User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2021/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TheSandDoctor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Isaac Bashevis Singer 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.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
YAY!
Now I can express my I love Seven of Nine feelings again. :) — Ched (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ched: Mwahahahahaha.
--TheSandDoctor Talk 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC) - Maybe there should be an UnProtector of the Wiki barnstar? Thanks for digging in TSD! –xenotalk 13:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Xeno: Maybe there should be...wouldn't be that hard to create . I'm happy to lend a hand. So far done 1000-800 (yes, I'm going through it backwards to mitigate overlap). --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to downgrade the protection (to EC), rather than remove it altogether? Some of these articles are potential targets for POV moves (or plain trolling), and these can sometimes be really tricky to clean up after. (Though otherwise, yay! I'm glad to see the ball rolling on this project.) – Uanfala (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Xeno: Maybe there should be...wouldn't be that hard to create
- @Uanfala: ECP can only be used when semi has proven ineffective. Protection also can’t be preemptive by policy. As it sits, all protections I have removed are over a decade old and are arguably quite excessive in a lot of cases. It appears that a good chunk were preemptive (i.e. page created then immediately protected w/o cause) or were placed after there were a couple instances of (edit) vandalism so they fully move-protected the page while temporarily semi edit protecting it; one could argue that these were quite possibly mistakes. Besides, 10-11 years of full protection is excessive and those trolls/LTAs could be long gone (I doubt they’d wait for 11 years before moving on). Various levels of protection can be re-added if proven necessary, but being preemptive isn’t the answer here. @Xeno: TheSandDoctor Talk 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Take this one I just did, for example. It was never move vandalized or previously protected before it was sysop indef move protected. I am casting no judgement as I am not familiar with the policies from 2009, but by current standards (a dangerous lens to use, hence my forward proclamation of ignorance to 2009 practices/policies and indemnification of the admin who protected) that is wholly uncalled for. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't envisage that the same disruptive editors from a decade ago would show up now, my point was that some topics are perennial targets. We're only talking about move protection, right? I don't know if there are any explicit guidelines here, but pre-emptive protection doesn't seem inappropriate to me – this is already a common practice for templates, and I believe some of the rationales for that apply here as well. Moving requires some level of knowledge of naming conventions and post-move cleanup, the consequence of a bad move is a mess that it takes a careful and prepared wikipedian to clean up, and – given that the articles concerned are mostly well-established ones – there's little scope for bold moves in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Uanfala and Xeno: WP:NO-PREEMPT states that "Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons." It refers to both implicitly as it does not differentiate between the two (its the policy page for both, after all) and states that the level used should be the lowest required; sysop is far from the "lowest required". When it comes to moves, there is no difference between semi and unprotected. Skipping straight to fully protected is indeed excessive. The protection policy section relating directly to ECP (WP:ECP) states that it should not be used pre-emptively. Referring to templates (WP:TPROT), template protection policy only applies to templates (and modules) that are determined to be high risk (the metric linked here is exclusive to templates/modules and is the one linked by policy). Templates are a totally different discussion not relevant to the subject matter at hand/this thread. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the initial protection of Hardwick, Cambridgeshire looks difficult to justify, but the kinds of articles I see as more typical here are ones like Portuguese Timor, Bulgarian language, Chinese culture or Groping. And one more thing – I was under the impression that unprotecting a page usually required getting in touch with the protecting admin first. Now obviously, I don't think anyone expects the usual loop of ask admin – wait for reply – see if they're OK – then unprotect. But still, there should at least be a way (maybe script-assisted) to send notifications to those admins, because there may sometimes be an actually good reason not to undo their actions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Uanfala: It's best to look at it from reverse: if these articles were not today protected, would an administrator have a good reason to add full move protection without ongoing pagemove vandalism or move-warring? As far as notifying, the set that TSD is currently working through were all set by a single admin, based on old practice, to whom I did reach out for comment. These unprotections are under scrutiny at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinitely move-protected articles, as well. I think once we get into the later years: where the protections were not all preemptive, would be where maybe pinging individual admins to their sets might be worthwhile. After 10 years, the only way to know if protection is still needed is to try unprotection. Some of these articles will one day need to be moved (this review was prompted by a discussion that lamented about them), and unprotecting them now will allow pagemovers or regular users to move them, rather than adding unnecessary steps. Retitling a page is an editorial action, and should not be restricted to administrators without good reason. –xenotalk 22:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the initial protection of Hardwick, Cambridgeshire looks difficult to justify, but the kinds of articles I see as more typical here are ones like Portuguese Timor, Bulgarian language, Chinese culture or Groping. And one more thing – I was under the impression that unprotecting a page usually required getting in touch with the protecting admin first. Now obviously, I don't think anyone expects the usual loop of ask admin – wait for reply – see if they're OK – then unprotect. But still, there should at least be a way (maybe script-assisted) to send notifications to those admins, because there may sometimes be an actually good reason not to undo their actions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Uanfala and Xeno: WP:NO-PREEMPT states that "Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons." It refers to both implicitly as it does not differentiate between the two (its the policy page for both, after all) and states that the level used should be the lowest required; sysop is far from the "lowest required". When it comes to moves, there is no difference between semi and unprotected. Skipping straight to fully protected is indeed excessive. The protection policy section relating directly to ECP (WP:ECP) states that it should not be used pre-emptively. Referring to templates (WP:TPROT), template protection policy only applies to templates (and modules) that are determined to be high risk (the metric linked here is exclusive to templates/modules and is the one linked by policy). Templates are a totally different discussion not relevant to the subject matter at hand/this thread. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't envisage that the same disruptive editors from a decade ago would show up now, my point was that some topics are perennial targets. We're only talking about move protection, right? I don't know if there are any explicit guidelines here, but pre-emptive protection doesn't seem inappropriate to me – this is already a common practice for templates, and I believe some of the rationales for that apply here as well. Moving requires some level of knowledge of naming conventions and post-move cleanup, the consequence of a bad move is a mess that it takes a careful and prepared wikipedian to clean up, and – given that the articles concerned are mostly well-established ones – there's little scope for bold moves in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Take this one I just did, for example. It was never move vandalized or previously protected before it was sysop indef move protected. I am casting no judgement as I am not familiar with the policies from 2009, but by current standards (a dangerous lens to use, hence my forward proclamation of ignorance to 2009 practices/policies and indemnification of the admin who protected) that is wholly uncalled for. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: ECP can only be used when semi has proven ineffective. Protection also can’t be preemptive by policy. As it sits, all protections I have removed are over a decade old and are arguably quite excessive in a lot of cases. It appears that a good chunk were preemptive (i.e. page created then immediately protected w/o cause) or were placed after there were a couple instances of (edit) vandalism so they fully move-protected the page while temporarily semi edit protecting it; one could argue that these were quite possibly mistakes. Besides, 10-11 years of full protection is excessive and those trolls/LTAs could be long gone (I doubt they’d wait for 11 years before moving on). Various levels of protection can be re-added if proven necessary, but being preemptive isn’t the answer here. @Xeno: TheSandDoctor Talk 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't agree with this at all. What earthly reason would there be for anyone to move New Orleans, for example, to a different title? That's just one example I've spotted. Pages of that nature were indef move protected for a reason, and it risks needless disruption to open them up, for no discernible benefit. — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru: But of course, there was a reason to move it - less a year after it was protected. These pages were pre-emptively protected during the tenure of a prolific pagemove vandal, one who is now sufficiently stymied by an edit filter. Lima, Delhi, Mexico City, Cairo, Dhaka, Karachi, San Jose, California, Calgary, Buenos Aires, and Kuala Lumpur seem get along just fine. I'd say that the only reason to treat New Orleans any differently is that NawlinWiki was the one who added most of these pre-emptive protections as the primary protagonist to the vandal, so it might be too much of a flourish to a bull to unprotect their namesake city. In any case, the correct place to support the maintenance of age-old protections is the AN thread here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinitely move-protected articles, where you could perhaps support stepping them down to extendedconfirmed protection (and presumably advancing for the pre-emptively protecting of other major cities to the same level) if you feel that leaving them unprotected is too great a risk. –xenotalk 00:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't agree with this at all. What earthly reason would there be for anyone to move New Orleans, for example, to a different title? That's just one example I've spotted. Pages of that nature were indef move protected for a reason, and it risks needless disruption to open them up, for no discernible benefit. — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Twinkle is a gadget on English Wikipedia. It can help with maintenance and patrolling. It can now be used on other wikis. You can get Twinkle on your wiki using the twinkle-starter GitHub repository.
Problems
- The content translation tool did not work for many articles for a little while. This was because of a bug. [1]
- Some things will not work for about a minute on 5 May. This will happen around 06:00 UTC. This will affect the content translation tool and notifications among other things. This is because of an upgrade to avoid crashes. [2]
Changes later this week
- Reference Previews will become a default feature on a number of wikis on 5 May. This is later than planned because of some changes. You can use it without using Page Previews if you want to. The earlier plan was to have the preference to use both or none. [3][4]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 May. It will be on all wikis from 6 May (calendar).
Future changes
The CSS classes .error,.warningand.successdo not work for mobile readers if they have not been specifically defined on your wiki. From June they will not work for desktop readers. This can affect gadgets and templates. The classes can be defined in MediaWiki:Common.css or template styles instead. [5]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
how do you get two different color in your signature
pls help me as I am struggling with this Tdhello 14:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries 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.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Many thanks
Dear SandDoctor - Many thanks! I could really use the help of a Wikipedia "angel" right now! I may be old, but I believe I still possess most of my mental faculties, and Wikipedia has been really difficult for me to decode. I have supporting materials for most all claims, ie; accounts for foreign sales by distributor, film festival awards, etc. However, these things are all in my possession. I have at least five more published reviews. One or two of them talk about the film awards that they verified before publishing. Unfortunately, I don't have a newspaper.com account. Another wikipedia editor linked the first two for me, but he never commented on the body of what I'd written. The one article I REALLY want to find was written by Stanley Crouch for the Village Voice in 1983. All I have from that article is one amazing quote! The two things most important to me are to acknowledge the support of radio station KCRW, for both my musical education and promoting the premiere and the support of Randall Kline and SFJazz for producing the second premiere in San Francisco, including flying Jon Hendricks from NYC to be master of ceremonies. Thank you! PS - my name is Stephen Rice and I'm prepared to disclose whatever is needed re: conflict of interest. I definitely DO have an interest! Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Thedevoutcatalyst: I am happy to assist. I might be able to take a look at newspapers.com, do you have any recommended searches? With respect to the conflict of interest, please see WP:COIDISCLOSE and let me know if you have any questions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok - Cleared up the disclosure issues on both my User and Talk pages. Here is the Stanley Crouch quote from the Village Voice. I'm thinking he saw the movie just as we finished in late 1982, maybe early 1983.
“Thelonious Sphere Monk was one of the few real geniuses of American music. The film, Music in Monk Time captures that genius with a frequency and a communicative power rare for cinema in general, but particularly rare for that elusive blue-print of the American spirit we call jazz.” -Stanley Crouch, Village Voice
Newspaper Write-Up Searches:
Weiss, David (March 13, 1983). "A belated but worthy tribute to Thelonious Monk". Los Angeles Herald Examiner.
Hamlin, Jesse (February 23, 1985). "Monk, Historic Jazz In Two Films Here". San Francisco Chronicle.
Feather, Leonard (March 20, 1987). "Thelonious Monk Tribute Slights the Man's Music". Los Angeles Times.[6]
Johnson, William (March 7, 1985). "Thelonious Monk gets his due even if it's late". Times Tribune, Peninsula.
Johnson, William (April 8, 1987). "How PBS botched its chance at a good Monk special". Times Tribune, Peninsula.
Cahill, Greg (March 9, 1985). "Local video music producers hope to find gold in long-form music projects". Independent Journal, Marin.
Siders, Harvey (May 6, 1983). "A Secular Monk Revisited". Daily News, Los Angeles.
Elwood, Philip (May 25, 1990). "'Monk Time' videofilm a rare gem". San Francisco Examiner.[7]
The Peninsula Times Tribune and the Marin Independent Journal are more regional papers. Thanks again for your help! Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Thedevoutcatalyst: I'm not having much luck. CCing Cullen328. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Found one [8][9]reviewed as "magnificent"[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Feather, Leonard (March 20, 1987) piece confirms it won "numerous honors", including a bronze award at the New York Film festival. Cullen328 --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- This appears to be about all I can find at this time, Thedevoutcatalyst. I was able to grab these by taking advantage of the free access for mother's day, but that goes away tomorrow sadly. I have requested access via The Wikipedia Library and am awaiting account details. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to you, TheSandDoctor. A few of those are useful for establishing the notability of the film and providing some useful details. Others are of the "event listing" type and of not much use. Good work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I agree. I was just clipping all I could find that looked remotely interesting (given my time crunch) so that it could be referenced and later determined what was best suited.
--TheSandDoctor Talk 04:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I agree. I was just clipping all I could find that looked remotely interesting (given my time crunch) so that it could be referenced and later determined what was best suited.
- Thanks to you, TheSandDoctor. A few of those are useful for establishing the notability of the film and providing some useful details. Others are of the "event listing" type and of not much use. Good work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- This appears to be about all I can find at this time, Thedevoutcatalyst. I was able to grab these by taking advantage of the free access for mother's day, but that goes away tomorrow sadly. I have requested access via The Wikipedia Library and am awaiting account details. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Well again, thank you both so much - you've each put a lot of time in this weekend and I'm very grateful! I will scan and send articles tomorrow. Appreciatively, Stephen Rice aka: Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 May. It will be on all wikis from 13 May (calendar).
Future changes
- You can see what participants plan to work on at the online Wikimedia hackathon 22–23 May.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Southern Methodist University 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.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:23rd Quebec Cinema Awards 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.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
KhaledMohammedKetata
sends thanks. UTRS appeal #43376. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: Thanks for the heads up. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- There is a new toolbar in the Reply tool. It works in the wikitext source mode. You can enable it in your preferences. [17] [18] [19]
- Wikimedia mailing lists are being moved to Mailman 3. This is a newer version. For the character encoding to work it will change from
UTF-8toutf8mb3. [20][21] - An earlier issue of Tech News said that the citoid API would handle dates with a month but no days in a new way. This has been reverted for now. There needs to be more discussion of how it affects different wikis first. [22]
Changes later this week
-
MediaWiki:Pageimages-blacklistwill be renamedMediaWiki:Pageimages-denylist. The list can be copied to the new name. It will happen on 19 May for some wikis and 20 May for some wikis. Most wikis don't use it. It lists images that should never be used as thumbnails for articles. [23] - The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 May. It will be on all wikis from 20 May (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Puya Meithaba 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.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
1989, 1990 and 2004 Miss Universe pageants. Citation needed
Hello, TheSandDoctor. I am writing this message to you because of these three edits ([24] [25] [26]). Here there are three pages ([27] [28] [29]), where you can find that the names (Macarena Mina, Uranía Haltenhoff and Gabriela Barros) are written correctly and that these Misses Chile were chosen semifinalists in 1989, in 1990, and in 2004, respectively. Thanks for reading this message. Cheers! --Alpinu (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Alpinu: Thank you for this. You can go ahead and add them yourself without having to seek permission per WP:BOLD. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- The three references have been added. Cheers!--Alpinu (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The Wikimedia movement has been using IRC on a network called Freenode. There have been changes around who is in control of the network. The Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts have decided to move to the new Libera Chat network instead. This is not a formal decision for the movement to move all channels but most Wikimedia IRC channels will probably leave Freenode. There is a migration guide and ongoing Wikimedia discussions about this.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 May. It will be on all wikis from 27 May (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Western Standard
Hi There,
How do we get the merger of the Western Standard and Ezra Lavant undone? The business was purchased and relaunched in 2019. We are a completely different entity.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBFink (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JimBFink: The easiest way is to demonstrate notability for the new company in a draft submitted for review. I'd strongly recommend reviewing WP:YFA, WP:PAID (is a requirement, not a recommendation), and following this tutorial. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Holodomor in modern politics 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.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- There was an issue on the Vector skin with the text size of categories and notices under the page title. It was fixed last Monday. [30]
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Lala Milan
Hello, TheSandDoctor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lala Milan".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 June. It will be on all wikis from 10 June (calendar).
Future changes
- The Wikimedia movement uses Phabricator for technical tasks. This is where we collect technical suggestions, bugs and what developers are working on. The company behind Phabricator will stop working on it. This will not change anything for the Wikimedia movement now. It could lead to changes in the future. [31][32][33]
- Searching on Wikipedia will find more results in some languages. This is mainly true for when those who search do not use the correct diacritics because they are not seen as necessary in that language. For example searching for
Beduszdoesn't findBęduszon German Wikipedia. The characteręisn't used in German so many would writeeinstead. This will work better in the future in some languages. [34] - The CSRF token parameters in the action API were changed in 2014. The old parameters from before 2014 will stop working soon. This can affect bots, gadgets and user scripts that still use the old parameters. [35][36]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chimpanzee 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.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)