User talk:SilverLocust/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Italic Title

Hi, SilverLocust. Found you by checking for the last editor to complete a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (thank you for your work). I am hoping you can help direct me on a different type of "Technical request". I have come across a couple of articles (both are redirect pages) that have italic titles - but should not. A. Blytt (incorrect name) and A.Blytt (correct name) are the taxonomic author abbreviations for Axel Gudbrand Blytt when showing his Author citation (botany). These author abbreviations are not meant to be italicized - see Byltt's entry at IPNI. Is there a way that I am able to "de-italicize" an article title? If not, is there a page, like the Requested moves/Technical requests page, where requests like this can be made? Jmg38 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmg38: The redirect-category template {{R from taxonomic author abbreviation}} was set to automatically italicize the title. That is done with WP:DISPLAYTITLE rather than page moves. I think I have fixed the issue by removing that from the template.

(I am happy to help with this sort of thing if I can figure out the answer. I don't think there is a specific page for help with titles, but there is always the WP:Help Desk for questions or WT:WikiProject Tree of Life/WT:WikiProject Plants for taxonomy- or botany-related questions.) SilverLocust 💬 00:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

THANKS!! You da'man. Or, da'mam. Or, da'wording of your choice. Thanks for this. Jmg38 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would guess that the basic elements used to create {{R from taxonomic author abbreviation}} were copied over from {{R from alternative scientific name}}, which also deals with taxonomic wording, but only the scientific name itself would be in italics. Despite 22 years of history, still new things to add – and old things to touch up – in Wikipedia. Just like anything else. Thanks again. Jmg38 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

{{RM protected}}

I really like your template, but I think it would be best implemented inside {{Requested move/dated}} (and maybe {{Requested move/end}}, though I don't think it being in archived discussions is really that useful). Still, it's nice to have a way to discern sysop-only moves before closing the RM. – MaterialWorks 16:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@MaterialWorks: I suppose you're right that an optional parameter like |move_protected=yes could be added to {{Requested move/dated}}. It would look like this (testwiki) during the RM and would be removed when closing. I haven't checked if that would confuse RMCD bot or (less importantly) AAlertBot. One effect would be that User:TheTVExpert/rmCloser would currently add the parameter to {{old move}} (and would fail to move the page even if "move directly" is selected by an admin closer using rmCloser) when closing a single-move RM with the parameter, since it treats {{Requested move/dated|New name|move_protected=yes}} as suggesting the destination New name|move_protected=yes (see test diff). I think it would have no impact on User:Andy M. Wang/closeRM or User:DannyS712/PageMoverClosure. SilverLocust 💬 19:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Ombersley

Is it actually move protected? A 2007 edit suggests to me that the protection was removed. PamD 06:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: The edit summary's [move=sysop] means that the move protection was kept at admin only. The edit protection was the only setting changed. The move option does not appear on Ombersley, so it is definitely fully move protected. Here is the protection log. The admin may have made a mistake by not lifting the move protection, but you would have to ask him. SilverLocust 💬 06:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Page moving

Hello. When you moved Pat Patterson, you should have put a hatnote there to the disambiguation page. I've done that. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

True, thanks. I seem to have neglected to do cleanup on that move. SilverLocust 💬 19:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Tag {{pp-move}}

Not sure why this is the case, for some reason I cannot see the green padlock with the arrow located at the top right of the articles. I definitely seen an older version of that before. This appears to be the problem on any page where this template exists whether you added them in or someone else. I can't think why it appears this padlock is not showing anymore. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: It was decided at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Template:Pp-move to remove the green padlock status symbol, since it wasn't seen as useful. (The reason I am currently tagging pages is to put them in the hidden category Category:Wikipedia indefinitely move-protected pages.) SilverLocust 💬 21:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I was not aware of that discussion so I didn't know the reason of your recent edits. Happy editing, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@SilverLocust are you working from a list or a database report or similar? I'd be interesting in reviewing some of the older protections on quieter articles with a view to removing it if it's not (or no longer) necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I am going through Special:ProtectedPages (with these search settings [1]) checking for untagged pages. I would be happy for their move protection to be reduced. SilverLocust 💬 22:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to do anything en masse because that's likely to cause more problems than it solves. But thanks for the link. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean they should be unprotecting en masse (though I do think semi-move-protection would be enough for the vast majority of them). SilverLocust 💬 22:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Seafood fork

In the past, when I've requested page history merges for articles with minimal edits an admin simply deleted to make way for the move. I looked at the history and there wasn't much merged, a single unsourced sentence. Anyway, it's not doing amy harm over at Seafood fork. Polyamorph (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polyamorph: I think an admin might conclude that the history was minor enough for {{db-move}}, but it was easier to just move it out of the way of the move (keeping what little substantive history there is). And the CSD had been waiting for four hours with no bite from an admin.

I also thought about moving the draft from userspace to Draft:Fish fork and then swapping that with Fish fork (to avoid parking the page history in userspace by swapping them directly), but then checked Wikt:fish fork for any synonyms and found that. SilverLocust 💬 03:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll try and remember alternatives to {{db-move}} in future. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:RM extended confirmed

Where is the discussion about creating Template:RM extended confirmed? wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see: "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs,..."

I should compliment you for your clever template coding. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@wbm1058: Thanks. I have now added that quote to the documentation to make that clearer. SilverLocust 💬 23:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For creating Template:RM extended confirmed, which, similar to WP:XC, even automatically displays if the requirements are met. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Thank you very much! SilverLocust 💬 23:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A message for you

Silverlocust, Hello!, Thanks for commenting on WP:PERM/PM, nice to know that you looked at my contributions and told me my mistake, it is human to make mistakes, I admit that I have I don't have the experience of working on WP:RMT, but I have not taken this right for any wrong purpose, mistakes are made by humans only, you too must have made mistakes in your life, wouldn't you have corrected your mistakes? I feel that I should be given a chance to correct my mistake, I feel remorse for my error, I have always tried to make positive contributions to English Wikipedia, please take a look at other contributions as well If possible, I think I should give up all my rights on the English Wikipedia and go away, first you should have talked about this topic on my talk, let me give you an advice, it is not necessary that every person knows every subject. Have knowledge about it, you are also a human being, God is watching everything, even if my rights are removed then I will be happy that after all I was able to make a good contribution here for some time, maybe in the future I will return there after gaining more experience. No one will be able to point fingers at me, and I will regain this right, I am stressed, just remember that God does not give everyone a chance to atone for their mistakes. May you always be happy. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 08:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Aviram7: I don't doubt that you are a productive editor or that you requested page-mover permission in good faith. I did not suggest that you "give up all [your] rights on the English Wikipedia and go away". And I agree that "it is not necessary that every person knows every subject". However, when you request advanced WP:Page mover rights for use when WP:DRAFTIFYing (for which the permission is a little helpful, but certainly not necessary), I do believe it is necessary that you are familiar with WP:DRAFTIFY/WP:NPPDRAFT (which is why I pointed out that you had recently disregarded the one-hour criterion) and with the subjects indicated at WP:Page mover (which says one should first have "familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding page moving and naming" and "experience with the requested moves venue", which is why I brought up your edits at RM/TR). I don't have any problem with you requesting page mover permissions, but I have doubts that Courcelles considered the request thoroughly before approving it, which is why I asked him about it. I am waiting for Courcelles' response to see whether he looked into those things that I pointed out. SilverLocust 💬 10:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to me, I think Courcelles is an administrator of wikipedia, and I perhaps he trust me, so he grant me this right as indef,they editing on wikipedia, since 18 years ago, now I aware about draftiying policies, but I only one time use this permission for only trial, I not aim to misuse them.Will these rights be removed from my account? I don't know but I working would be remains WP:DRAFTIFY with this tool. I feel unhappy for about that but I happy to talk you.thnx :( ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 10:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Silverlocust, you don't reply my messages

As you have mentioned on WP:PERM/PM that I have used the pager for wrong purposes, let me tell you, I did this move only out of necessity and I need to discuss it with someone. I didn't see it, I know your purpose here, but I don't want to mention it here, if possible then consider archiving the discussions going on there and if you want to take this discussion forward then This is my humble request to you in the section called "'Requests'" on @Courcelles' talk. Thnx ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Aviram7: I did not realize you wanted a response to your response above. I would have preferred to just wait for a response from Courcelles, but they haven't been editing recently.

Yes, Courcelles is an administrator. Yes, granting the request would indicate that they determined you could be trusted with page mover permissions. (My questions to them are about what they looked at when determining that.) I too don't know whether Courcelles will reconsider his approval of your request. (As you indicated at WP:PERM/PM, that is up to Courcelles.) Yes, you can continue to draftify articles where appropriate (whether or not your have page-mover permissions).

As to your other messages, I did not reply to those because they are directed to Courcelles. I did not say that you had "used the [page mover permission] for wrong purposes", just that people often use it for other purposes than what they originally request it for, which is a reason why it is a permission that has higher standards for granting than some other permissions.

I am not sure what you mean by "I did this move only out of necessity". And I'm not sure what you want/need to discuss about that move, but since you would like to discuss it, I'll ask this: What redirect-suppression criterion do you think applied to that move?

I have added a message to Courcelles' talk page since they haven't responded yet. SilverLocust 💬 10:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this criteria will be applicable there, if I am not wrong, please forgive me if there is any mistake in explaining.

~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Aviram7: I was thinking that was excluded by WP:U1 (which excludes "User talk:" pages), but I looked again and saw that WP:DELTALK sensibly indicates that user talk archives are still included in U1. So you are correct. SilverLocust 💬 11:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I may have never used this right, but I have read the policies related to this right. Yes, I may not have the experience to do this page, but even if I had it, I would be able to respond to this request. Will keep working on the page.

Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Operation Desert Hawk

Hi there! With both of our involvements in the editing of the "Operation Desert Hawk" page and it's ultimate result, I prefer to come to your talk page instead of possibly sparking some sort of edit war. As per the Parallel History Project, which is supported by the International Relations and Security Network as well as the National Security Archive, its issue on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 mentions the Rann of Kutch conflict in 1965. The whole assessment does not seem to be available anymore but Chapter 2 is, with a list of references and citations. Now, this assessment by the PHP seems to back that a political ceasefire occurred, but the operation in its self is a Pakistani victory. "In sum, for India the Kutch Operation was a wrong war with the right enemy, at a wrong place(74). For Pakistan, it was a victorious war, out of which it learnt a wrong lesson that it could win a cake-walk victory in Kashmir." is what is stated in the conclusion of this chapter. As we know, Operation Gibraltar was certainly not a "cake-walk" for Pakistan, but an operational defeat. I will properly cite this link in the page itself but here's a digital pdf of the chapter that I have mentioned (https://phpisn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_india/documents/1965Chapter02.pdf), which also includes a list of utilized references at the end. There is a list of references at the end, as well as a section on the ceasefire negotiated by London. My proposition is that the updated result mention the internationally accepted Pakistani victory, in which this is true as the operation in itself was a victorious operation for Pakistan. However, I will also make mention and properly cite the ceasefire agreement in the result, thus showing both the military and political outcomes per the result. A ceasefire from the greater Rann of Kutch conflict in 1965, and the Pakistani victory militarily in Operation Desert Hawk. I can also refer to the three citations in which I had utilized beforehand and were properly accessible, as well as an additional assessment by the Diplomat (https://thediplomat.com/2015/09/how-india-fought-pakistan-50-years-ago/), which mentions Pakistan's substantial gains before a ceasefire agreement. If you agree with my assessment to update the result in a favorable way for both aspects of the greater Rann of Kutch conflict, please let me know. Thanks!

(P.S: Sorry if this is a bit lengthy, this was the best I could do to fit my main points in so it wasn't even longer!) MrGreen1163 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

User:SilverLocust MrGreen1163 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@MrGreen1163: I don't have any view on that (i.e., who "won" these incidents that you are asserting Pakistan won). My request to you was simply that you go through your edits and remove the rest of the citations that you added that also rely on a source that does not exist. SilverLocust 💬 01:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for your response! MrGreen1163 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:Editnotices/Page/Deleted to make way for page move

Template:Editnotices/Page/Deleted to make way for page move, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Editnotices/Page/Deleted to make way for page move and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Editnotices/Page/Deleted to make way for page move during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 11:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:René Lévesque on a "Politics, government, and law" 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, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Excellent work in finding the copyright violation at Aseguradores de la calidad. Whpq (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Opinion

Dear SilverLocust, Hello, Nice to meet you again! I happy to work on WP:RM/TM and WP:RMC, What you're thought about that? I'd like to solve these problems. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again Aviram7. Thanks for your message.

• To clarify the confusion yesterday about what moves require an administrator: Page movers can swap two articles, not just an article and a redirect. (However, it's uncommon that it would be useful to swap two articles.)
• Since you are asking for my opinion, I'll be candid. I haven't been impressed by the quality of the closures you have done, and you don't seem to be doing any WP:POSTMOVE cleanup (which closers should do per WP:RMCI).
  1. Your closure at Talk:Spider-Man (2018 video game) includes a closing statement that references only the number of people opposed as the reason for the outcome. That should not be a primary focus when determining consensus, but rather the weight of the arguments presented. See WP:DETCON, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
  2. Please look again at Talk:Yutnori, as you seem not to have read the discussion carefully.
  3. For the same reason as the Spider-Man closure, the reason you provided at Talk:Abraham Schenck (New York senator) for finding "no consensus" is flawed. See also WP:RMNOMIN.
• Most of your approvals of moves at WP:RM/TR have been fine. The other day I did notice one pair of moves (of Roja (2018 TV series) and Roja (2019 TV series)) away from the standard disambiguation for TV series, so I reverted those two. And there have been some other ones that I would have contested as potentially controversial, such as the Adam Peters primary topic change (or "primary topic grab" as some users say when contesting these). (That one also particularly required post-move cleanup, since all incoming links would have to be changed, though fortunately the requester took care of that afterwards.)
• That being said, I was slightly surprised at first to see you doing technical requests at WP:RM/TR, since you had said at one point that you would only use pagemover permission for draftifying.

I'm sorry that the feedback I have to give is not more positive, but those are my thoughts. SilverLocust 💬 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear SilverLocust, Thank for you're right opinion given me, next time I don't going to participate in WP:RM/TM and WP:RMC.

For the reason that I have taken this permission, I will now do only that work.😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 07:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

OL Reign

Hello, SilverLocust,

I have no idea what happened here but it seems like you are asking to move a page with this page title to the same page title which is an impossibility. Could you turn this into a working redirect? I think something happened here when you were moving pages around. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Liz, thanks for pointing this out. I have now retargeted it manually. Normally the pageswap script retargets the swapped redirect automatically, as it did for Talk:OL Reign during the same swap. I've never seen it not retarget the redirect that before, and I have no clue what happened here. SilverLocust 💬 06:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Before I did the swap, someone else had requested speedy deletion of the redirect (which causes the redirect not to function), so pageswap didn't think it was a redirect and didn't retarget it. SilverLocust 💬 11:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-03

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

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. [2]
• Gadgets and personal user scripts may now use JavaScript syntax introduced in ES6 (also known as "ES2015") and ES7 ("ES2016"). MediaWiki validates the source code to protect other site functionality from syntax errors, and to ensure scripts are valid in all supported browsers. Previously, Gadgets could use the requiresES6 option. This option is no longer needed and will be removed in the future. [3]
• Bot passwords and owner-only OAuth consumers can now be restricted to allow editing only specific pages. [4]
• You can now thank edits made by bots. [5]
• An update on the status of the Community Wishlist Survey for 2024 has been published. Please read and give your feedback.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 January. It will be on all wikis from 18 January (calendar). [6][7]
• Starting on January 17, it will not be possible to login to Wikimedia wikis from some specific old versions of the Chrome browser (versions 51–66, released between 2016 and 2018). Additionally, users of iOS 12, or Safari on Mac OS 10.14, may need to login to each wiki separately. [8]
• The jquery.cookie module was deprecated and replaced with the mediawiki.cookie module last year. A script has now been run to replace any remaining uses, and this week the temporary alias will be removed. [9]

Future changes

• Wikimedia Deutschland is working to make reusing references easier. They are looking for people who are interested in participating in individual video calls for user research in January and February.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your help and guidance recently regarding RM, CFD, and page moving. It is always appreciated. Cheers, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war

Hello. Please request G7 speedy deletion and then move Template:Editnotices/Page/Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, which had already existed, without leaving a redirect. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Now resynced. ProcBot normally resyncs editnotices relatively quickly after a move (though not in this instance), so I was not aware of the older editnotice. SilverLocust 💬 01:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that. I've also never seen that happen, because I've always had to manually move editnotices (sometimes weeks after a move happened). InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well maybe not "normally" then. I'm not sure how many ProcBot misses. That was what I've assumed from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 4 and from looking at Special:Log/move/ProcBot (which seems to show that the timeframe is midnight after the article's move). I don't know what technical limitations there are, and indeed there was a time that I manually moved an editnotice that hadn't been fixed after 2 weeks. SilverLocust 💬 01:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-04

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

• A bug in UploadWizard prevented linking to the userpage of the uploader when uploading. It has now been fixed. [10]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 January. It will be on all wikis from 25 January (calendar). [11][12]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 01:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification: Feedback request service is down

Hello, SilverLocust

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-05

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

• Starting Monday January 29, all talk pages messages' timestamps will become a link. This link is a permanent link to the comment. It allows users to find the comment they are looking for, even if this comment was moved elsewhere. This will affect all wikis except for the English Wikipedia. You can read more about this change on Diff or on Mediawiki.org. [13]
• There are some improvements to the CAPTCHA to make it harder for spam bots and scripts to bypass it. If you have feedback on this change, please comment on the task. Staff are monitoring metrics related to the CAPTCHA, as well as secondary metrics such as account creations and edit counts.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 January. It will be on all wikis from 1 February (calendar). [14][15]
• On February 1, a link will be added to the "Tools" menu to download a QR code that links to the page you are viewing. There will also be a new Special:QrCode page to create QR codes for any Wikimedia URL. This addresses the #19 most-voted wish from the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey. [16]
• Gadgets which only work in some skins have sometimes used the targets option to limit where you can use them. This will stop working this week. You should use the skins option instead. [17]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩

Just wanted you to know that I was okay with creating this user page. After I responded to the 7 January edit request, the editor decided on a different username, but never got back to me about whether or not they wanted "User:𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩" to be created and redirected. Thank you for following through with it! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Paine. I pinged you not because you hadn't created the page, which was fine, but rather just to let you know for future reference that the title blacklist doesn't mean, as you said, that "if this present user page of yours is created, it can still be edited only by admins, template editors and page movers". Even if you log out, you can still edit User:𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩 now that it's created. Unlike, say, an editnotice (because the titleblacklist entry for editnotices includes <noedit>). SilverLocust 🃏 💬 00:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That's good to know. The presence or absence of <noedit> seems like a subtlety that was unknown to me until now. You must be a good researcher! Thank you so much for the heads up, and Happiest of New Years to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well. At WP:RM/TR there are sometimes requests to move articles or drafts to blacklisted titles like CUMYL-PEGACLONE or Hurt!!!!!!! or α-Hydroxyetizolam. That would be why I know that most blacklisted titles can be edited (rather than moved or created). Since you answer many WP:TPERs, the blacklisted titles that you come across would presumably be those that requesters cannot edit. SilverLocust 🃏 💬 03:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RM protected

Template:RM protected has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Awesome Aasim 20:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-06

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 mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. If you hear of any problems relating to mobile history usage please point them to the phabricator task.
• On most wikis, admins can now block users from making specific actions. These actions are: uploading files, creating new pages, moving (renaming) pages, and sending thanks. The goal of this feature is to allow admins to apply blocks that are adequate to the blocked users' activity. Learn more about "action blocks". [18][19]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 February. It will be on all wikis from 8 February (calendar). [20][21]
• Talk pages permalinks that included diacritics and non-Latin script were malfunctioning. This issue is fixed. [22]

Future changes

• 24 Wikipedias with Reference Tooltips as a default gadget are encouraged to remove that default flag. This would make Reference Previews the new default for reference popups, leading to a more consistent experience across wikis. For 46 Wikipedias with less than 4 interface admins, the change is already scheduled for mid-February, unless there are concerns. The older Reference Tooltips gadget will still remain usable and will override this feature, if it is available on your wiki and you have enabled it in your settings. [23][24]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-07

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 WDQS Graph Split experiment is working and loaded onto 3 test servers. The team in charge is testing the split's impact and requires feedback from WDQS users through the UI or programmatically in different channels. [25][26][27] Users' feedback will validate the impact of various use cases and workflows around the Wikidata Query service. [28][29]

Problems

• There was a bug that affected the appearance of visited links when using mobile device to access wiki sites. It made the links appear black; this issue is fixed.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 February. It will be on all wikis from 15 February (calendar). [30][31]
• As work continues on the grid engine deprecation,[32] tools on the grid engine will be stopped starting on February 14th, 2024. If you have tools actively migrating you can ask for an extension so they are not stopped. [33]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 05:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4