User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2018/March

Thank you

Hello, thank you for answering my question. wikiHow to Wikipedia is a big step, and I appreciate people showing me the ropes. Midnight Dreams (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Midnight Dreams: You're welcome! Help:Tutorial might be a good place to start, as might WP:REFB. Please feel free to ask me any questions that you may have whenever (I will get to them as soon as possible). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Bradley Colburn has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bradley Colburn. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing an MfD

Hello, SandDoctor. Thank you for fixing my attempted closure of WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Locked Page. Was there something simple that I neglected to do? Or is that MfD's can't (or shouldn't) be closed by non-admins? Your advice on this will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there NewYorkActuary! I will start off by saying that I am not an administrator either (just to get that out of the way). Non-admins are welcome to close discussions, however, in cases where they have the technical ability to implement said close (so many clear "keep"s in the case of XfD, or moves if doing requested moves with page mover right) and it isn't contentious. (Can read more about it here.) Non-admins can also close discussions "If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale."

Closing discussions involves following the administrator instructions for said discussion location (usually located under the line that is below the title text, on the far right of the page).

(In general) In the case of MfD, that involved putting {{subst:mfd top}} RESULT {{subst:nac}} ~~~~ at the top and {{subst:mfd bottom}} at the bottom (strongly recommend reading into more detail in the previous link).

In the case of an administrator deleting without closing, that involves following the same steps as above, adding the name of the administrator who deleted it & their deletion rationale (reason) in between RESULT and {{subst:nac}} ~~~~ in the above (so like {{subst:mfd top}} RESULT. ADMINISTRATOR Type and time of deletion as Deletion rationale {{subst:nac}} ~~~~

Hopefully this helps! If any administrators or talk page watchers of mine have anything to add, please feel free to do so. (@Primefac:@Mz7:@Oshwah:) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. As for mistaking you for an administrator, I hope you found that flattering. If the opposite, you have my aplogies.

If I understand you correctly, my error was not "technical" but, rather, the failure to specify the details of the speedy deletion (i.e., who did it, when and why). But as I look through the diffs that separated my closure from yours, I'm seeing things that suggest there were different templates being used. In my edits, I used {{mfd top}} and {{mfd bottom}}. Did you use different ones? Or did I forget to "subst" one or both of them? Or was there some other failure on my part?

Thanks again for your help. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary, it might be worth checking out WP:XFDCloser - it automatically deals with all of the technical stuff so all you have to worry about is the close itself. It will also automatically add in the {{nac}} notice. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Primefac, I had forgotten to suggest that (that is what I normally use as well). NewYorkActuary don't worry, you didn't offend me (rather, it is the former of the two). As for your "error", you used an incorrect template and did not include the details of the closure. The other difference was that I added {{mfd top}} above the heading, not below it. I would definitely recommend checking out what Primefac mentioned (WP:XFDCloser) as it would be far simpler. If you have any questions, please do feel free to reach out and I will help the best I can. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Primefac: Thanks for commenting. I do very few closings, so few that I've never really considered getting the XFDCloser. But your mentioning it prompted me to take a look at TheSandDoctor's contribution history. And I see that they generally do use that script for closings. So, it was probably a bit unfair of me to have asked those questions about specific templates and I withdraw them.

My thanks to both of you for your help. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(after the edit conflict) Thanks again to both of you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one of those tools that non-admins hardly ever need, but it's quite nice to have kicking about. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider those questions unfair NewYorkActuary, they are perfectly legitimate and some users prefer to manually do things. I have no problem helping where I can. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Tag

Please look into this article [1] which has more than 20 citations including reliable ones such as BBC, Dawn, Tribune which are leading newspaper dailys. If there are one or two unrealiable sources or there is OR as mentioned in the tags by a user who hasnt replied to on the page's talk page ever since applyinh these tags, the tags should be specifically placed at specific places where the problem lies. To generalise the whole article by placing tags on top of the article affects the credibility of the whole article itself which is unfair. (45.116.232.23 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

Hi there 45.116.232.23, maybe bringing this up on GoingBatty's talk page would be a good idea? I am unfamiliar with the subject matter nor have I ever edited the page before. I do not have the time at the moment to do a thorough source review (have exams). At first glance there is one source to the BBC, but otherwise I am unfamiliar with the majority of the other sources. I think that it is important to stress that the article's notability is not in question, just some of the sourcing and content therein. If this is not resolved by the time that I have some more free time, I will happily look deeper into it with you. Sorry that I cannot be of any more help at the moment (give me 2-3 days). --Thanks! TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The better places for discussion would be Talk:Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat) and on User talk:Saqib. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @45.116.232.23:. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about tagging you instead GoingBatty! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Need an Admin to close

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Famous_Dex_(4th_nomination)#Draft:Famous_Dex only because the mainspace page is create protected so we can't action the close. Please revert your close. Legacypac (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I was just in the process of emailing an admin about moving it. I have reverted. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, happy your on it. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Email sent to uninvolved admin requesting they reinstate the close & move. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The initiated template

Hi, you don't need to do this. The {{initiated}} template is intended for use on unprocessed requests, to show how long ago it is since the action requiring closure was first raised.

When {{initiated}} has |done=yes, all it does is display an elapsed interval; but when |done=yes is absent, it shows the interval in different colours according to how old the action is, and also places the page in Category:Administrative backlog. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Oh, okay. I thought that it might be needed for a bot to archive (the |done=yes), plus the editing notice encourages its use saying to not forget to add the done parameter (that is why I added it). If it isn't needed though, then I won't add it (the template as a whole, if it is missing)--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The archiving bot is ClueBot III (talk · contribs), and it ignores the {{initiated}} template. This bot archives a thread if it contains any of the following templates: {{tlu|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved}},{{Resolved}},{{done}},{{Done}},{{DONE}},{{already done}},{{Already done}},{{not done}},{{Not done}},{{close}},{{Close}}.

The point about the instruction "Please don't forget to mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes when you mark the discussion as {{Done}}. Thank you." is that if a request is being marked with one of those templates that I have listed, this means that no further action is required and the {{initiated}} should be de-coloured and de-categorised, which is done by adding |done=yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article

Good morning,

You were so kind to respond to my request for restoring my deleted article. Thank you for that. First of all I think the response of the reviewer RHaworth, or something, was not in line with with your guidelines for treating new editors with some courtesy and respect. Having said that, I would like you to ask to help me with with the publication of the page if you can. I have the following problem. We are a NATO Centre of Excellence (COE) that is an organization that focuses on Stability Policing. A relative new concept that focuses on protecting the civilian population in conflict areas. There are about 25 NATO COE's each with their own speciality. Some of them have a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_of_Excellence_for_Operations_in_Confined_and_Shallow_Waters). I have followed for the most part their structure when creating my page. I have put as many references in as I can and I did not, as far as I can see, promote our organization but just describing the facts from a neutral point of view. Of course you, as wikipedia, may have a different opinion about this but the feedback that the whole article is self promotion is very generic and not helpful when it comes to rewriting. I would like to have some constructive feedback on which specific parts are considered self promotion and how to make it so that it suits your criteria. Also, when I Look at the page of our sister COE I do not see much difference between my draft and their published version. I would like to know why theirs do fit the criteria and ours doesn't. I hope you can help me with this or at least point me in the right direction,

Thank you in advance!

KlaasDB

KlaasDB (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there KlaasDB (and sorry for the delay in my response, it has been a busy week so far), I am not an administrator so unfortunately cannot view the page content to render much assistance. However, I would recommend asking for the article to be created rather than creating it yourself as having a conflict of interest tends to make people jumpy around here as the content is supposed to be written as neutrally as possible (something most believe far easier for an uninvolved party without a conflict of interest to do). As for RHaworth's demeanour, that is not my place to comment and all editors are individuals with their own personality. I will see if I can get someone here who could possibly assist you (by viewing the content and commenting on that). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

KlaasDB, the page was deleted because there were a multitude of non-neutral phrases such as "a prime mover" and the majority of the content reads like an "About us" section. You're welcome to ask the deleting administrator (RHaworth) to restore the draft (provided that you remove the promotional material), but it's also possible to just have them email you the content so that you can work on it before starting a new draft. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Anne Blondel-Jouin listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anne Blondel-Jouin. Since you had some involvement with the Anne Blondel-Jouin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 18:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

RfD closes

Your rationale for closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 8#Rauding is more appropriate as a !vote rather than a closure since it reflects a minority opinion. I recommend you revert your closure and resubmit it as a !vote if you so desire. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't intend for the rationale to read as it did. I updated/corrected it, but then ultimately decided to revert the close and relist. Thank you for bring this to my attention Tavix. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. You are a bit early on closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 9#Hλlf-Life as it has only been open for six days. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tavix: Reverted. Didn't realize it was over 24 hours (~26) from being 7 days. I had read the top instructions on the page "Items usually stay listed for a week or so" (emphasis my own), so did not see a major issue closing the discussion as it will likely not change. That said, I meant to do that closer to the close time. Reverted. Going back to copyediting now, clearly this isn't my day. I hope you have a good rest of yours . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't necessarily asking for a revert on that last one as I don't think it will matter either way, just letting you know in case you hadn't realized it. Cheers, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tavix: Thanks for letting me know. Would you object to it being closed (by myself, if I happen to be on) when it passes the 7 day mark? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No objection from me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

question

can I copy text of mariowiki.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Amirh123, the Mario Wiki is released under a compatible license, but there are two things to keep in mind. First, and absolutely foremost, you must give attribution for your source if/when you copy it over. It is usually best to do this in the edit summary, giving the URL(s) of the page(s) you copied from. Second, keep in mind that Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are likely different from the Mario Wiki. This means that anything you add still needs to be properly referenced (i.e. have reliable sources) and be neutrally written. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Your BRFA

Hello, your BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TweetCiteBot 2) has been approved for trial. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Trial complete & responded Xaosflux --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Try to submit the info about XB Software company

Hi! Thank you for your advice and review. We've added more references. Unfortunately, it was declined again. I wonder, could we post the info about our company. It's very similar to such pages as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxagile#cite_note-Influxis_partnership-14, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altoros#cite_note-10

Best regards, Aleksandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexa dik (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Alexa dik! Sorry for the delay in my response. Please review Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy (condensed version). Editing in areas in which you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. With that said, it was proper to send through Articles for Creation (AfC), and we thank you for that. The article still has a chance at being accepted, but more reliable (and secondary) sources are needed and it must be written neutrally. As for the declination reason given by Heliosxeros, that was because (in their judgement,) it read like an advertisement. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view.

As for posting the content on your site, that would be a primary source, rather than secondary and, as such, would not help to demonstrate notability. Sorry again for the delay in my response. If that did not answer your question (or you have any others), please do feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Raoul Poliakin entry status please

Hello, I have updated the page for Raoul Poliakin and wondering if I have now correctly inputted the inline citations. Any help is much appreciated!

Ucary (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ucary: Sorry for the delay in my response! I have taken another look at the draft and have added {{cn}} templates to a couple of other areas that could use citation. Message me once those are dealt with. If you have any questions, please do let me know. Hope that helps! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

TweetCiteBot PyEdition

Hi there,

It's good to see the Tweet Cite bot doing well. I was actually the user who sent in the BotReq for it and I'm really pleased it became a thing.

I have a question about this edit it made. The bot cuts off the tweet's text in the title field and adds in an ellipsis.

For example:

• here's a tweet cited in the article with the full text "Thanks to Lac La Biche Mayor Omer Moghrabi for his support in my bid to become #ucp leader. Our team is working hard to win over Albertans."
• The original Cite Web citation included the full text in the title field.
• The revised version by TweetCiteBot appends it to "Thanks to Lac La Biche Mayor Omer..."

Isn't this counterproductive? Part of the point of putting the full text of the tweet in the title field is that if the tweet is deleted, we can still see the entirety of what it said.

Cheers, Madg2011 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Madg2011, I hope all is well. Thank you for including that it was the PyEdition of the bot, as it was completely rewritten and (knowing which one) is definitely more helpful in speedily answering questions. TweetCiteBot does that as, in stripping twitter shortened links from tweet text, it tended to leave some weird formatting behind; I thought that the best approach to avoiding the empty parentheses (seemingly) thrown about would be just to truncate it (example). There is a feature in the bot that proactively archives Tweets, regardless of if they are live or not, however, I had that disabled as I know that some pages prefer that that not be done (proactive archiving) and there are no templates used (that I am aware of) to determine this.

The bot is done its correct list of articles and I have yet to generate a new one. I will see if there is another way to sanitize Tweet objects (one fear I have is of pipes '|' or curly brackets being present...will take a look). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.....that is weird. My dry run test outputs indicate that the bot runs correctly with the sanitization, but on Wiki it truncates it. I have to head to a lecture, but will look into this later today (ASAP) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Madg2011 Looks like the Twitter API truncates itself. A raw tweet output from that article (untouched): Thank you to my friend @dhansonwrp for your #ucp endorsement this morning. I’m so proud of the team we have been as… https://t. co/hJ3lyyRpZt. (ignore space) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Madg2011 Looks like I fixed it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Great customer service :)
This is a great example case because my inspiration for the botreq came from dealing with endless tweet citations for leadership race endorsements (was working on New Democratic Party leadership election, 2017 at the time). Often endorsements are only announced via social media, and having the full tweet text available is crucial as campaigns (especially losing ones) sometimes delete posts after the fact. So, it's fantastic to have this bug fixed so promptly. Thank you so much! Madg2011 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome Madg2011! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Raoul Poliakin citations address

Hello, I hope I've addressed the citations needed for this page. Thank you again for your help! Ucary (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)UC

Jeremiah McKinnon

In regards to the last edit on the Jeremiah McKinnon how would I go about adding his middle name and or citing, and I know it because I'm a friend of him lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D0D0:820:C940:76C4:3940:20DA (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there 2600:1700:D0D0:820:C940:76C4:3940:20DA! Being a friend with them could potentially put you in a situation where you have a conflict of interest (editing pages related in such a case is strongly discouraged). With that said, in order to add information like that to an article, the fact(s) must be stated in reliable sources which are independent from the subject (in this case, Jeremiah McKinnon). WP:REFB might also be something work checking out. I would recommend steering clear of the article in question (if you must edit it, then stating that you have a potential conflict of interest in the edit summary. I hope that this helps! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Slander and defamation

I consider this post by you to be slander, since you refuse to differentiate between black pill incels, and other incels who do not hate women. Also, your edit didn't seem to be in line with what the actual sources state. 92.19.180.160 (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

While no slander or defamation was intended to any party, I do owe you an apology as I initially perceived your edit to be potential vandalism so reverted it. Reverting vandalism is just something that needs to be done (it is more prevalent than any of us would like), and unfortunately, sometimes legitimate edits get caught in the crosshairs. I apologize for misinterpreting your edit as a vandalism, after further inspection, I can now see that it clearly was not and have reverted my revert. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

minor change to "Yoshiaki Fujimori"

Could you remove some of Fuji's personal info, such as age? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeannieqm (talk • contribs) 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jeannieqm: I doubled checked the age and it does appear to be accurate (based on Bloomberg listing). Why would you want the information removed? It is customary for Wikipedia articles on people to contain a birth year (generally also date) when one is available from a reliable source. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pingpong

new user Skyewrighter (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC) I'm new here I dont know much about editing pages if you could help me out or point me in the right direction i would greatly appreciate it thanks skyewrighter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyewrighter (talk • contribs) 06:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Skyewrighter! When adding new content or changing information in articles (with the exception of copy-editing), it is always helpful to include reliable sources which are independent that back up your claim(s). A good place to start would be Help:Tutorial (if you need help editing and understanding Wikipedia), WP:REFB (help with referencing), and WP:Your first article (even if you're not creating one, it is still useful to read). If you have any questions or would like me to elaborate further, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

recent change to Yoshiaki Fujimori

Thank you for the reply. The age is correct, but Fuji prefers these info not be shown to protect his privacy. Could I email you privately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeannieqm (talk • contribs) 04:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jeannieqm: While I do understand your predicament and sympathize with privacy wishing to be preserved, this is an encyclopedia that summarizes available (verifiable) knowledge about the subjects/topics of articles. Whether it is preferred or not, listing a birth year of a non-minor (as in an adult) notable individual is something that most likely should be kept. A birth year/(birth) period is not the most personal of information when compared to, say, social insurance numbers or personal phone numbers (To be clear, Wikipedia would never publish things like that).

Please read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and WP:OWN (click links). The latter states in the third sentence of the first paragraph: "Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say."

If you have any questions or would like clarification, please do feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically, what TheSandDoctor is trying to say is that we add content to articles based off of reliable sources that are available to the public and we list all such references within the article. It's a violation of Wikipedia's policies to have such content on an article and without a reference (see Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people). If any such content is not supported by a reliable source (or attributable to one), it must be removed. While I also understand your concerns and acknowledge your request, if the content is in compliance with all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it generally is not removed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Signature colour

Hi. I find your new signature, the bright green, disturbing to read, and very difficult to read. Would you please review contrast requirements at WP:SIG and abide? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:  Done. Sorry about that. Is it better now? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Lovely, thank you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: You're welcome. I'm just a fan of "green" and orange, and generally love fluorescent versions of each. That said, I do agree it was potentially a bit too bright. As I said on Xaosflux's talk page, I am still trying to get the colours right. . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-13

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

• Some of the interface icons and text sizes will change slightly, as part of the updates for improved accessibility and consistency. These icons are used in many features, including Notifications, Recent Changes, Beta Features, Visual Editor, 2017 Wikitext Editor, Code Editor, and others. While editor toolbars, dialogs, and menus will appear slightly bigger; elements on special pages will be slightly smaller. Functionality will not change. [2] [3]
• The deprecated #toc and #toctitle CSS ids have been removed. If your wiki was still using these for fake Tables of Content (ToC) then these might lose their styling. They can be replaced with .toc and .toctitle classes where appropriate. [4]
• TemplateStyles will be deployed to the Wikivoyages on 28 March 2018. [5]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 March. It will be on all wikis from 29 March (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 27 March at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be one hour earlier than usual on 28 March at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• From 9 April, the sort order of categories will be distorted for a short time. We are upgrading versions of an internationalisation library (ICU) and using a maintenance script to update existing database entries. This will last anywhere from a few hours to a few days, depending on wiki size. Read more details. [6]
• Changes are coming to search for Serbian projects. Cyrillic and Latin variants of a word and different grammatical forms of a word will be able to find each other. Read more on MediaWiki in Serbian or English.

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

20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello TheSandDoctor/Archives/2018, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello, your BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeprecatedFixerBot 1) has been approved. Please wait for the bot flagging to complete before beginning operations. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) TheSandBot would have been a much better name!  :) —SerialNumberParanoia/^{cheap shit room} 17:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right Serial Number 54129! Wish I had thought of that. Maybe on my next bot? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeprecatedFixerBot 4) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks! Task appears to be mostly done now, save for the last 4 pages in the category which the bot has not edited yet appear to be there despite not having the dts templates on them (let alone |link=). It is probably transcluded somewhere, I shall have to look further. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Turns out the issue was Template:Irish UK by election result and Template:Irish by election result still using it. I have updated their template code to remove the deprecated parameter and that cleared all 4 holdouts (though, strangely they showed in the list for several minutes despite purges; I blame server replication lag). The last holdout to be cleared was List of Irish by-elections. Find it odd that the template using the deprecated parameters was not itself in the deprecated category listing, but oh well.

I would normally ask for a task like this to be marked as expired/complete, however, who knows if it may be needed again. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You can just mark it on your task list as "inactive" if you would like. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)