User:L293D/Archives/2018-8
Administrators' newsletter – August 2018[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
- Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
- The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Um....[edit]
What's up with this? This subpage is clearly a testing ground, and rolling my own edits back on it is entirely inappropriate. Please give me a good reason a) why you were in there in the first place, and b) why you felt that rollback was appropriate. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was seeing you post on your TP, declining your own submission, so I visited the page. I saw the [rollback: more than 10 edits] and I figured I'd try clicking it to see what error message I would get, as I thought you were the only editor. When I saw that had actually worked, I tried to self-revert but you already had edited the page twice by the time I clicked "Publish changes". Sorry for any disruption. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion and discussion with other administrators, I have gone ahead and removed your (L293D) rollback flag. You may request it again when you have demonstrated further understanding around when rolling back is appropriate. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll try to be civil here, but it is going to be hard for me. I have made approximately 4,100 constructive rollbacks since I was granted the flag seven months ago, and for one bad rollback, you're removing it? On average, I use rollback twenty times each day. I need rollback. Yes, I know, the problem with my edit was not my the reversion itself, but the assumed lack of knowledge about relevant policies. I agree that I was wrong for that particular edit, but seriously? I tried to self-revert and immediately apologized. I know you're acting in good faith and you're a new admin who's still probably learning about adminning, so I won't call out "Admin abuse!", but I warn you: do this type of thing again and I'll take you ANI. I would rather like to stay friends with you, but I will do this if nessecsary. And also, please restore my rollback so I can continue reverting vandals. Just to give you an idea, I just used rollback 43 times today. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have every intention of letting TSD reply to this thread and take the appropriate action as they see fit, but I should probably mention that threatening the admin that sanctioned you is rarely a good idea. Hell, I was feeling sympathetic in the first half of your response and would have advocated for the return of the PERM, but you blew that right out of the water... we already have enough people who run to ANI whenever they don't get their way, please don't add another name to that list. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) It's true, L293D: aggression rarely makes friends around here, and unnecessary aggression even less so :) but I agree that the gist of your complaint is sound. Removal of permissions for one minor misjudgment is...a misjudgment, although not one which rises to the level of tool misuse. As to ANI, look at it like this. If anyone repeatedly makes the same misjudgments with no sign of learning from them, then you won't have to be the one to have to worry about ANI. IMHO, of course. Hello all! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- P.S.: I would like to know where your "discussion with other administrators" took place, TheSandDoctor, as it must have been off-wiki. IRC? Email? L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129 as a relatively uninvolved editor, it's not a history of one poorly judged rollback, but a series while using several different permissions. L2, unfortunately has a history of poor judgement that has resulted in the removal of other tools/perms as well, see: this block and discussion. In addition "I wanted to see what it would do" is a very, very poor excuse and I suspect that this is the driving reason behind the removal. I'd expect an editor of his tenure and edit count to absolutely know better. L293D The only reason I'm bring this up is because you immediately went to near incivility again and a refusal to accept the consequence of your mistakes, which to me, shows a behavioral pattern. (My unsolicited 2c)CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember that discussion :) It ends with that particular permission being restored a couple of days later, and a (wistful!) hope from the admin that LD takes more car in future. So really, it's that that's the nub. It seems as if they have been, going by the figures they quote above (although obviously Mandy Rice-Davies applies), although I grant that that's potentially a discussion in itself. But since it wasn't part of the removing admin's rationale, it should not be given undue weight. And the civility...is something else. It can be a little overpowering, LD, and that also came up in that discussion. I'd say, in fact, it's probably the most important issue to hand. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129 Indeed but the crux of my argument (or point, really, I don't care about this specific perm) is that the reasoning itself is, in my opinion, reckless and irresponsible. Is Rollback going to break Wikipedia because of misuse? No but few, if any permissions have that power. It's the fact that an advanced user (per their own response above) would do something as nonsensical with RB and then throw the equivalent of a temper tantrum when they were rightfully (and temporarily) on the receiving end of the consequence. It shows that s/he is not learning from mistakes. That's the pattern, but as I said, not an admin so I'm not in a place to deal with perms, just weighing in. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Rollback is a great power? Hardly. I don't think I have rollback rights, but Twinkle does the exact same things and I use it quite a lot.
- (talk page watcher) It's true, L293D: aggression rarely makes friends around here, and unnecessary aggression even less so :) but I agree that the gist of your complaint is sound. Removal of permissions for one minor misjudgment is...a misjudgment, although not one which rises to the level of tool misuse. As to ANI, look at it like this. If anyone repeatedly makes the same misjudgments with no sign of learning from them, then you won't have to be the one to have to worry about ANI. IMHO, of course. Hello all! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have every intention of letting TSD reply to this thread and take the appropriate action as they see fit, but I should probably mention that threatening the admin that sanctioned you is rarely a good idea. Hell, I was feeling sympathetic in the first half of your response and would have advocated for the return of the PERM, but you blew that right out of the water... we already have enough people who run to ANI whenever they don't get their way, please don't add another name to that list. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- While we are at it, I get rollbacked on my own userpage without so much as a hint of an apology -- in fact a properly "aggressive" response, I would say -- by an editor who had recently done the same thing to someone else as well, and no-one so much as drops a note suggesting that they dial back the aggression. Is repeated foolishness only a problem when it happens to administrators? MPS1992 (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to respond sooner, but real life time constraints prevented me from doing so until now. It appears that Chrissymad and Primefac have beaten me to a lot of what I was going to say, but what I will add is that I do not revoke flags without reason/cause. As for your response, I was in the same boat with Primefac. With that said, I too do not wish to make enemies with you, but believe there was sufficient cause to remove the flag. The removal was also influenced by a behavioural pattern as mentioned by Chrissmad. Regarding your request for specifics, I can confirm that the discussion with other administrators took place off-Wiki as you pointed out/concluded, but the specifics are confidential. I stand by my original statement that you may request the flag at PERM. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- While we are at it, I get rollbacked on my own userpage without so much as a hint of an apology -- in fact a properly "aggressive" response, I would say -- by an editor who had recently done the same thing to someone else as well, and no-one so much as drops a note suggesting that they dial back the aggression. Is repeated foolishness only a problem when it happens to administrators? MPS1992 (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Banner[edit]
Some advice, your anti troll banner at the top of your page is feeding the trolls. WP:DENY. JC7V-constructive zone 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BEANS also applies. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 01:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Froomy[edit]
Please don't petition to delete the Froomy, LLC page. It is for informational purposes. I would appreciate more time to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02saliba (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Liverpool review[edit]
I'd forgotten about this review, but I've added more comments if you want to continue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Review my page[edit]
Hi, Please review my page : Dragme IDE, published on 16 august 2018. Draft:Dragme_IDE Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjeet.tss (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Your LTA banner[edit]
Hi L293D. I'm not sure that red banner at the top of your page is doing anything to stop vandals from editing this page. In fact, I think it is making the problem worse. I feel like no vandal is going to look at that and think, "Well, since he asked so nicely, I guess I'll go away." It also gives them recognition, which is exactly what they want. I would recommend removing the banner and applying simple WP:RBI moving forward. Mz7 (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mz7: User talk:L293D#Banner. I agree that it should be removed. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Mz7. Banners like this don't serve any meaningful purpose. LTAs probably just do whatever they've been doing without caring about any message written to them. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 16:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Rollback granted[edit]
Hi L293D. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until {{{expiry}}}. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Gosh, I hope {{{expiry}}} doesn't come around too quickly... - TNT 💖 20:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Same here. Beeblebrox, was that meant to be a short-term thing, or is the script borked? Primefac (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I’ve been doing this too long, I keep forgetting that it stupidly automatically says it’s temporary now. There is no expiration. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Same here. Beeblebrox, was that meant to be a short-term thing, or is the script borked? Primefac (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Your new page patrolling[edit]
Please take the proper time to be reviewing articles before approving them, and make sure they meet content standards. There are several cases that I have found doing a review of your contributions:
- Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord (approved version) - Fails GNG and only presents a single source. Should not have been approved.
- Zhao Jing (volleyball) (approved version) - WP:IINFO is applicable here, and the article needs to be expanded more with proper sourcing.
- Swords in fiction (approved version) - Glaring non-encyclopedic, almost an essay with a single source.
- Westmount Park School (approved version) - Sourcing is a load of WP:SPS and a previous AFD.
- At minimum, 2018 Speed Chess Championship & 2017 Speed Chess Championship should have been tagged with {{onesource}}.
You may wish to take a look at the guide again to familiarize with proper practices. I have only included blatant issues, and left the more borderline cases. Please note that continued failure to adhere to policy standards when approving articles may result in your loss of New page reviewer and/or AFC access. Let me be completely clear that I am not threatening in any way to remove them at this point, but it may happen down the road if this continues. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia[edit]
Thanks for creating Japanese destroyer Yamakaze (1911). However I notice most of the text has been copied and pasted from Umikaze-class destroyer without attribution. Could you therefore please add the {{copied}} template to both articles as appropriate so users can trace the source. Also the ISBNs of the references used for cites have been lost and need to be added manually. Thank you Lyndaship (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Was that a record?[edit]
I've never seen so many reverts so fast... He really wanted to put dick all over that article, I guess...💵Money💵emoji💵💸 15:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was fun... I can't think of anyone faster than that guy. My contribs look funny now :) Also, sorry for beating you to the reverts, but I really wanted the edits :-). PS, if you're wondering how I was so fast, Ill teach you a trick to beat every other vandal-fighter on cases like this one: Most vandal-fighters, when combating high-speed vandals, will reload the contribs several times per miunte, and when they see the [rollback: 1 edit] they click it. But then you have to load two pages each time. To beat everyone (including ClueBot NG) you load the rollback page, (it doesn't matter if you succeed in beating anyone) and then refresh it as often as you would refresh the guy contribs, except you rollback directly, saving you approximately 0.3845 seconds and thus winning the "race". But that works only on vandals that vandalize only one page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- And it's how you make mistakes and have your Rollback permission removed. Wikipedia is not a game, you're not racing anybody to revert, you don't win prizes for reverts. What you will find, however, is errors you make when trying to 'win' a revert will come back and bite you every time you apply for additional permissions and will utterly destroy any chance you've got of passing RfA. That admission above has set you back a year right away. Ho hum. Nick (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- The whole above post is a joke. Yes, its faster to rollback using my method, but do you really think that I'm serious about it? This method works, but its point is to save time in reverting vandals and not in beating fellow editors. I should have been clearer about this in my previous post. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually there's no point getting into a rapid revert war like that. You can't really "win" a revert war unless an admin stops them. Maybe you are interested in raising your edit count using this way :) —AE (talk • contributions) 13:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Of course. You always report to AIV first and then rollback. Otherwise its pretty much pointless. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- After you report, it's better not to revert anymore since you won't "win" the revert war if the vandal is determined (as I've said above). You are also feeding them. WP:3RR is a rule. I got my rollback revoked because of this. Be careful. Happy reverting! —AE (talk • contributions) 13:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Of course. You always report to AIV first and then rollback. Otherwise its pretty much pointless. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually there's no point getting into a rapid revert war like that. You can't really "win" a revert war unless an admin stops them. Maybe you are interested in raising your edit count using this way :) —AE (talk • contributions) 13:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- The whole above post is a joke. Yes, its faster to rollback using my method, but do you really think that I'm serious about it? This method works, but its point is to save time in reverting vandals and not in beating fellow editors. I should have been clearer about this in my previous post. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- And it's how you make mistakes and have your Rollback permission removed. Wikipedia is not a game, you're not racing anybody to revert, you don't win prizes for reverts. What you will find, however, is errors you make when trying to 'win' a revert will come back and bite you every time you apply for additional permissions and will utterly destroy any chance you've got of passing RfA. That admission above has set you back a year right away. Ho hum. Nick (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
AE, you did not get you rollback removed because or 3RR. Reverting obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR. See WP:3RRNO, point number four. You got your rollback removed for rollbacking removals of warnings on user talk pages, which is allowed. I disagree that you shouldn't revert vandals after reporting, see for example Dick's Sporting Goods, where I made 36 reverts in 9 minutes. And I also disagree that reverting vandals is feeding them: see WP:revert, block, ignore. The page title explicitly says that the first step is to revert. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I got my rollback removed because of reverting warring with an IP on their talk page, where the IP keeps removing the warnings and I keep reverting it using rollback. Is this not related to 3RR? You need a better understanding of it. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, its not really related to 3RR. It was problematic because it showed that you misunderstood WP:UP#CMT, a quite important policy. It is very probable that you broke 3RR on the IP's TP and this made you even more problems, but the fundamental problem is not that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Think about whether making 35 reverts in 9 minutes might not have been just as good. MPS1992 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- So what would you have done? Obviously it massacres the page history, but would you leave 7680 (I counted) occurrences of the word "Dick" on an article that gets 21,000 views per month? The problem here is first the vandal, but this is very hard to stop, and then the slowness (or lack) of admins. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Vandalism does not matter. Yes, you can continue to revert after you report if you like, but in this case you’re revert warring on the user’s own talk page, which is different from an article. I don’t disagree with you revert warring in an article, but it’s unnecessary on a talk page (which, I think, is not vandalism). —AE (talk • contributions) 01:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- So what would you have done? Obviously it massacres the page history, but would you leave 7680 (I counted) occurrences of the word "Dick" on an article that gets 21,000 views per month? The problem here is first the vandal, but this is very hard to stop, and then the slowness (or lack) of admins. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk page access finally revoked.[edit]
Whew. Thanks for the help -- my fingers were getting tired. Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, wow. Actually, since I have revert notifications enabled, he was flooding my notifications, so I went into my user preferences and disabled notifications triggered by him. One thing you can do in cases like this is to re-report to AIV without ticking any boxes and typing in the inputbox at the bottom "please remove TPA". That's what I did, and it (at least sort of) worked. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, actually, I think Fish+Karate saw my post at ANI, which is faster for very urgent cases I've found. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of HMS Liverpool (C11)[edit]
The article HMS Liverpool (C11) you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:HMS Liverpool (C11) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Robinaugustine10[edit]
What's with the mass reverts of this user's edits? Why did you revert all of them? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- And another question - if you were going to mass-rollback their edits, why didn't you leave a note on their talk page telling them why you did this? Primefac (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- He was clearly up to no good. Whether it was spamming, deliberate vandalism or anything else I don't know, but he was up to no good. His first edit, consisted of the addition of one whitespace, then he continued either screwing links or adding single words. Basically all he did was to change the distributors and producers of tens of films to "Kalasangham Films" (example) a company that does not appear to exist. I was going to leave a message but they stopped editing and I forgot about it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am legitimately at a loss for words......
- Adding a space is "up to no good"? That sounds like a test edit. And yes, the film company does exist. Just because it's not spelled exactly the way you typed it, doesn't mean you can't read through a link or four on Google and find it.
- You just mass-rollbacked good-faith edits by a new user who is probably just trying to improve the project, without even bothering to ask why!
- It's late and I'm tired, so I'm going to have to sit on this for the moment and wait for other comments and/or sleep on it, before making any decision. Primefac (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, this is serious. Ill spend my next hour on this, as his edits were probably good-faith and the company does turn out to exist, but I t's queer to me that tens of films had wrong information on the for years. It may turn out that this mas one of my dumbest mistakes in the history of my editing. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- He was clearly up to no good. Whether it was spamming, deliberate vandalism or anything else I don't know, but he was up to no good. His first edit, consisted of the addition of one whitespace, then he continued either screwing links or adding single words. Basically all he did was to change the distributors and producers of tens of films to "Kalasangham Films" (example) a company that does not appear to exist. I was going to leave a message but they stopped editing and I forgot about it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
In this diff at least, either there was wrong information of he is wrong. I can't see any other alternative. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Never said they were 100% right, never said they weren't vandalising. I mostly wanted to know your thought process for taking the mass-rollback option without first asking them what they were doing (or asking them afterwards). Primefac (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. I've undid most of my reverts and added references. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hi L293D! Thank you for taking the time to fix those changes after realizing that you had made a mistake. I'll start by saying that it shows extremely good character for one to be able to own up to their mistakes and do what they can to make things right when you do. However, there's obviously a couple of things that need to be said about this and I'm sure you understand. Like I said just earlier: you acknowledged that a mistake was made when it was brought to your attention and you worked to make things right and clean up after yourself, and that speaks loudly in regards to maturity and experience and I commend you for doing so. However, on top of fixing those mistakes, you should have also reached out to Robinaugustine10 on their user talk page and let them know about what happened, what was done to resolve it, and offered an apology. We need to make sure that, regardless of one's tenure, experience, edits, and involvement - that we remember to treat them like human beings. We would have apologized had something similar had occurred where you two were face-to-face as people, and we need to make sure that we do the same things here. I'm not going to scold you or wag my finger at you about what happened; you obviously know that what you did was a mistake and I'd just be nagging at you when I don't need to. I'll just end this discussion by emphasizing that you be careful, and that you need to be absolutely sure that whomever you press the "big red rollback button" on is causing nothing but malicious and disruptive edits. Take what happened as a learning opportunity and apply it moving forward, and just know that the feedback I'm leaving for you here is meant to help you learn and grow your experience as an editor - I leave it out of honesty and love, and with the mindset that I want you to grow as an editor here. My talk page is always open to you should you have any questions, concerns, or just want to talk - stop by any time you want to :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. I've undid most of my reverts and added references. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
User:L293D (AWB)[edit]
Hi there. I found that account on the User Creation Log. I just wanted to make sure it's yours.Thanks! Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)