Gnomingstuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ppt91 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fabulous hook! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Hi Gnomingstuff,

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

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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