Template talk:Source check/Archive 1

Archive 1

Small edit request

Would someone please add "True" (with uppercase) as an acceptable alternative to "true" for the parameter "checked"? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done—^cyberpower_{Happy 2016:Online} 19:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy New Year! — Gorthian (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the current implementation is a hack. I tried using value "yes" as an input to the parameter and it failed. Would someone change this template to use Template:YesNo for catch-all cases? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• What's the problem? The notification clearly asks that the parameter be changed to 'true' or 'failed'. What's so complicated about that? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Iryna Harpy: Wrong expectations, and inconsistent behavior with many other (more common and irrelevant) templates. Made me look for the documentation page for at least few minutes and attempt to figure out what went wrong. Don't surprise me.

    In other words, I initially set it to "yes" and the instructions to set it to "true" disappeared. In fact, there was no output at all. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • By the way, I don't read the TL;DR rendered output. I read the markup source and make common assumptions without previewing. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - it's undocumented but "yes" or "true" either will work. -- GreenC 03:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't actually make sense in terms of the converse response. I'm fine with 'yes' as an alternative response, but 'failed' is a specific characteristic of this template. A 'no' response would be ambiguous for the purpose it serves: to inform other editors (or even to remind the same editor months/years down the track) that the archives and fixes have already been checked by an editor who's confirming that the change/s is/are correct, or have been corrected. What does 'no' imply? Ambiguous: A) no = some editor (who considers everything needs to be code-intuitive because any expectation beyond that to be TL;DR) has found it to be incorrect, but hasn't corrected it; B) no = it was checked and found to be incorrect, but the correct ref url or capture was fixed anyway?(!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I won't matter as the template only understands "true|yes" or "failed". Anything else nothing happens. If someone leaves a "no" (which they can do regardless) it won't change how the template displays. If we're not sure what "no" means, it's the opposite of "yes" (true) ie. false because there is no opposite of "failed" which is a non-binary flag. If you're saying there is grammatical ambiguity what the word "no" implies, the names are aliases so they would mean the same thing. -- GreenC 14:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm overthinking it and, consequently, splitting hairs. Checking links is one of those 'specialised' obsessions/grunt work only a very small ratio of editors engage in. So long as unrecognised responses don't work, but the text remains intact, there's no harm done. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Partial working

I'm not sure if it matters for tracking purposes, but in some cases there is a mix of working and non-working links.

Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#External_links_modified

I checked=true in this case. -- GreenC 18:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I think the template should be used two times: once for the those that pass, once for those that fail. -- GreenC 13:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

An example of a mix of true/failed.Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#External_links_modified. -- GreenC 14:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Signature requirement

Once you've checked the sources, are you required to sign to notify people who exactly checked them? MediaKill13 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure there is a requirement. It probably wouldn't hurt to document. I believe there is some discussion of redoing the source checking system in the future. -- GreenC 15:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you supposed to do when you found a new, live link instead?

1) What are you supposed to do if you have found the new, live URL of the same article and replaced the dead URL with that and therefore removed the archived link? I.e., when the website owners just changed the URL of the article but the original article is still live and well and just moved? Then the "archive was checked" is not quite true any more or doesn't tell the whole story. Is there a canonical way to handle this rather common situation? Do you just say checked=true and add a comment saying that you replaced it with a live link?

2) It seems like it would be nice to have an extra option for the checked argument telling in a quick way that the new URL of the article was found and the original URL was replaced with the new, live one. For instance by stating another value of the checked argument, "checked=foundnewlive", "changedoriginalurl" or something like that (bad suggestions for the argument value, but maybe you get the idea?). Sorry for not fully developing the idea with good suggestions for argument value, texts etc., but maybe others can help develop it further if you like the idea?

--Jhertel (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, the URL sometimes turns out to just be temporarily down. I don't understand the reason for the current semantics of checked=true. If it's to inform the other editors that you've looked at it and resolved issues (if any) with the bot edit, why not just have the protocol be for the editor who reviewed the bot edit to delete the section the bot added to the talk page? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this should be addressed; I have been seeing a bunch of these notices where the link was just down temporarily, and I reverted the bot edit. A parameter to cover this, such as checked=reverted, may be useful. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, that would be good. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think from the perspective of IABot it won't make a difference. The talk page is purely for community convenience, there is no program monitoring the talk page. Replace the new URL in the wikitext and should be good. -- GreenC 17:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Just checked one bot action

I just checked this change that I saw on an article in my watchlist,, and when I click on the link, I’m taken to the wikinews page. If I click on the original url, that page seems to be dead. Don’t know much about this stuff but maybe it has to do with the fact that the news is now in Wikinews.--Maragm (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Repurpose this template

With IABot's newest tool now available, this template should be repurposed to instruct users to go to the tool instead to fix issues. I propose repurposing this tool so this message is displayed on existing talk messages left by the bot.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 04:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. -- GreenC 15:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally I would get rid of the check-off system entirely and just direct editors to the tool to fix problems. Even if someone checks off, it doesn't mean they used to tool correctly or completely. Rather maybe instruct editors to optionally leave a message about what they did so other editors are informed. The check-off system implies the data is being used programmatically by a bot for some purpose and confuses editors who think setting the Sourcecheck status does something, and adds a layer of complexity creating a 2-step process which is extra work. -- GreenC 16:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of repurposing that too. To prevent abuse and wide-scale damage, the ability to change URL data has been restricted to users of 3 months of age and at least 3000 edits with the ability to change archive URLs to users of 6 months of age and 6000 edits. So users that cannot alter this data on their own can request help by flipping the switch which places the talk page in a category. The interface is a permissions based UI. You as a root have access to all permissions and can grant accordingly, if needed, and admins on wiki also have the admin group on the interface. They can grant non-root permissions with exception of permission changing and blocking permissions. For full information, you can see that here.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 16:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: You may benefit from this information. That huge backlog is about to disappear entirely and become a new category.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:C678, Ok that's pretty cool. Some things to consider, I think what will happen is some editors will both set Sourcheck and fix the URL in the Interface. They'll do both. Or, set Sourcheck, but not run the Interface thinking Sourcheck is enough. Wording of instructions is key. There's also about 400k talk pages hard coded with instructions how to use Sourcecheck (the line before the template appears) .. they need to be updated I guess. -- GreenC 17:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the switch will be to request another alter the URL for them. The instructions will say in small text, "if you need help with the interface, set {{{needhelp=true}}} to request help from an experienced editor."—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 18:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok so the idea is remove {{{checked}}} and replace with {{{needhelp}}}? Or keep {{{checked}}} and add {{{needhelp}}}? -- GreenC 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The idea is to remove checked since it can't be used for the new purpose anymore and any instance using it will have a deprecated warning telling the user, the template has been repurposed.

Ok let me know if I can help. I see two things: writing the new template (I would do it in Lua only because that's what I know). And changing the static text instructions on talk pages (~400k pages). Those instructions should be added to Sourcecheck so any changes in the future would be easy to implement in one place. -- GreenC 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I created the new version in the sandbox. Have a look. I haven't renamed the category yet, but will do that when we move it to the new location.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 23:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: ^—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 15:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to make some copyedits and you can revert or change as you like. I added it to Talk:AWK#External_links_modified to see what it looks like in context. -- GreenC 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a good idea, this way don't have to delete 400k lines from talk pages. I made some minor changes. The wording makes sense for extant cases of sourcecheck, will it work for new cases (assuming the text before it is changed in IABot to remove the Sourcecheck instructions). -- GreenC 17:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It works. The text is controllable from the on wiki config JSON.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 17:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I'm going to make the change to the live template.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Forgive me, I find the change a tad confusing, so if you could explain a bit. I was checking as {{{checked=true}}} on the Wyoming Highway articles as I made my way through them for other reasons. For the articles that have not yet been checked (Talk:Wyoming Highway 273 for example), I am still instructed to set the parameter to true or false. When I set it to true (Talk:Wyoming Highway 272), I am then told that the parameter has been deprecated, which to me means that I should not be using it. Should I still be checking the link and updating {{{checked}}} accordingly? "Pepper" @ 15:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The template has been repurposed to allow users to have a more active role in IABot maintenance. So the new template version no longer uses the checked parameter and as per the instructions, it's pointless to change the checked value. IABot has bee updated to post new instructions on the talk page as of today, but for the old messages we added that little note to not confuse users when reviewing sources. On the plus side, the entire backlog is gone now. :p—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 16:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, why is the bot message still When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know if we aren't using the checked parameter? "Pepper" @ 16:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Because the bot left it and wasn't part of the template. That's why the little note about the deprecated parameter was left on the template.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 16:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to also change the bot's hard-coded message to avoid "Do this, actually wait don't do that we don't do that anymore"? I think the conflicting instructions were what was confusing me. "Pepper" @ 17:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's hard-coded in the page ie. it would mean editing the page x 400,000 pages. I agree it should be done (I could do it easily) but it's up to CP. I think the 1-time trouble of removing the old instructions will save potentially years of confusion answering FAQs. Or maybe create a special FAQ page just for this and link to it from the template instructions eg. "Why is this?". I'll try that in the sandbox. -- GreenC 17:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, even just changing the message for the future links the bot rescues. For example, the message at Talk:Enrique "Coco" Vicéns was left a few minutes ago, but still has the confusing text. "Pepper" @ 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: If you want to update the text on all those pages, you have my blessing. @Pepper: The talk message left behind is on an on wiki JSON config file. It takes a bit before it takes effect though. It should be taking effect any minute now.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 18:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok guess Pepper logged out. I'll go ahead and add it and we can make changes. -- GreenC 18:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Pepper, what is your opinion or thoughts about the rewording at Talk:AWK#External_links_modified, it now links to a FAQ page. Does it help, need clarity, make it more confusing? -- GreenC 18:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think having the conflicting instructions is inherently confusing, but should people fail to realize the new instructions trump the old hard-coded ones, I think the explanation subpage you made is more than sufficient to explain. And the new IABot message looks good too. Thanks guys, and sorry for the delay in responding. "Pepper" @ 21:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So now there is no way of resolving the sourcechecks, right? The checked parameter doesn't do anything, and the needhelp parameter doesn't do anything. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The checked parameter simply removed the page from a huge category that was impossible to keep under control humanly. It was originally designed to let other users know the edit has been verified. But that system was not very effective in letting users contribute in improving bot reliability. So now the template points users to the IABot Management Interface, where users can have a direct impact on IABot, by allowing them to change the archive URL of a URL or the URLs live state, or the access time the bot uses to fetch new snapshots if it needs to. The needhelp parameter puts the page into a category users can monitor that tells them a user needs help with the interface. So the needhelp parameter has a better purpose and is more manageable in quantity when monitoring the category.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 22:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There's one problem that isn't being addressed by the new instructions: for the end-user (i.e., the editors who actually edit the relevant articles), there is no way of informing other editors that the modifications have been checked other than manually adding a tick/done to the thread. I've already wasted time starting to check changes someone else has already checked. Ultimately, this is going to lead to an ever-escalating sinkhole in actual editor time and energy once there are multiple 'external links modified' on any given talk page. I don't expect that most editors are going to leave a note for others to be aware of the fact that they've been checked unless there is a checked parameter for the purpose of the talk page, not for the bot. Is it possible to add such a parameter? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

that's what I meant exactly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a deceptively simple problem. Does it mean by "checked" that one looked at the links and fixed them in the article itself? Or fixed them in the UI database? Or fixed the links on the talk page? Do you have to do all three steps (sourcecheck, article, UI) or just some steps? More so, what does setting the check parameter do: does it interact with the bot? Does it trigger a change in the bot's database? Is the check required to make the changes permanent, here or elsewhere? We know the answers to these questions but it isn't hypothetical we've seen some of these questions. I believe leaving the verification notice manually would reduce complexity and sources of confusion. -- GreenC 16:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No Green, I believe they are asking us to simply bring the checked parameter back so other users don't needlessly check the same things. It's simply for the other editors to avoid repeated work. The actual changes made to the bot are done through the tool. I'll rework the template to make it clearer.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand, just saying how other editors get confused how things work. -- GreenC 14:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but editors are human and fallible. I've caught an editor out on marking the checked as true on a few articles when the 'rescues' were rife with 404 and blank captures (it took a while to twig). Stuff happens, but editor time being wasted can be simply addressed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have pushed the update.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy work. Wishing you a (nearly) Happy New Year! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm a {{Sourcecheck}} virgin, so I'd like to take a minute to share my impressions.

After years of it being hammered home to always sign our edits.

: {{Done}} ~~~~ 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grolltech (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd second that as an excellent idea. I used to leave a 'thanks' comment with my signature so that other editors would know who'd checked it. Makes solid sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

help please

When I look at the revised citation, I can find the dead link replacement, but I can't find the field saying "checked=". Specifically I am asking about article Auren Hoffman, where the bot recently stopped. But I do see df=. Am I supposed to write true in this field? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The instructions concern the talk page. Edit this section Talk:Auren_Hoffman#External_links_modified_2 and where it says {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} change checked=true. -- GreenC 17:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 December 2017

This template has an unclosed italics (''). Please close the italics on ''An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the {{para|checked}} to '''true''' by adding '' at the end. Anomalocaris (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Make checked=true collapse the whole bot message

How about rejigging the whole bot message and this template such that when you set |checked=true the entire message gets collapsed?

External links modified (checked)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Shakespeare authorship question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303012918/http://durer.press.illinois.edu/baldwin/ to http://durer.press.illinois.edu/baldwin/ When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The current setup is too "noisy" on talk pages, and the done checkmark drowns in the rest of the bot message's text.

Also, the bot message could fruitfully include instructions to remove the entire message from the talk page once checked. AIUI, the system no longer relies on it for anything (including tracking), so there's no reason to fill the talk page or its archives with a gazillion of these messages once they've been checked. --Xover (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree the current method is pretty noisy at times and can drown out other sections making it hard to scan a page for recent or active discussions. This is an excellent idea to collapse by default. User:Cyberpower678 what do you think? -- GreenC 19:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time these messages get shut off entirely. They don't really seem to serve much of a purpose. IABot's error rate is very low now.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Support that! With the tool and API any editor who wants to check history and links can do it. -- GreenC 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• @GreenC and Xover: Please see this RfC I started.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 19:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC now in archive 145 - Rod57 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

Please add:
<noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>
Christian75 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we change the standard message to says its OK to delete the entire talk page section

The bots talk page messages are everywhere (and unhelpful) - if its acceptable now to delete some or all of them can the included standard message be changed to say so ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rod57: I don't think the RfC gives the mandate for that. At the time the messages were placed, the consensus was that they were needed as a quality check on the bot. The new RfC concluded that the bot now is good enough to no longer require this check, but that doesn't retroactively change the status quo ante. The template might say "You can remove when you've checked the edits", but any form of mass removal (whether by encouraging editors to do so or by a bot or AWB run) would technically be in conflict with consensus (not that I'd complain, but you can be sure someone would). Individually removing them on any given article is, of course, up to local consensus as per usual. --Xover (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: I'm just looking for the easiest/best/quickest way to tidy up the (400k?) affected talk pages. If the bot writer wont do it, it would be nice to give permission to other users. Since the section seemed mainly to exist to collect feedback to improve the old ArchiveBot, now that presumably the old bot wont be further improved there is no value (and only time wasted) from leaving the talk page sections ?

If I ask for local consensus on an affected talk page, how long do you suggest we wait for objections before deleting the sections ? That guidance (on how to seek local consensus) could go in the standard sourcecheck message ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rod57: Stuff happening locally at an article should, IMO, just follow WP:BRD: remove it and see if anyone objects (I can't imagine anyone will). I also don't see any problem with the template saying that local editors can remove it at will subject to normal local consensus rules.

The problem I see is that, as I understand it, the messages were a requirement from a community process (not sure whether it was an RfC or something the BAG imposed) because they did not trust the bot's error rate. The new RfC this year only asked whether the bot should stop leaving new messages. Thus, the previous consensus, which applies to all existing messages on article talk pages, still stands. And to make matters worse, for some percentage of those existing messages, local editors have edited the message (filling in the |checked= parameter say) or have had discussions in the section, such that it isn't straightforward to handle them in an automated fashion.

My suggestion would be to just BRD-remove them on the articles you edit, and to just ignore the rest, and to add a carefully worded point to the template so that local editors are reminded that they are free to remove them. They do no real harm so the there is no particular need or urgency for removing them.

All that being said, this is just my opinion (and I'm fuzzy on some of the history). @Cyberpower678 and GreenC: Do you want to chime in here? --Xover (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rod57 and Xover:, last I checked there were close to a million affected talk pages so I'm confused, manually removing them all via BRD? There are good arguments for keep and delete. The arguments for keep, the messages do no real harm as they no longer require editor action, it says "No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices". The messages help as they include instructions how to use the Interface Tool. There are good arguments for delete also, they clutter the page and might confuse editors. I was surprised the first RfC came out strongly in favor of stopping the messages, so another RfC to remove them entirely might also close in favor. Removing them via bot is not too difficult, I would be happy to make and run that bot. Since I'm somewhat connected, would anyone besides myself initiate an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) simply to remove all talk page notices left by IABot? -- GreenC 12:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought BRD was for articles rather than talk pages, and that it was considered bad to edit another editors contribution on a talk page (even a bots?). I don't feel I'm allowed to delete the talk page sections that bother me, and I'm asking that the sourcecheck message be changed to give that permission. Does that need an RfC ? - I've never started one before (or even participated) and don't want to make a mess of it. I thought this would be the place to ask. - Rod57 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

True, good point, BRD probably wouldn't apply. It goes back to the question, who has authority to make the decision to delete? The previous RfC was about stopping new messages, nothing was said about deleting (individually or as a group). It's not like a normal user post, the bot behavior has been determined by community consensus. It might need an RfC either way (delete all, or a Sourcecheck notice to delete individually, or status quo). -- GreenC 23:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Rod57. RfC's are easy. Instructions at WP:RFC. Keep short, neutral and give clear direction to avoid no-consensus outcome. They take 30 days to complete. Here is how I would do it posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Copy and paste there and edit to taste.

==RfC: Delete IABot talk page posts?==
{{rfc|tech|prop}}
A [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_145#Disable_messages_left_by_InternetArchiveBot|previous RfC]] halted new talk page posts by InternetArchiveBot. 

This RfC is to see if there is consensus to delete the posts. It affects about 1 million talk pages. An [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Namibian_Port_Authority&oldid=825153665 example post] that would be deleted.

There are two options for deletion:
:'''#1''' - a bot edits the 1 million pages deleting posts. Archived talk pages will be left alone. Bot operator [[User:GreenC]] has volunteered.
:'''#2''' - the wording of the post is modified to give users permission to delete posts if they want to. Since talk page posts normally can't be deleted by other users, it would remove that restriction. The wording can easily be changed via the {{tlx|sourcecheck}} template, it would not require every page by edited.

Please !vote '''support''' or '''oppose'''. Clarify choice of method #1 and/or #2 in order of preference. 

(RfC proposer sign name)
===Discussion===

-- GreenC 00:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

GreenC. Many thanks for your help. I've done as you suggested. - Rod57 (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Now the RFC has been closed with a weak consensus for option 2 - are there any plans/proposals to modify the sourcecheck template wording ? FWIW I've heard no objections to removal when I've asked on various affected talk pages. - Rod57 (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Done! It's kind of hazy the meaning of the RfC re: watchlist, so I just said "mass systematic". Anyway, the permissions are granted and the RfC linked to. Congrats on the RfC and moving this forward so editors are now free to delete. -- GreenC 14:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Also a reminder when the RfC is moved to archive the template should be updated. -- GreenC 14:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Post-GDPR DNS Whois

HI, Wikipedia has amended its policies due to the recent (May 25th) GDPR rollout; may we continue to use DNS records, unique changes, etc as references, or is that against the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.146.236 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any restrictions due to GDPR. We report on what others have published. -- GreenC 03:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 July 2018

Please change [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts?|RfC]] to [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_150#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts?|RfC]] as the discussion has been removed to the archive. Isn't there some sort of bot that goes around fixing Internet links that have been broken by replacing them with archive links? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- GreenC 21:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

Please change:

As of February 2018,

to:

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018,

When I first encountered this message on a talk page, I was really confused on what it meant. I think this new wording helps clarify it. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs} 22:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To editor 🐶 EpicPupper:  done, and thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Please change the "last update" date to the most recent one (17 July 2021). It's not changed since the edit from 15 July 2018‎.

Also add the editnotice that notifies editors of this template to always replace the "last update" date with the current date if editors made any changes. Ijoe2003 (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Changed to today's date because I bypassed the redirect. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 02:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)