User talk:DMacks/Archive 24

1616:(thank you for supplying the reference!). But I am concerned that for now it is only a news detail related to controversial events (either what happened that is being petitioned, or the involvement of the external people who are petitioning). I think we should wait to see if there is any impact or additional reporting of this petitioning. That is, "event 1 is notable" and "person 2 is notable", but that doesn't automatically make things about "person 2 taking some action regarding event 1" notable (especially if it's not clear that person 2 is actually 114:

inappropriate. First, the "need blind" section is based on an article that was changed after I removed it the first time, due to the weakness of the source. Looking at the source that is currently listed, there is no concrete evidence that this incident occurred. In any case, it is beyond me why this is needed on the main page. This university, like many others, has been around for almost 200 years, and a student newspaper article shouldn't merit the addition of a section on an encyclopedia entry.

31: 1151: 274: 2228:

behind, as all of this was done with a finicky wi-fi connection that really challenged my patience as I went about editing. I looked around for a free way of generating a 2D drawing, as I'm on an extremely low budget. There's no doubt that the drawing I came up with was crude indeed, but I was hoping for someone like you to come along and substitute a superior (and more completely drawn) image. Thanks for doing that.

3172:. The article says "hot dog", so I (still) object to "usually" as before. You can see from the edit-history that several others do too, and the word "usually" wound up being omitted from the article in the timeframe after the talkpage discussion. So that's the apparent result of the talkpage discussion and seeming consensus of other editors as status quo before you decided to edit-war it again recently. Feel free to 1642: 2405:

document for more than a week. I thought it was pretty much informative as far as the topic was concerned. I dont know why you have decided to delete it suddenly. To add to my surprise, you have sent me a warning. is it a right way to treat? You owe me an explanation about your deletions 1. "what is my face shape" in Facial symmetry 2. "smokey eye makeup" in cosmetics section

3527: 2520:…at the recent Talk I added at Wikiproject Chem, which then references to a discussion at the Infoboxes. The data in these appears to be the bailiwick of a group of Infobox devotees, and so getting process to change will be sticky. But at present, much infobox "info" is so much unverifiable hooey, at least practically spelling—who has time to check a 4084:

your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

2839:. I am aware that this is not a personal attack on me, just that the person being attacked is the leader of my religion and I don't think we should abuse him as such. (Yes you have the right to say that WP is not uncensored and IDLI is very common, and that I'm being emotional, but I hope you wont mind me disturbing you as such) 2445:. And it was the same site as you had been adding in various ways--"adding links to that site" was the pattern that emerged, so I made sure to clear up that pattern ("refspam" is the usual way it's described). Clearly were not getting the message with milder wordings, so I went with a stronger wording in my message. 4185:

Thanks for your assistance on the article. While I disagree with you assertion that I was edit warring, I respect your warning and feel that the move lock is not needed. Softlander was the third person to weigh in and at that point there was a discussion ongoing. If you feel there is enough reason to

4140:

mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Knowledge it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by

2310:

Thank you for everything that you've done! No offense taken at all. I wish I had known about your drawing skills around 5 weeks ago. I had the then embryonic Pachymic acid article in edit mode on a tab on my browser for weeks while I procrastinated. I tried a number of free drawing programs, but

125:

Again, I would like to offer some kind of compromise with you on this, perhaps moving the medical section to the medical school page and eliminating the first two fake incidents. Please note that the tag for disruptive editing is not reflective of this, because a great deal of thought went in before

113:

I wanted to discuss the "controversies" tab on the George Washington University page. I deleted the section because it truly has no business being on the main page of a university. I found no other universities with the size and scope of GW who have any section remotely similar to this. I feel it is

4300:

The red pen of doom and a few other biased editors are fencing encyclopaedic information from the page Karan Singh Grover! Being an admin you should be fair! Please try and see that a few of your editors are unethical and wrong, if you don't believe me check for yourself, there is no good reason to

4083:

You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or

3594:

Hi DMacks, I'm new to editing Knowledge so thanks for your help & patience with me. I do work for Dell. I just read through the conflict of interest guide. I see your comments on the talk page and will make my comments there. I'll make recommendations on the talk page going forward. If you have

2854:

I don't think it meets the revdel threshhold. I agree it's a pile of insults and you are rightfully upset at seeing them, but it's written as "these are the beliefs of some set of people" and in that respect it seems at least somewhat supported by several WP articles and and their sources. That is,

2240:

is one of them. Your revert, although done with good intentions was done for a reason I'm not in agreement with, ie, there having been two different species, but that was not the case. Moreover, your revert of the W extensa article has made the pachymic acid article an orphan again. A source for

1042:

When I fixed the some mistake of python code in "leap year", my code is rollback by you for the reason "Too much detail/WP is not a how-to manual". I'm software engineer, and I found many people don't known the history of "leap year", include the textbooks about programming in china. the wrong code

500:

Unless there's good reason to believe that an IP editor is indeed evading a block, is acting as a sockpuppet in order to evade a block, or is otherwise behaving disruptively, then questioning their motives and activity is itself disruptive. As an IP I've explained my motives to several editors over

3094:

the statements. Self-made claims, such as twitter or a person's own website, are usually not good for awards or achievements. It's too easy for "anyone to claim anything about himself". A link to an award's or charity's own website would be better (they have less reason to make false claims). Even

2320:

What you've substituted in its place is far far better. BTW, the motivation for creating the pachymic acid article emerged out of having done a Google search using the following keywords: "pachymic acid pubmed". Maybe you've already done so, but it appears to me that this is a compound worthy of

1981:

Hi DMacks, Just thought I'd write a note to you as my recent edit has been deleted, Having been a pro musician all my life and notice that the only thing about me is one line to say I sang I Love You with Climax Blues Band is a little frustrating. My reason for adding a sort of biog is that no one

4257:

I am Dietrich Rordorf. When I posted those e-mails, I was no longer a founder/owner of MDPI. It was not out of my own initiative, but I was an order from Dr. Shu-Kun Lin. I have left MDPI by the end of July 2015 because I could no longer bear the strange relationship with Dr. Lin. The sentence as

3955:

Once I saw several unexplained and "on their face" confusing and bad-faith other changes, I did not look in any further detail. You are welcome to make corrections with cited sources. I encourage you to use edit-summaries so others know the nature and basis of your changes. I see you have a track

2797:

guideline lets users remove messages from their talkpage (makes sense), even including some tags relating to active blocks (I don't agree with this, but it's the current standard). Instead, either he'll give up after not getting further attention or waste more of his time for a while before being

2404:

Hi you have said i could be blocked from wikipedia without further warning. I am not a spammer. I dont have an intention to spam on a prestigious website like wikipedia. i am trying my best to put in some useful / relevant information. My submission "what is my face shape" was kept as a relevant

2295:

listed as two separate species. I'm coming into this with no background for this sort of taxonomy:( I found a higher quality ref that discusses the biological origin of this chemical, and it also agrees with the synonym situation specifically in relation to it, so there's no doubt about it. So I

4145:

to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Knowledge to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer

2227:

First, the pachymic acid article. I was surprised that there wasn't even a stub article, so I set upon trying to create one. I started with an arbitrary compound, arachadonic acid, copied the chembox template and began substituting values. I'm not surprised that there were some vestiges left

121:

Finally, the last part about the medical school shouldn't be highlighted on the main page. I could see a potential section on the medical school page, but not for the university at large. Also, the school never lost its accreditation. Due to the complexities of the business dealings with GW and

117:

Also, there should be no section mentioning the US News story about rankings. Why should a data issue like that, which happens at many colleges every year be uniquely highlighted for GW? The same year, Tulane, Emory, and Claremont McKenna all were caught with similar issues. None of them have a

3196:

So, you reverted every edit I've added? I'm trying to learn the ropes around here, but your message and reverting every single edit I've made is an odd way to go about things, in my opinion. Please explain how each edit I made was against Knowledge rules. If I'm not supposed to mess with Alexa

3719:

is just one of however-many novelty/toy or hoax/crook examples you want, including the two secondary-cites at the end of the lead. But looking more closely now, the key items from that list already are embedded elsewhere in the article with on-topic discussion, so I don't see the need the for

2269:

Thanks for starting the article! I was browsing for chemistry images that were tagged for various administrative or scientific attention, no problem for me to draw a nice one. Definitely no offense intended regarding yours. I know how difficult science drawings and articles can be to get onto

2231:

Second, the Wolfiporia Extensa article. Another editor added an orphan tag to the pachymic acid article, so to eliminate that, I wiki-linked from the W extentsa article. In your revert you mention that a different species is involved, but that is inaccurate. If you look at the synonyms for

151:

You recently auto-protected the article about Lucy Hannah so that only administrators can edit it. I therefore ask you to re-add the mention of Lucy Hannah having been the oldest African American on record. This is recognized by the Gerontology Research Group. What Commanderlinx is doing is

2868:

have an edit history including directly insulting other editors and many behavioral warnings. I recommend you (continue to) stick to factual and citable edits, and talkpage discussions based on them even in the face of someone else's edit-warring. Admins seem aware that this one editor is

3515: 3054:

HI, I edited "Mahesh Babu" page a while ago . I have related news articles, confirmed by Mahesh Babu himself on his twitter paged etc for all the text I posted but didn't know how to post the links. All the content was removed now stating that my edit seemed less than neutral to DMacks .

240:

I will not make a judgement about this without a consensus or strong rationale (i.e., "discuss don't editwar") on the article's talkpage (or some policy-based reason that strongly requires content to be removed or added, which is not the case here). In the mean time, I merely froze the

3521: 1180:

or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our

4033:

He's got 24h to think about what everyone's been telling him. I have no idea the merits of his complaint because it's too vague. The talkpage does have some concerns already noted (again non-specific), but I don't know enough about the subject to know if or what to change.

2834:

I know that when on the internet one should grow a thick skin and just let it go, and I also know that everyone has the right to say whatever they want to whomsoever they want. Therefore I'm just asking if a request of revdel has any chance of going through on

1098:

but the jargon conflicts with the article titles. My guess is the polyacetylene is more commonly used for polyynes in the plant kingdom than for the Nobel-prize winning polymer, so possibly a "not to be confused with" notice should be added. In any case

4258:

presented here insinuates that I faked those documents. This is inacceptable. I request that my name be removed here as it is not relevant who within the company fulfilled Dr. Lin's request to compile the e-mails from the company archive.

3678:

For 1, I don't know enough about this topic (or subtle shades of meaning of the terminology) to give a good answer within the limits of secondary sources. For 2, I don't know if you need *any* primaries if you have a secondary/tertiary.

3216:

for SimilarWeb, and you are one of a series of editors performing that same activity over the past month or two. Links to that website are currently listed as a likely spam problem. And most of the other edits you performed appear to be

4220:

Looks like we edit-conflicted clicking "revert". WP registered yours first, then my action seems to have been registered as a revert of your revert rather than of the actual edit you and I were both trying to revert. Sorry about that!

2296:

re/undid the link changes, and also put some notes in the genus and species articles clarifying that there is confusion. Let me know if there's anything further to clean up, or in general if you need help with (bio-)chemistry content.

122:

Universal Health (which many universities have followed since GW partnered with), and the fact that this was the first of its kind, red flags were raised and GW had to deal with them due to being the first institution to do this.

4355:

No need to apologize! WP is all about moving towards more-correct and more-clearly-explained. I added a link for the key idea of "falsification", and would be happy to see any other changes that would make it more understandable.

1172:

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

3533: 3699:"Sound like anti-gravity" - to whom? I can imagine several situation when this content can be relevant, e.g., when some crook tried to sell it as anti-gravity or it was used in film to imitate antiG, etc. However we need a 3539: 2855:

it's (at least on its face) faithfully reporting what that set of people say. And that position is relevant to this editor's comments on the article/template content. That's about the limit of what one is able to say

1043:

is used for getting "leap year"(before 1582). So, I spend some time to study this question, and wrote the code which let more people know "leap year". can you allow the code is added to the context of "leap year".

501:

the years--both admins and non-administrative--but never dignify the unwarranted interrogation by those accounts who assume negative motives, without reason or purpose. It's intrusive and constitutes harassment.

2559:

Hello - Looks like I updated a source on Rider University page by logging out. This was not my intention, I assumed you had to be logged in to make the change. Apologies for the confusion. I am new to Wiki.

3265:, regardless of whether the content is good or not. Others say it is not good. Please discuss with them. Edit-war, and you will have your right to edit revoked, which means you lose even if you are "right". 1034: 547:

The IP in question is not a blocked editor. I can't claim to know their reasons for editing while not logged in, but if they want to, and aren't causing harm, I'm not sure I see reason for complaint.

1982:

else will, its not meant to be self promoting in any way just to list one's achievements, I thought Knowledge was exactly that , an information page. Any way I do apologise, Thanks Derek Holt

3703:, right? It does not matter that a wikipedian thinks something "smells like anti-gravity" They didn't look like anti-G for me. Heck, I myself defy gravity every morning :-)- üser:Altenmann 606:

I'm not interested in blocking (and blocking an IP-hopper is pointless), but only in raising questions which others may have overlooked. Kafka says the user is OK, so you can zip it now. ←

2241:

pachymic acid is inarguably this mushroom, which is known by Wolfiporia extensa AND Wolfiporia cocos. They're synonyms for the same species. Would you consider reverting your revert?

2037:

You can now play Ogg video files in some browsers that don't support this format. This solution uses JavaScript and works on desktop browsers only for now. It will work on mobile later.

3614:

Hi, we are staff from SCGS and we would like to help to keep the info up to date. Please advise how we can assist to keep the information updated. Thanks. email: scgss_ict@moe.edu.sg

1684:. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. 1083: 118:

section about it. That is probably because there is no reason for any of them to have a section about this. I strongly urge your cooperation with the deletion of this useless content.

3832:

The notifications list has been split into two lists. As a first step, notifications about messages on your user talk page will be placed in the second list. Feedback is requested at

1124:

hatnote, but I agree we need a different solution given how many incorrect inbound links there were. I wonder if there is an alternate term for the conducting-polymer topic, so that

818:

You (and I and everyone else who writes here) are forbidden from choosing what quotes we think are notable or especially representative of this person's position. Instead, we are

4127: 2629:

Many Wikipedias can now use information from any Wikidata item in any Knowledge article. Before they could only use the Wikidata item that matched the subject of the article.

2468:

thanks for assisting me. just a newbie on Knowledge so, not so information i got right now. About how to write and what is appropriate thing to post on a page. Thanks again.

152:

determining what is reliable or not instead of letting a third-party source do so. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND WIKI:OWN, both clear violations of the Knowledge guidelines.

1075: 665:(because you are living in US; maybe native speaker). Before I changed it - I tried to search for it (outside Knowledge too)... Do you have any suggestions to which article 3820:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 8. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from September 9. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 10 (

3548: 537: 523: 510: 3384:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 1. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from September 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 3 (

3803: 3568: 245:

to force you two to stop edit-warring before you wound up getting blocked. Ger others' opinions, get other references, links to support the reliability of your source (

2135:

is getting a new look. The look of buttons and checkboxes has already changed. This week, UploadWizard gets a new date picker. The other text fields will change soon.

4405:

Dear sir, In Chitral 80% people speak " Chitrali " language rest 20% speak Pushto, Urdu and Kalash. Kindly please correct the language in article chitral Best wishes

4269: 3225:

problem. Have you been using multiple accounts? Do you have any personal or business affiliation with SimilarWeb? Care to clarify either of these situations for us?

2813: 2775: 1987: 529: 502: 4175: 2980:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 25. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from August 26. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 27 (

2821: 2807: 2677:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 18. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from August 19. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 20 (

2125:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 11. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from August 12. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 13 (

126:

this edit was made. However, with the standard level of content that should be expected on a widely read article such as this one, I don't think this should stay.

2783: 486:...an editor has a registered account, which he claims is not blocked and has various barnstars or whatever, then what's his excuse for editing as an IP-hopper? ← 1976: 1907:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 4. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from August 5. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 6 (

3850:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

3584: 3398:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

2994:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

2696:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

2152:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

1921:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

1522:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

1254:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

823: 3903: 3437: 3017: 2719: 2187: 1991: 1944: 1545: 1499:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 28. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from July 29. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 30 (

1289: 1235:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 21. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from July 22. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 23 (

957: 926:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 14. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from July 15. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 16 (

528:

Quite the contrary: unless you can cite a reason to question my actions, or are prepared to open a discussion at SPI or any noticeboard, you are out of line.

404: 1766: 3552: 1609: 1355: 989: 381:

You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

355:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 7. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from July 8. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 9 (

3923: 3876: 3851: 3457: 3399: 3037: 2995: 2739: 2697: 2207: 2153: 1964: 1922: 1565: 1523: 1309: 1255: 977: 424: 382: 436: 4235:

Aah, alright. I was confused because you restored the edit, albeit accidentally, of a user you had just blocked, who has, requested for an unblock.. --

1806: 3861:

You can join the Wikitech ambassadors mailing list. The list is for Wikimedians interested in spreading information about Wikimedia technology news.

3122: 3066: 1594: 1395: 1029: 133: 3940:

Howard University has more than a medical and law school, why are you omitting the pharmacy and dentistry school ... both are post-bachelor degrees

3234: 476: 4146:

another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at

4137: 3941: 3556: 2910: 2896: 2882: 2476: 2437:. I see others had already left you several talkpage notes about your edits, and I see that many your similar edits had been undone. Your edit to 2261: 2032:

The "Your preferences have been saved" message has changed. You can now see more easily what was saved when you change preferences several times.

2848: 2413: 2224:

This was one of the more involved edits I've made thus far to Knowledge. I'll be the first to admit that I was in over my head from the start.

4027: 3185: 2757: 2219: 890: 4289: 2595: 2393: 576:

The problem is, I've seen this song-and-dance too many times. But if Kafka is convinced the registered editor is not blocked, then so be it. ←

4428: 2817: 2779: 1602: 666: 641: 628: 614: 601: 584: 533: 506: 4244: 4230: 4057: 4043: 4003: 2548: 697: 3501: 3104: 2774:

Hi DMacks, it looks like ability to edit their own page might need to be reconsidered. I've already reverted their crap enough. Thank you,

2344: 2330: 2305: 1629: 4121: 3965: 3729: 3417: 2509: 1137: 729: 3134: 3078: 2533: 2454: 853: 839: 780: 766: 744: 571: 4365: 4316: 1326:

Hello DMacks, I Kindly Request You To Protect This Knowledge Page of Kick (2014 film) because of High Vandalism by unknown users link :

4009: 3688: 2321:

inclusion in an encyclopedia! Once again, thanks. Should I run across something like this again, would you be willing to collaborate?

3291: 3274: 3161: 3629: 3604: 1786: 1577: 1375: 1349: 1009: 456: 3282:,You continue to wrongly delete the information on the page Tymoshenko. I think admins will block Your actions in the near future.-- 2441:

was the one that I first noticed and that pushed it over the edge...not even an attempt to add content, just dump in a link. That's

2378: 1242:

You now see more warnings in the image viewer. They tell you to be careful when using the image, for example if it shows a person.

1186: 703: 4186:

hold that lock I have no further argument other than, I will not be changing that again, nor is it likely the other editor will.--

3911: 3751: 3736: 3445: 3315: 3300: 3086:

Yes, it is wikipedia policy that all factual claims, especially about people on their biographical articles, have a citation to a

3025: 2936: 2921: 2727: 2617: 2602: 2195: 2015: 2000: 1952: 1827: 1812: 1553: 1416: 1401: 1297: 1219: 1204: 965: 877: 862: 412: 315: 300: 3994:

No worries! It was already a mistake there before you changed it, and you at least made it a self-consistent and reasonable way.

3095:

better would be a published media report (news website, etc.), since that is more in keeping with the reliable-source guideline.

1094:

Thanks for catching that distinction - I didnt know about the polyyne page. A slew of plant articles were linked incorrectly to

1079: 3899: 3855: 3433: 3403: 3013: 2999: 2715: 2701: 2183: 2157: 1940: 1541: 1285: 953: 400: 4419:

Please change the article, including a proper citation to support this information. I do not have a current reference at hand.

3979:. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future and to not become a menace to the factual integrity of Knowledge. Regards -- 3564: 3560: 3146:

We already had this conversation last year stop changing my word i already made my case you are a bad person on a power trip.

2582:

No worries! But the entry itself is not acceptable. A person needs to meet Knowledge's "notability standard" to be listed. See

2575: 2311:

got mired down, finally settling for the program I ended up using. So I suppose you could call what I created a image stub. :)

4377: 4195: 812: 3907: 3441: 3206: 3049: 3021: 2829: 2751: 2723: 2191: 1948: 1782: 1779:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1549: 1371: 1368:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1293: 1005: 1002:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 961: 905:

There was a problem with editing on Thursday. Some tools like bots and VisualEditor were broken on all wikis for 10 minutes.

452: 449:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 408: 3221:. That's another common activity of the other accounts that are refspamming for SimilarWeb. So now there is also a possible 2812:

I didn't know that some active block templates could be removed, and take it that the policy has changed. Much appreciated,

2425: 4395: 3949: 3763:

You can now mention up to 50 users in a post and they will get a notification. Previously you could notify up to 20 users.

3621: 3580: 3153: 2661:

On August 12 the machine translation servers and the Content Translation tool didn't work. This was fixed on the same day.

2515: 1860:

The error page you see when the sites are not working is now simpler and easier to read. It also shows the Wikimedia logo.

1761: 291: 4214: 3672: 1198: 4308: 4265: 4104: 3589: 2567: 1983: 637: 610: 580: 519: 490: 327:

On the mobile site, you now see more information when you search for a page. It now shows the description from Wikidata.

4273: 1443: 682: 3802:

The Content Translation tool published some pages with the same reference repeated several times. This has been fixed.

3710: 3328: 3256: 1345: 3988: 3750: