17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

19:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Alsee,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

20:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template. Sdkb (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#Making the visual editor the default for new/IP users. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

00:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

17:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

21:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

19:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

• On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
• The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
  • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
  • a rich-text visual editing option, and
  • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

18:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

20:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Continuing from Here (the last part). The topic is related to ShortDescription and Wikipedia, attracting WMF attention. We have already 2 off-topic posts, after User:RexxS's last post I was thinking not to post, however, ended up posting one more time. Now, I won't post there about this topic further. Wanted to inform you that I have read your post. As you have suggested you can actually move that part of discussion anywhere else (or ping me if you find a similar one).

So, what is the order? Wikidata imports a value (such as IMDb, official website) from English Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia) and stores the value on a Wikidata item. Now we show that Wikidata item link on Wikipedia. However, why? Earlier interwikis were taken and stored on Wikidata (the first phase of Wikidata).

Now, as a Wikidata item is showing a statement is imported from English Wikipedia, the statement was definitely correct on English Wikipedia. Now there are 2 possibilities:

1. the data was incorrect on English Wikipedia. In that case, the data, which is imported from Wikipedia is incorrect as well, and should not be used on English Wikipedia.
2. the data was correct on English Wikipedia. In that case, we exported data to Wikidata, and then decided to rely on Wikidata for this field.

However why? There was not anything broken per #1, and #2 above. The only logic I can find here, treating these fields as "interwiki" to be managed on Wikidata only. However, I don't think there is a community consensus on it, and it is definitely not a practice. What is really lacking: a clear understanding and guideline "why" and "when"? --Titodutta (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Titodutta the situation is definitely a mess. You pretty much already figured out the answer to "why". There is a significant group (including the Foundation, the Wikidata community, and a significant number of EnWiki editors) who want to use Wikidata as an interwiki repository for... well pretty much anything and everything that could plausibly be managed in that fashion. Wikidata isn't a wiki, it's basically a database. Wikidata doesn't have much of a community, it's largely a bot-farm. They don't care about sources or reliability of anything or BPL issues - they're a bot farm with a mission of inhaling as much raw data as possible from anywhere and everywhere. A handful of Wikidata-enthusiasts eagerly began switching infoboxes and other templates to remote-display of Wikidata values. In some cases they engaged in bulk-deletion of content from Wikipedia, so that the newly-empty Wikipedia templates would pull and display nothing but Wikidata values.

Some editors began to object and push back. Everything was in chaos and things got ugly.

• May 2013 WP:Requests_for_comment/Wikidata_Phase_2 was the beginning. The Foundation gave a sales-pitch of awesome new features we could use (or not-use) however we wanted. A no-strings-attached "gift". The community allowed Wikidata to be enabled on Wikipedia, so we could try it out. The RFC issued an ambiguous consensus somewhere between "allowing" infoboxes to be converted to wikidata and requiring consensus to convert, it banned Wikidata in article text, and other parts of the article (like external link templates) were overlooked/indeterminate.
• The 2016 RFC WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Wikidata_in_infoboxes,_opt-in_or_opt-out? closure basically said there was widespread confusion, split views, and that we'd need another RFC to produce any meaningful outcome.
• November 2017 WP:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Motion:_Crosswiki_issues. The community was in open warfare. Wikidata advocates were running around converting everything to Wikidata, and critics were seeking-and-achieving consensus to roll back case-by-case. Massive wasted-work and disruption as data-enthusiasts wiped out the content from THOUSANDS of pages, replacing them with empty infoboxes-pulling-values-from-wikidata and per-consensus other editors had to rollback and reconstruct all of those pages. Tempers flared, ARBCOM case filed, ARBCOM declares Wikidata to be a a Discretionary Sanctions area, ARBCOM orders that we develop an RFC to deal with it, and both sides are ordered to halt any large-scale efforts to roll-forwards or roll-back the Wikidata situation.
• Feb 2018 RFC WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_202#RfC:_Linking_to_wikidata was "no consensus" and tells us to run another RFC later.
• April 2018 - the Really Big RFC that ARBCOM told us to run. You're welcome to try reading the close at WP:Wikidata/2018_Infobox_RfC#Discussion, but it's a long rambling "no consensus, go run another RFC". If I may offer my personal summary: One third of the community wants to largely scrap use of Wikidata. One third want as much Wikidata possible, everywhere possible. And approximately one third were (in my opinion) confused-as-fuck and tried to agree with both sides. Basically the middle-third said enthusiasts were right about the benefits and critics were right about the problems. They sorta said we should use Wikidata if we can magically get all of the benefits and none of the problems. Maybe I am biased, but all of my logic classes taught me that "we can use Wikidata if impossible magic" has a logic-value of nope.

The status quo is, approximately, both sides abandoning any systematic efforts to roll forwards or roll back. Revised: looking around, I'm finding that the Wikidata-crusaders have broken the truce. I see they have gone back to spamming Wikidata into thousands and thousand of article at a shot. Ugh! I've got a mountain of WMF-related matters to attend to, and the last thing I need right now is massive work trying to search-out and deal with THIS crap. Alsee (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The other points that need adding include:

• The English Wikipedia (enwiki) is by far the largest Wikipedia, but there also another 300 language Wikipedias. Every piece of data we exported from enwiki into Wikidata became available for use on those 300 other Wikipedias, and much of it has been used. The other large wikipedias also contributed to the datatabase. It is true that enwiki gets the least benefit from that because much of the information is already present on enwiki, so we don't have as much to gain in terms of new information, but we still benefit from having data stored and updated in one place.
• I've spent a considerable amount of my wiki-time over the last seven years working on the code that pulls information from Wikidata into an infobox on enwiki, and dealing with the problems and complaints generated over that time. I think I can claim to have a reasonable overview of the issues. I completely agree that we need to move toward getting the benefits and eliminating the problems. But that doesn't happen through magic. It happens by developing the tools to enable editors to reap the benefits and minimise the problems.
• By default, infoboxes constructed using Module:WikidataIB never replace any value that is already supplied locally with one from Wikidata.
• By default, calls to the module filter out values that are not referenced to something other than a Wikipedia project (the WP:V problem).
• By default, calls to the module don't add any new fields to an existing infobox in any article unless an editor deliberately enables fetching wikidata in that article (the opt-in problem).
• By default, calls to the module display an "edit" icon (the blue pen) at the end of each value fetched from Wikidata which takes an editor directly to the Wikidata statement that's used, facilitating finding where the value came from and what their references are.
• By default, calls to the module don't display the contents of the Wikidata label which is very prone to vandalism; they use the sitelink to the enwiki article which is much harder to vandalise.

Can these measures be circumvented? Of course, nothing is foolproof. Can they be improved? Yes, but you'll be very hard-pushed to find any sensible suggestions for improvement that haven't been implemented.

New editors are arriving on enwiki all the time, and a lot of them are more inclined (in my experience) to want to make changes like automatically-generated infoboxes. Nobody wants to see conflict break out, so we need the two extreme "thirds" to start working with the middle "third" to make sure that when changes get consensus, they can be implemented seamlessly. --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi RexxS. Most of your points above I would summarize by saying that I think you do a great job making the wikidata stuff work as well as possible. I do get it why some people support the wikidata approach. The issue is the things you can't fix or and can't meaningfully improve. That's where discussions break down. The pro side wants to talk about the things you can do and you can improve. The con side wants to talk about the things you can't fix. The two sides see approximately nil value re-re-re-discussing the opposite (irrelevant) topic. To oversimplify, it's a question of whether Wikipedia should be handling the content as remote data. There's a lot of unavoidable baggage that comes with doing it that way.

While we may be on opposite sides of this issue I do hope for the ideal that we both want the "middle third" to express a resolution, and that we collaborate whichever way it turns out.

What upsets me is when it appears the 'truce' is being violated. (Note: I'm not pointing at you.) To quote ARBCOM: editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used). That ARBCOM directive has technically expired. When I see a wikidata-advocate WP:Boldly make a large scale roll-forwards of wikidata negligible or no consensus, I feel a strong urge to declare an equal right for wikidata-critics to WP:Boldly preform large scale roll-backs of wikidata with negligible or no consensus. That's not how we should do things. Alsee (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you absolutely (apart from the bit about me - I just code stuff that people ask me to). I suspect that the drive to draw more and more information from Wikidata is irresistible – Module:WikidataIB is in use on over 60 Wikipedias as well as Commons. But converting from a plain infobox to a Wikidata-enabled one is something that ought to be done with consensus. I don't mean that everybody has to go and get permission before making an edit – that is anathema to me – but I do think that bold edits that are reverted for good reason should immediately trigger a discussion and a consensus genuinely sought by both sides of the discussion. BRD should work just as well there as in any edit. I see my part in that as someone who can sometimes offer a solution that folks can agree on after they become aware of the technical capabilities and limitations. I'm more than happy to advise editors on how to structure work-flows to ensure that bringing in Wikidata meets the demands of as many interested editors as possible, but I don't think the stance of "no Wikidata anywhere" is tenable any longer. I do want to see us using Wikidata more, but we already have an example of WMF developers imposing information from Wikidata into the English Wikipedia, and that was sub-optimally done. The last thing I want is to move the responsibility for content away from enwiki editors to unaccountable WMF staff, if they decide it would be a good idea to make infoboxes automatically draw from Wikidata, for example. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yapperbot (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

22:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

21:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list

This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.

• Reply tool: This is available as a Beta Feature at the four partner wikis (Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian Wikipedias). The Beta Feature will get new features soon. The new features include writing comments in a new visual editing mode and pinging other users by typing @. You can test the new features on the Beta Cluster. Some other wikis will have a chance to try the Beta Feature in the coming months.
• New requirements for user signatures: Soon, users will not be able to save invalid custom signatures in Special:Preferences. This will reduce signature spoofing, prevent page corruption, and make new talk page tools more reliable. Most editors will not be affected.
• New discussion tool: The Editing team is beginning work on a simpler process for starting new discussions. You can see the initial design on the project page.
• Research on the use of talk pages: The Editing team worked with the Wikimedia research team to study how talk pages help editors improve articles. We learned that new editors who use talk pages make more edits to the main namespace than new editors who don't use talk pages.

– Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Alsee,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

18:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of 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 14:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

16:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Alsee,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:

• The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
• More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
• Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
• The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
• Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
• On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
• In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Adrian Zenz on a 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 21:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia style and naming" 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 17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometime ago we had a discussion which is now at User_talk:Alsee/Archive_13#Re:_Loop. User:RexxS participated at both the VP discussion and on your talk page. I have found a couple of more examples (among others)

• GitLab, repository, website...
• COVID-19 pandemic in India, go to "edit" mode and find #invoke

--Titodutta (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The first case is an implementation of Template:Infobox software which has apparently fetched info from Wikidata for several years. There is discussion at its talk page and it might be worth raising the issue of importing unsourced data there.

The second case is indeed novel and I've just made changes to it to ensure it only imports sourced data. I've opened a talk page discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India #Fetching sourced data from Wikidata and other views would be welcome. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks User:RexxS. You may also see "en" column of d:Wikidata:WikiProject_India/COVID-19_task_force#Add_Wikidata_values_to_Wikipedia_Infobox. Hopefully the articles won't break if changes are made and provide correct information. Regards, --Titodutta (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've amended the instructions at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_India/COVID-19_task_force#Add_Wikidata_values_to_Wikipedia_Infobox. Hopefully, the implementers here will take note of the message I left at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India and update the others. Once the use of sourced data only becomes routine, it will ease the "loop" problems considerably. --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • You were not logged in. :( Hope the edit won't be reverted. (I guess User:Ymblanter can hide the IP if needed). Regards --Titodutta (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Note: I have also pinged a chat group about this discussion on FB where that project leads are active. Regards --Titodutta (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
      • There's a bug that logs people out regularly at present, but I don't worry about having my IP exposed. It just geolocates to my ISP, Virgin Media in Wolverhampton and everybody who reads my talk page knows I live in the West Midlands, but thanks for your concern. I hope it won't be reverted, as it's best practice to require sourced data even on smaller Wikipedias where they may be less strict. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanx Titodutta. The #invoke calls in the body of the Covid article are especially egregious and explicitly violate the consensus against using wikidata in the body of articles. I've commented on the talk page there. Ordinarily I'd want to act on this, but my computer is causing headaches at the moment and I'm feeling very burned out with a pile of Foundation-level problems. Please keep me informed if there's any RFC or big discussion on this. Alsee (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chrysler on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

19:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" 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 04:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Harassment solutions on a "Wikipedia proposals" 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 20:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)