Hi Mike, I was just thinking about the Dec 12th bot edit that pulled all the Withdrawn reviews. Do you mind if I remove these from this main list? I was thinking it may be confusing for new editors. Just to confirm, as of Jan1/Feb1, is the bot ignoring withdrawn reviews? Thanks again for all your help!! Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@JenOttawa: It's entirely up to you. It might be worth double-checking them to make sure that the update-inline is no longer in the articles as well, though. All edits by the code this year ignore the withdrawn updates. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. IMO, if a Cochrane citation already in a WP article is "withdrawn", it is very important to remove it and replace with the non-withdrawn older or newer (as appropriate) review version. If a Cochrane citation already in a WP article is updated and the new update is "withdrawn", this could be ignored for now. What do you think Doc James? I am going to try to clean up the Aug2017 (verify all the "withdrawn" reviews that are listed and remove them), and then the page may be fine with the way you adjusted to bot to function as of Jan1. One thought: One way to get a feel that the bot is working is between each monthly run, we should mostly only be seeing freshly published updates being pulled up. E.g: If we see a 2015 update to a 2014 Cochrane that is pulled in Feb but not in January, either an editor added the old, no longer relevant version of the review or the bot is missing things. Does this make sense? Another way for quality control (a bit time consuming, but at least to make sure things are running as we wish): I can get a list of all new updates published on MedLine by Cochrane in a month and double check which of the older versions are already in WP articles and that the bot successfully identified these. Thanks again for all your help. None of this is an emergency of course! In general, the feedback has been extremely positive, things are running smoothly, and the WikiProject Medicine community is very happy with the project. (see feedback:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Cochrane_profile_in_The_Signpost). Have a great day! JenOttawa (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I have seen reviews withdrawn by Cochrane not because anything was wrong with them but just because a group felt they were a little old. Being a little old I do not see as justification for removal if their is not a newer version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: without more information as to why a review was withdrawn, would it not make sense to set the evidence back to the last published non-withdrawn review? I know we discussed this before and how it is not clear why reviews are withdrawn. I am working my way through the list right now. Thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Folks at Cochrane were saying they were going to look into this. Any word on that side of things? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I will inquire again @Doc James:. It looks to range from missing info to inaccuracies if a "version" of the review is withdrawn. If an actual review "protocol" is withdrawn, it may be because of a dead-end question / no longer relevant / or the question is asked in a different manner in a new review protocol. This was updated in 2016: [[1]]

I have not come across any reviews that have retracted protocols, only versions that are withdrawn. As of now, if I find a withdrawn version, I have been reverting it to the most recent non-withdrawn version. I think I have only had to do this twice ;). For the purposes of this bot, I think it makes sense to use the most recently published non-withdrawn review version, as I think the bot is doing now. If a entire "protocol" with withdrawn, we could try to manually find the most recent relevant Cochrane protocol or take a closer look as to why it is withdrawn. What do you think? Thanks again for your feedback. JenOttawa (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay sounds reasonable. I remember asking Amir for a method to have the bot ignore certain reviews we wanted to keep regardless of their retraction. Not sure if this new bot has the same? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point, especially for reviews used in the history sections of articles. They do not seem to be pulled up so far. I can add this to the task instructions (how to "protect"a review from being flagged as being updated)JenOttawa (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue I, January 2018 Headlines Australia report: We came, we saw, we conquered! Basque Country report: Books, librarians, encounters and borrowed data Côte d'Ivoire report: #1Lib1Ref, Côte d'Ivoire participates for the 2nd time France report: Fonds André Cros; #1lib1ref; Library of Dinan; LATMOS Germany report: sustainability beyond metrics Indonesia report: Digitizing the letters from Dewantara Kirti Griya Museum Yogyakarta continues Italy report: Seventeen: let's talk and celebrate! Macedonia report: Importance of digitization in 21 century Netherlands report: Local heritage made available through Wikimedia & 3rd Wikicafé Tilburg Norway report: Image collection from Armenia and Sami bibliography Serbia report: #1lib1ref first time in Serbia: 786 references added! Spain report: #1Lib1Ref Sweden report: Photos, 3D and training with the National Heritage Board Tunisia report: Upload Book UK report: Oxford Wikidata project Ukraine report: Libraries at the Forefront of Running All-Out Action for Ukrainian Wikipedia USA report: Wikipedia Day Wikidata report: Our constraint reports won't constrain you! WMF GLAM report: Call for case studies, #1lib1ref, Structured Commons and more Calendar: February's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Mike, Thank you for your help getting the Cochrane Review update bot up and working! JenOttawa (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Newest properties:
    • General datatypes: identifiers.org prefix, season starts, make-up artist, sets environment variable, reads environment variable, Technical Element Score, deductions (in figure skating), Program Component Score
    • External identifiers: Basketball-Reference.com referee ID, Basketball-Reference.com NBL player ID, member of the Assembly of Madrid ID, BTO Birds of Britain ID, Rugby Australia ID, EUAP ID, LoC and MARC vocabularies ID, BVPB authority ID, Amtrak station code, Compagnon de la Libération ID, Gaming-History identifier, Fauna Europaea New ID, Royal Academy new identifier, BWSA ID, Statistical Service of Cyprus Geocode, PARES ID, Inventories of American Painting and Sculpture control number, Lemon 64 ID, Panoptikum identifier, Swedish portrait archive, TORA ID, Cour des comptes magistrate ID, La Poste personality ID, American National Biography ID, org-id.guide ID, Swimrankings meet ID, JORFsearch person ID, Swiss Enterprise Identification Number, Landslagsdatabasen ID, Bandysidan player ID, World Sailing regatta ID, Sailboatdata ID, Deutsche Synchronkartei series ID
  • Query examples:
    • Timeline of the Soviet Space Program (source)
    • Countries with the most sister cities with French towns (source)
    • JO2018: all 108 French competitors at the 2018 Winter Olympics by year of birth (source)
    • Languages used by poeple in Austria, other than German (source)
    • Biologists with Twitter accounts (source)
    • Feed readers by license and operating system (source)
    • List of female UK MPs who were descended from UK MPs (source)

• Development
  • Make grammatical forms persistent (phab:T173742)
  • Improve the edit summary of Forms (phab:T184702)
  • Handle adding and/or removing forms in lexeme diffs (phab:T186317)
  • Improve formatting of the Lexemes(phab:T185332)
  • Enable Lua fine grained usage tracking on more wikis (phab:T186645)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

• Monthly Tasks
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
  • Comment on property proposals: all open proposals
  • Suggested and open tasks!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item.
  • Help translate or proofread the interface and documentation pages, in your own language!
  • Help merge identical items across Wikimedia projects.
  • Help write the next summary!

Just so. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

Hello Mike Peel, Last fall you started and RfC about enabling mapframe on English Wikipedia. A lot has happened since that request and I thought you'd appreciate an update. There's now a different team taking on the task of getting maps in a more healthy state. Part in due to the Community Tech wishlist and part in due to the codebase needing some love. :) This will require a bit of work before anyone's comfortable turning it on for English Wikipedia - given it's size and activity. The team wants to make sure we do some preliminary work before approaching you all again. I hope this helps and sorry I couldn't get more information to you sooner. I'm eager for your thoughts, here, on the talk page for the project, or in Phabiricator. Yours, 172.13.199.59 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Argh, I was signed out when writing that and didn't notice (or got bit by some strange bug?). Sorry. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF): Thanks for the update, that sounds reasonable. I'm not entirely clear on the limitations that are referred to, but I hope that something like the map at pt:Telescópio_Lovell will be possible here at least. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue II, February 2018 Headlines Belgium report: Photo contest Wiki Loves Public Space Brazil report: Starting new GLAM partnerships Bulgaria report: The first Bulgarian wikitown presented at an International Tourist Fair in Sofia Côte d'Ivoire report: Editing with more librarians as we expanded #1Lib1Ref campaign Finland report: Finland's First Wikimedian in Residence to Kansallisarkisto Germany report: GLAM in galleries Italy report: Boosting collaborations Macedonia report: Startup of the WikiIndustry project Norway report: Intern program for library students Sweden report: WiR at The National Museums of World Culture UK report: Scotland's Public Libraries move toward first edit-a-thons USA report: February made me shiver Special story: Pattypan 18.02: The uploading tool now includes STL support Wikidata report: Cool Tools WMF GLAM report: Structured Data on Commons, Wikidata Workshop materials, and Spring Travel Calendar: March's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hi Mike! I noticed that you were the one to substantively update {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to its current version. I'm interested in updating {{Infobox SCOTUS case}}, and possibly {{Infobox court case}}, to support Wikidata, but I have very little expertise in this area. Do you have any pointers on how to proceed? Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)