probably get back around to opening a new RfC after first addressing more pressing tasks.
I have one last and very brief clarifying question for you related to your closing comments, and your feedback would be tremendously valuable. As you saw, CNC and I had a debate in the new RM relating to the genocide-in-titles point, and I backed down. I trust CNC, but this specific issue is important and I'm newer to Wikipedia so I wanted to explicitly reaffirm CNC's claims in order to have full peace of mind.
Therefore my question is: when it comes to the "policy basis of those arguments being unclear", does this mean you agree with CNC—that there is no potential policy basis of which you're aware on which an argument for the genocide-in-titles point can be made? I.E., is my side of the argument 100% lacking in legitimacy per WP? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It did seem to me that the arguments made in the 2 September RM didn't have any real basis in policy, although I hedged a bit in the closure because there wouldn't have been consensus to move no matter how I weighted the !votes. I can't really go beyond that and pre-judge other arguments that might hypothetically be made down the road, though. And obviously other closers may think about things differently. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

England national football team RFD

[edit]

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

I note that you closed this RFD, as the England national football team was moved and the discussion involving it is now moot.

However, the RFD also involves New Zealand national football team and Iceland national football team. These redirects are not affected by the England MRV.

Could you please reopen the RFD, so that the discussion for these two can continue? 162 etc. (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure how I missed that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive error?

[edit]

WP:AARV is on Archive 3, but your OneClickArchive placed them in WP:Administrative action review/Archive 1. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks like the switch to manual archiving confused it. This should do the trick. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Riley Harper Gil (06:10, 15 October 2025)

[edit]

Hello! I tried to create a page of a writer./activist that I follow, on the top of the page it redirected me to a user page/ that includes a draft of that person. I edited tried to contribute, but it flagged my contribution as harmful by " abuse filter" I ionly intended to help, and void duplicating drafts for the same person. Is there anything to do about it? thank you in advance for your help --Riley Harper Gil (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Riley Harper Gil. It looks like this was on the Spanish Wikipedia, so I'd recommend asking on their help page, which seems to be es:Wikipedia:Café (ayuda). Each language version of Wikipedia has its own rules and norms, and I'm not really familiar with how things work over there. If you ask and don't get an answer (or run into any other issues), let me know and I can try to help. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your help, I will ask :) Riley Harper Gil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agathic acid

[edit]

I do not understand this speedy deletion! OK for the first article. But, the second article I prepared for Agathic acid was just OK. Not written by GPT and was well reviewed. At least 3 other colleagues had seen that article and made several improvements, and the sources were really good. It is very easy to delete ...G-Lignum (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G-Lignum, I only deleted the first article: it was Jlwoodwa who deleted the second one. At any rate, it looks like it's been undeleted now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. G-Lignum (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COIVRT

[edit]

There have been some developments related to ticket:2024051410011283 in the, uh, year and a half since it was filed, if you've any interest in taking a look. I've only investigated as far as I mentioned in my note. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Glad to see someone finally making a dent in the backlog! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'll leave all the hard ones for you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I thought that's what I was doing... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Matthew Kantakouzenos

[edit]

It appears a banned user moved this page to Matthew Asen Kantakouzenos (?) but I don't think the solution is to delete the article, Matthew was a historical emperor with a long-standing article and there are now redlinks to his name in a lot of places, e.g. List of Roman emperors, John VI Kantakouzenos, John V Palaiologos, etc. Could the page be reinstated as it was before these shenanigans? Megartonius (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I thought I had filtered out all the page moves, but apparently not. Now undeleted, along with Hugh III, Count of Maine, where the same thing happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For talk-page watchers' entertainment...

[edit]

To see what our new robotic competitors at Grokipedia are up to, I decided to glance over their equivalent of one of my FAs, on Supreme Court justice Wiley Rutledge. It was actually better than I expected—very thorough, with plenty of information and analysis that even my longer-than-average article doesn't include. But of course, it has all the problems you might expect, including hallucinations. In the real world, Rutledge voted with the majority to uphold Japanese internment in the tragic case of Korematsu v. United States, the one major black mark on his record as an ardent defender of civil liberties. Grokipedia sort of realizes this at one point (talking strangely about his "decisive fifth vote in the 6-3 decision"), but elsewhere it gets very confused and starts talking about how his "lone dissent" was powerfully vindicated by history. That's precisely the opposite of what happened.

Fortunately, Grokipedia has a helpful feature where you can "Ask Grok" your questions about the article. I highlighted one of the dubious passages and asked Grok whether it was true. Unsurprisingly, it defended Grokipedia's honor, even hallucinating up a passage from Rutledge's non-existent dissent for me. When I asked it about the part that correctly said Rutledge was in the majority, it threw the accurate passage under the bus and insisted that the bogus one was right. I then asked it one last question, which was enough to finally push poor Grok over the edge. You can enjoy the whole thing here, but suffice it to say that after thirty-three or so attempts (all in response to my one prompt!), the "BOTTOM LINE" was still not the answer that our article's infobox prints plain as day.

I don't think we'll need to be worrying about Grok/Grokipedia anytime soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of AE protection actions needed (30 October 2025)

[edit]

Hello Extraordinary Writ,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, Extraordinary Writ. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Extraordinary_Writ&oldid=1319655401"