Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:51, 30 March 2021

Archives (Index)

2019/May 2019/June 2019/July 2019/August 2019/September 2019/October 2019/November 2019/December 2020/January 2020/February 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September 2024/October 2024/November

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody

Hi, I noticed that while you closed this case the main case page still has a big "this case is open" template just above the text area. Asartea 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Asartea - figuring this out as I go along, must have missed that step. I've found the step that I missed and corrected the issue. I am currently waiting to hear back from the arbs about whether they want a formal "case closed" announcement. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, To be fair it was an directly coded box, not an template; also known as a crime against existence. Asartea 12:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Username

Username now retired Aeribot (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

I just found this diff in addition to what I sent you. 220 of 12:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

220 of Borg, acknowledging that I've seen your email - I'll try to take care of it tomorrow. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

220 of Borg, yeah, I see what you're talking about. I'll take care of it. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I AGF but possibly, I might be a bit more suspicious in future. I take it you have no doubt about the connection per "astounding amount of overlap with past socks" ? 220 of 02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

220 of Borg, that's correct. If you look at their cross-wiki contribs, there are a few telltales there too - they really like writing about that one attorney (which, if you look at the sockmaster's username, is probably because they're writing about themselves). It's well past "two people who happen to share the same interests". _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So not a subjective assessment? ;-D. If only Promote Justices' work didn't require so much cleanup! 220 of 05:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

56 deleted revisions

Hi GeneralNotability. I noticed that you deleted 56 consecutive revisions by a variety of editors here. I'm just wondering if that was a mistake, or did you intend to delete all of them? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Clayoquot, yes, that was entirely intentional - there was some suppressible text posted to BLPN, someone made note of the suppressible text in a semi-public location a few days later, I removed the text and RD'd everything between the original posting and my removal while waiting for an oversighter. Unfortunate that three days passed between the original posting and someone noticing that it needed suppression (and so we had to hide all of that history), but c'est la vie. _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks and best wishes, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-11

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

• Wikis that are part of the desktop improvements project can now use a new search function. The desktop improvements and the new search will come to more wikis later. You can also test it early.
• Editors who put up banners or change site-wide JavaScript code should use the client error graph to see that their changes has not caused problems. You can read more.

Problems

• Due to database issues the Wikimedia Beta Cluster was read-only for over a day.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 March. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 March. It will be on all wikis from 18 March (calendar).

Future changes

• You can add a newline or carriage return character to a custom signature if you use a template. There is a proposal to not allow them in the future. This is because they can cause formatting problems.
• You will be able to read but not edit 12 wikis for a short period of time on 23 March at 06:00 (UTC). This could take 30 minutes but will probably be much faster.
• You can use Quarry for SQL queries to the Wiki Replicas. Cross-database JOINS will no longer work from 23 March. There will be a new field to specify the database to connect to. If you think this affects you and you need help you can post on Phabricator or on Wikitech. PAWS and other ways to do SQL queries to the Wiki Replicas will be affected later.

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

23:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Grganml

Hello GeneralNotability, I noticed you closed the above SPI with agf-sock warnings to the mentioned users. Today I encountered another account, Puraana_Bhoot (talk · contribs). Could you advise me on what to do next? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of Grganml. I must insist the checkusers believe me and I beg of them not to waste time with a check on this one. Remember WP:AGF and that means when a person says he is not a sock of the person. Speaking of socks. Pahunkat himself has been using two accounts these past hours just to editwar. Puraana Bhoot (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Very funny - yes, that is my alternate account, as such it is called "Pahunkat Alternate Account". Pahunkat (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mister. You are 1 person using 2 accounts abusively. You have edit warred using both. Puraana Bhoot (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is your definition of "abusively"? JJP...MASTER! _{JJP... master?} 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Breaching 3RR. Twice with one account, then two more times with other "original" sock account. Puraana Bhoot (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

JJPMaster, user above has been blocked indef by Oshwah. Pahunkat (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, this one's been blocked, but next time you're welcome to either do exactly what you did here (that is, message the admin who handled the case) or add a new case to that SPI. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to respond on the RfC on whether to say in the UPE template that the payer isn't necessarily the subject of the article

The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.

Before:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Misplaced Pages's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies.

After:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Misplaced Pages's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies. The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article.

I think your perspective could be helpful because you were involved in the sockpuppet investigation that led to this proposal.

My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).

Praxidicae has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.

As of this writing nobody else has responded.

Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.

Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked IP user

Dear GeneralNotability,

I see that you just blocked Special:Contributions/103.115.184.249 as part of a proxy range block (if I misunderstand, please correct me, since I'm quite ignorant about these things). I just had an issue with a user editing from that IP, who showed up yesterday and started to systematically revert my edits. Trying to assume good faith, I asked for advice about how to best deal with this at the Teahouse. But now it seems as if someone may have taken special precautions for staying anonymous while systematically targeting my edits? Is that an accurate interpretation? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: after posting the comment above, I became more suspicious, did some research, and was appalled at what I found. I opened a SPI about this. Any advice on how to deal with this would be very welcome. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've handled the SPI. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. However, I would like to ask you to help me better understand the evidence. Why would the IP range edit on exactly the same articles, with some subjects Iran-related but some not at all (The Australian)? Why should the IP ranges only vote in the same RfCs, and not in any others? Why should they vote in the same non-obvious ways (note that the RfC here asked for exposing Iranian propaganda)? Why would the IP ranges not have any other edits on similar and related topics where no direct link with the registered user can be established? I'm asking these questions because I want to understand better, and avoid seeing a WP:DUCK where there isn't any. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you also look at this? Second edit suggests someone may have read a comment by you, and last two edits perhaps seem just a little too nicely balanced (they are continuing this here). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Both of those are Hotspot VPN. I can't really make sense of either ISP (it's rather late here), but the 59.x one has been blocked by Ponyo, and the 92.x one is also ripe for a proxy block. For what it's worth, I've reverted the edits of both of them. Blablubbs|talk 01:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

See also the only older edit of the 92.x proxy range: guess who also opposed this RfC? A quite vehement opposition, with heated accusations (, ), and also some further interaction with the nominator of the RfC. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNotability, I appreciate that you may be rather busy, and that there are far more urgent things to do, but would you please give me a small update? Thank you very much, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, well, it's hard to pin down all edits made by this editor, since they're using a VPN - the person behind the IP may be editing from other ranges and we've only noticed the places they overlap. It is also possible that this is meatpuppetry - someone asking a friend to make edits to support them. All I'm saying from the SPI is that I don't think these are the same person and I don't see clear enough evidence to block for meatpuppetry. Also, a side note from experience - Doogh is one of those articles that attracts a lot of ethnonationalist editors who insist that their culture/ethnicity/country invented it. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but surely an RfC about whether an Australian newspaper should be called centre-right to right wing (cf. ) would not also attract the very same Iranian-nationalist editor, so the voter in that RfC would need to be another user of the VPN. But how likely is it that two different VPN users of that same IP range (the 103.x one) would both be involved in the same articles as the registered user, or that two different users of the same VPN service (remember that the recent 92.x one started out at the 103.x one, and pushed Iranian-nationalist views) would support the vote of the registered user at two completely unrelated RfC's? Is the point perhaps that these things are not at all likely, but that a greater quantity of evidence of this kind would be needed to justify action? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, those are very good points, and you're absolutely right that there are a lot of overlaps between users of this VPN and Wikiviani. I just tend to be conservative in blocking editors for meatpuppetry, I guess. I am trying to block those VPN ranges as I find them, but I'm reluctant to block Wikiviani. This really is a "gut feeling" sort of thing, I'm sorry I can't give you a concrete explanation of my thinking. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance, and I would do exactly the same if I were in your position. Even as the victim of the meatpuppetry (which seems unmistakable), I agree that blocking would go much too far, but I was hoping for some kind of warning, or perhaps a reconsideration of some of his special user rights. Anyways, thanks a lot for looking into this. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, actually, that's an excellent point - I think there's enough evidence to give a warning over this. I'll take care of that shortly. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the revertions by Apaugasma here,here, and here triggered the IP storm that had followed them around for a bit. What I see, is IPs(Brazil, New Zealand, Taiwan), making it personal and following Apaugasma around reverting their edits, since their edits(IPs) have been reverted. The New Zealand IP started out as 121.74.12.98 and now is 103.115.184.249. I have yet to understand why Wikaviani is being associated with these IPs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, the shared interests between Wikaviani and the IP editor(s) plus the overlap between the IP(s) and Wikaviani at a couple of fairly specific RfCs. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks pretty thin to me. Wikaviani has 10+K edits in the last 3.5 years and has overlap in some RFCs? Wow. Do my edits overlap with 103.115.184.249? Yep. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, I thought the overlap at two fairly distinct RfCs (especially considering, as Apaugasma noted above, that one of them was well outside of this IP editor's usual interests) plus the shared interest was enough to suggest that they could be connected, but I was far from certain, so I gave Wikiviani a polite note with an explanation of the meatpuppetry rules in case they were connected. Wikiviani explained why they're unrelated. I think their explanation is reasonable, and I apologized for the incorrect accusation. I was wrong, not the first time I've been wrong about this kind of thing, probably won't be the last. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Kansas Bear, are you familiar with the concept of a proxy server? It is a computer which acts as an intermediary between two other computers and hides one of the two interacting computers' identity from the other. It is often used by people who have a special need for privacy, to surf the web in such a way that their IP, location, etc. stays hidden from the internet servers they connect with. The only IP (and location, etc.) shown to those internet servers is the IP of the proxy. So while the IP range that attacked me was located in New Zealand, its user may have been from anywhere around the world, and indeed probably was not from New Zealand. For this reason, both the location of the proxy and the locations of other (non-proxy) IP users are meaningless in such cases. Also, I think you may not have looked at the actual evidence: please take a look at the edit history of the entire IP range, and you'll note that the overlap is much greater than your 3 overlapping edits articles. In fact, of the IP range's 33 edits before the 17 March attack, only 7 edits (1 August 2019, 20 May – 7 August 2020) are not in articles also edited by Wikaviani (evidence in the SPI case). While 23 of the IP range's overlapping edits are in 5 Iran-related articles, 3 are in an article about an Australian newspaper, to support the same RfC as Wikaviani. I'm citing just part of the evidence here, and I never imagined that it would be so difficult to get other editors to take a close look at it. I'm very sorry if this offended you, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am just going to say this once, you have no idea who I am and you know absolutely nothing about me. Your comment,

• " I'm very sorry if this offended you..."

..is the 2nd personalized comment I have seen from you. I look at facts, and the fact is that the IP made two edits to Alchemy, not reverts. YOU reverted that IP and from that point on that IP decided to revert any and every edit of yours. Plain and simple. If you want to make issues personal(such as your previous personalized comment), I can guarantee you that you will not be editing here very long. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am truly sorry. I should never have bothered you with this, that was my mistake. Please accept my sincere apologies. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Abusive IP

Hi, 103.39.132.188 (talk · contribs) is the same person as 103.108.117.148 (talk · contribs) and 104.244.208.0/22 (talk · contribs), so I suspect the range has similar issues to the two you've blocked. Best, CMD (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis: yup, that's a SurfShark endpoint all right. Hardblocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi! How's it going? Question. I want to make my own sandbox to do just some silly, alternate stuff haha. For example, I want to make an alternate list of presidents and prime ministers of Yugoslavia if the country had existed today, so 1945–present, and other stuff like that (ministers, etc.), just an idea of mine really and something I find interesting. So my question is, is it okay for me to make that, as in is that a problem? And also, when I make my sandbox, I presume no one can edit it besides me (apart bots who deleted non free images and so on)? And also, I don't need any refs. in my sandbox right? No one's gonna actually like check my sandbox, yes? I do hope to get an answer from you shortly! Bye :) Bakir123 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

comment from (talk page watcher): Hi, Bakir123. You can use your sandbox to test and try things and even to work on drafts of articles. However, alternate-history stuff often gets deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Although editors generally don't edit each other's sandbox/user subpages, they do see them and they do tag them for WP:CSD sometimes. I've seen quite a few user subpages of fake "alternate history" deleted. Schazjmd (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Bakir123, Schazjmd covered most of what I would have had to say. You should not be using your sandbox to write alternate history; doing that will probably get the sandbox deleted per our rules about Misplaced Pages not being used as a webhost (in fact, a couple months ago I blocked a user because something like 95% of their contributions were creating fictional election history in their sandboxes). And as for your other questions - recent changes patrollers do see your sandbox, and other editors can edit your sandbox (though it's considered poor form to do so unless they've either gotten your permission or are editing it to make a good-faith deletion nomination). You have a good deal of freedom in what you write in your sandbox, but fundamental rules of Misplaced Pages still apply - in particular, your sandbox should not violate anyone's copyright, nor should it make controversial statements about living people without adequate sourcing. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-12

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 Misplaced Pages app for KaiOS phones. They don't have a touch screen so readers navigate with the phone keys. There is now a simulator so you can see what it looks like.
• The reply tool and new discussion tool are now available as the "Discussion tools" beta feature in almost all wikis except German Misplaced Pages.

Problems

• You will be able to read but not edit twelve wikis for a short period of time on 23 March at 06:00 (UTC). This can also affect password changes, logging in to new wikis, global renames and changing or confirming emails. This could take 30 minutes but will probably be much faster.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 March. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 March. It will be on all wikis from 25 March (calendar).
• Syntax highlighting colours will change to be easier to read. This will soon come to the first wikis.

Future changes

• Flagged revisions will no longer have multiple tags like "tone" or "depth". It will also only have one tier. This was changed because very few wikis used these features and they make the tool difficult to maintain.
• Gadgets and user scripts can access variables about the current page in JavaScript. In 2015 this was moved from wg* to mw.config. wg* will soon no longer work.

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

16:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) on a "Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines" 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 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey

User:103.110.49.124 and User:103.110.49.147 are same. They added same spam links from sport matik website. You have already blocked one of them. Thanks  Zoglophie 17:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Zoglophie, you're right, good catch. The .147 IP hasn't edited for a while, though, so I don't see a need to block them right now. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this.

Thanks for fixing this. I must have been trying to copy/paste their user name.--- Possibly (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Hi, I reported an investigation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shame on PJ Santos but has not allowed to publish. I need help from you to publish this user Kaputite (talk · contribs) as this is the sockpuppet of Shame on PJ Santos. The sockpuppet was issued on March 23, 2021. Thank You! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

• News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments

• In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan

• News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Misplaced Pages and beyond

• Recent research: 10%-30% of Misplaced Pages’s contributors have subject-matter expertise

• From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Misplaced Pages's mistakes

• Essay: Misplaced Pages:The 💕

• Obituary: Yoninah

• From the editor: What else can we say?

• Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees

• Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack

Question

Re your comment here. While I don't dispute the block (since I assume CU evidence is solid), I am not sure I follow this: " Even if they are two separate people, this is meatpuppetry in my book.". IF they are two people, wouldn't this be fine? Co-workers or family members are not prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages, even if they edit similar topics, are they? We don't have any restriction that says 'one account per household/workplace', do we? Hypothetically, if one of us had a spouse, and she started editing Misplaced Pages and then joined a discussion we are participating in, would you recommend that she is blocked? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, co-workers and family members editing Misplaced Pages is fine. Co-workers and family members editing Misplaced Pages to advocate in the same areas without disclosure is not. It would be okay, for example, for my better half to edit Misplaced Pages in most areas...but if we're also showing up to support each other in project space, that's not okay. In this case, we have what appears to either be one employee of Aquila Polonica with two accounts or two employees of the publisher showing up at ARCA, and I find it hard to believe that two separate employees of a niche publisher "just happened" to find the ARCA independently of each other. I probably would not have blocked if they had acknowledged the relationship somewhere ("I'm the owner of Aquila Polonica, I see one of my employees commented here, I'd like to expand further" or something like that), but right now it looks like multiple accounts being used to further the publisher's self-interest. _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Continuing this, see block appeals at and . What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have no objection to another administrator unblocking them if they accept the explanations offered by the two editors. _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That's good to know. But is there any reason you, the blocking admin, are not willing to unblock them? If we take their explanation at face value (AGF) that wouldn't unblocking them and apologizing for the misunderstanding be best, in the context of WP:BITE, being friendly to newbies, and like? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Some very old web browsers don’t work well with the Wikimedia wikis. Some old code for browsers that used to be supported is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers.
• IRC recent changes feeds have been moved to a new server. Make sure all tools automatically reconnect to irc.wikimedia.org and not to the name of any specific server. Users should also consider switching to the more modern EventStreams.

Problems

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split. It might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem.
• Some translatable pages on Meta could not be edited. This was because of a bug in the translation tool. The new MediaWiki version was delayed because of problems like this.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 March. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 March. It will be on all wikis from 1 April (calendar).

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

17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)