This is an archive of past discussions with User:AutomaticStrikeout. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Not quite sure actually. I dont mind working on anything at the current moment - Articles, WikiProjects, anywhere where some pair of hands ten fingers might be required... You decide TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Umm... What do I do to improve it? I am not exactly sure on measuring the quality of articles. This is the only one I have been the major contributer of till date. So Idk what are the places where it can be improved (I have begun to get the hang of it for news related articles, but not really for general articles) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
That's the problem we have with these TAFI's. It's hard to find something that enough people are interested in. If you can't find something, that's ok. If you'd like, you could try finding a good candidate for adminship and we could consider co-nomming. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe the problem is that people do not know what to improve. If I knew what exactly are the shortcomings of this article, maybe then I would work towards removing them. But it would require me being shown that the article lacks references, or is loo long, or is complex to read. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd tell you what the problems are, but frankly I don't know. Mainly I just handle clerking at TAFI. It's not getting much participation from writers. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that it has got approved at Pump, it should. Maybe Signpost can help us by having a few editors come there. TAFI could certainly use the extra help to make sure its ready for the main page and the onslaught thats coming. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
And how about personally inviting more experienced users to help around with the maintainance? Cant think of any right now, but I am sure there will be many whose coming would help TAFI TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Saw that. But I dont know of many editors experienced in this sort of stuff. I think some people at the Teahouse might be able to help in making the tutorials; but we would still need more editors with article-space experience to help with properly tagging articles and highlighting potential areas of concern. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
NOOOOOO!!!!!! Dont get tired yet! We will need a lot of enthusiasm when the page actually hits the main page! We need to gang up users and get them to work now! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
With luck, soon enough. The main scheme has been approved on the Pump, and now its about discussing and finalising on the little other issues(how to display on main page, how to choose articles etc), and implementation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I understand RfA well enough right now. Most of those who I wish to nominate are either admins, or have tried to be. Most of those I would not want to be admins are already admins or are trolls. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been considering stepping away for a while and this latest bout of drama is the last straw. I'm not going to rule out a future return, but goodbye for now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope that you come back when the time is right for you. I've enjoyed your valuable contributions, especially to our small corner of the baseball world. EricEnfermeroHowdy!00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Fare thee well AutomaticStrikeout :) I know how you feel, as I experienced that about a year ago. I hope to see you back soon, but I understand if you do not return. gwickwiretalkedits19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous IP Honda fan
Doh! I am sorry to hear about this, not only because I was looking to you for support in the matter of one particularly energetic and abusive IP. He's back. Anyhow, someone else will be able to help. Enjoy your real time - get some flowers or make a baby or something else which is actually useful. And thanks. Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Changing to retirement
Thank you to all who have written kind words above. I have decided to change my status to full retirement and to find a hobby that is less stress-inducing. Happy New Year, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I wish you the best and am sorry to see you retire under these circumstances. It has been my pleasure and good fortune to have known you, and I'll remember you often. Peace, --My76Strat (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for being a part of Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you come out of retirement, and soon enough too.
I am very sorry to see that you are this unhappy with Wikipedia and hope that your departure will be only a temporary one. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I also hope that come back soon. Until you come back (if you do – please do!), you will be missed by many, including me. I think this is the first time I've given out two smileys. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs)03:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It is really sad to see an editor like you retire. Your contributions have been valuable and I always admired your work. I strongly suggest you to re-consider this as I'd not like to add your name to my userpage. — Yash[talk]06:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
CURTAINTOAD!TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wow...I was very shocked when I saw that you had retired...Well, I hope you find your new hobby enjoyable. I am not sure what made you leave, but I will always remember you. After all, whenever I type four tildes, I have to remember you. If you ever decide to come back, please let me now. --Jakob15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You were active in wikipedia and helped wikipedia without being tired. I'm so sad seeing the retired message on your page. But good luck for you in real life and in future don't forget about us.And if there's any thought about coming back in your mind then come back without hesitation. Pratyya(Happy New Year)07:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Pratyya(Happy New Year) — is wishing you a HappyNewYear! Welcome the 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2025 goes well for you.
The two of us both made our first edits on our respective accounts in April 2012, and have both risen far since then (both of us to reviewers, and you to a rollbacker as well). Like yourself, many of my edits deal with sports articles or current events articles. We have interacted on only a few occasions, but I was sorry to hear that you have chosen to retire. I've heard you mentioned as an editor who could possibly lead to a "bright future" to Wikipedia, in a time when many great, longtime editors are either retiring or only engaging in sporadic editing.
I hope you please reconsider your decision. Just one bad RFA doesn't mean you can't ever be an admin, and even many non-admins are often respected and viewed as if they were admins. I'm not familiar with any other events that may have influenced your decision, but if there is anything I can do to show you that it's worth staying, and that there is some greater good that overshadows these bad influences that led to your departure, then I will gladly do it.
Well, I'm glad that you're at least partially back. Perhaps you simply needed a WP:Wikibreak? I myself have done so at times, and it helps to get away from the "daily grind" of Wikipedia, so to speak. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see AutomaticStrikeout remove the retired templates because he changes his mind about retiring, but in the meantime, I don't think this sort of pestering is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the musical chairs, but I have changed my status back to semi retirement. I don't expect to be around as much as I used to be, but I don't want to be completely gone. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you're up to it. I suggest you stay away from anything with Wikipedia: in front of it. You can even do what I've done and completely or almost completely wipe your watchlist so you can focus on just articles. It probably won't last too long, but you'll enjoy editing a lot more I believe. RyanVesey00:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the good advice. I'd rather not get involved in that kind of article. Besides, I'm going to try to limit my time here. Thanks anyway, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's refocus on something important here. My girlfriend is a huge Tigers fan and would like your views on their closer situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, good question (even though you didn't phrase it as a question). I haven't paid a ton of attention to that, but I've just read that our minor leaguer Bruce Rondon will be given the chance to be the closer (he would, of course, have his own separate page if that happened). I've also heard Brian Wilson and Rafael Soriano tossed out there, and Joel Hanrahan was once considered an option before he was traded to Boston. I'm not really sure where I stand on it (still busy celebrating that Raburn was released). Maybe Boston's old closer Andrew Bailey is an option? Or, what about Phil Coke? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ed Wade was secretly a Phillies operative when he was the Astros' GM, otherwise there's no way on God's green earth that we'd have gotten Pence or Lidge. GoPhightins!20:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the Blue Jays are in better shape going into this season, IMO. Then again, remember what Baltimore and Oakland did last year, compared to what they were expected to do. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
True... my Red Sox are gonna be a middle-of-the-road team for awhile... luckily, the Tigers and Cardinals are among the other teams I appreciate (some close family members of mine are from those areas). ;) RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"Furthermore, if you are an admin, you should quickly indef-block every editor who !voted delete during the AfD, as they obviously have a grudge against you and are therefore dangerous to the encyclopedia." Your essay is very good in both humor and seriousness. Cheers. TBrandley(what's up)01:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, we both registered our accounts in April 2012, gave them baseball-inspired names, are now reviewers, and list the Tigers and Cardinals among our favorite teams. Surreal indeed! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement! Had to go to the dramaboard today and that is always disheartening. I just wish I could learn how to write better. My access to research material is limited to the internet and that really puts a cramp into it, not to mention that I haven't had to write anything more challenging than a proposal or a training memo since college several decades ago. We've been around here about the same length of time and I appreciate recognition from a true peer more than from the newbie's that usually thank me. It means a lot. Tiger's fan? I was a Michigander for 25 years (Kalamazoo), but I am a Bleacher Bum through and through. And as there are not many Christians (Disciple of Christ here) around here that are proud to say so, but not insane, I am gonna leave you a userbox I nicked from someone.
You guys may remember a few months back someone wrote to the Teahouse and asked if there was a Christian bias to Wikipedia. She was somewhat a crackpot, but Dennis, I think, wrote her a nice note stating, among other things , that Teahouse may just attract more Christian users because of the Christian credo of being helpful. Methinks he may be right. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps so. I'm glad you were encouraged. It would have been interesting to be there when God created everything, but I wasn't (it was, after all, a long time ago). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a list at the bottom of my user page. Sure, I can add you Curtaintoad, but you probably won't be ready for adminship for a while yet. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have put out a second essay that is particularly targeted at those considering a run for adminship. Of course, anyone is welcome to read it and please feel free to correct any grammatical errors that I may have made. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey AutomaticStrikeout. On the "Adminship" message that you sent me on my talk page, it says "<redacted>" somewhere on the message. What did you write? :/ CURTAINTOAD!TALK!06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This is just a simple survey from my talk page stalkers and anyone else interested in participating. Simply answer the questions below.
Do you think the Requests for Adminship process is broken and if so, do you think it can fixed or is a new process necessary? Also, do you think Wikipedians are capable of reaching a consensus on major changes related to RfA? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
I think that there are good things, and bad things about RfA. Good things are that there's actual consensus before something is done, i.e. a Bureaucrat can't go be bold and then be reverted in promoting an admin without an RfA. However, a lot of editors pile-on their votes, using simple statements as "per x" or "above" as their rationale. Personally, I think every editor should have to explain in their own words why they oppose or support a candidate, and anything other than a "Why Not" which is short should be discounted. That would make it harder for users to just pile-on oppose on someone, and actually have them think about things before they oppose on them. Oh, and for that last question, I think there's no way in hell editors will come to a consensus on a 'new' or changed RfA. And glad to see you've partially returned AS :) gwickwiretalkedits04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
RfA is supposed to be a "transparent" process (you see everyone's !votes, discussion, etc.), but it looks like it only makes matters worse, as users pile on their !votes with little or no weight. Even the Arbitration Committee elections, which are done by a private vote, seem to be less controversial. If adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", then arbcom must be the biggest deal. And yes, there will never be consensus for a new/changed RfA process – people simply have different standards of what they would expect for an administrator. I'd like to echo gwickwire and welcome you back from your retirement. (Shorter than you thought, I hope? ) The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I would find it a fairer process if things like seniority and # of edits were made an objective standard, thus taking them off the table. Limiting questions to one (or another number) per user participating and requiring that they all be in prior to the process would help, too. The way it works now is just uneven and unfair and it gives someone with an ax to grind a chance to grind and grind and grind. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Meta is the wiki that has coordinated a wide range of cross-project Wikimedia activities, such as the activities of stewards, the archiving of chapter reports, and WMF trustee elections. The project has long been an out-of-the-way corner for technocratic working groups, unaccountable mandarins, and in-house bureaucratic proceedings. Largely ignored by the editing communities of projects such as Wikipedia and organizations that serve them, Meta has evolved into a huge and relatively disorganized repository, where the few archivists running it also happen to be the main authors of some of its key documents. While Meta is well-designed for supporting the librarians and mandarins who stride along its corridors, visitors tend to find the site impenetrable—or so many people have argued over the past decade. This impenetrability runs counter to Meta's increasingly central role in the Wikimedia movement.
The dawning of a new year offers both a fresh slate and an opportunity to revisit our previous adventures. 2012 marked the fifth anniversary of the WikiProject Report and was the column's most productive year with 52 articles published. In addition to sharing the experiences of Wikipedia's many active projects, we expanded our scope to highlight unique projects from other languages of Wikipedia, and tracked down all of the former editors-in-chief of the Signpost for an introspective interview ... While last year's "Summer Sports Series" may have drawn yawns from some readers, a special report on "Neglected Geography" elicited more comments than any previous issue of the Report. Following in the footsteps of our past three recaps, we'll spend this week looking back at the trials and tribulations of the WikiProjects we encountered in 2012. Where are they now?
The past 12 months have seen a multitude of issues and events in the Wikimedia foundation, the movement at large, and the English Wikipedia. The movement, now in its second decade, is growing apace in its international reach, cultural and linguistic diversity, technical development, and financial complexity; and many factors have combined to produce what has in many ways been the biggest, most dynamic year in the movement's history. Looking back at 2012, we faced a difficult task in doing justice to all of the notable events in a single article; so the Signpost has selected just a few examples from outside the anglosphere, from the English Wikipedia, and from the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than attempting to cover every detail that happened.
Over the past year, 963 pieces of featured content were promoted. The most active of the featured content programs was featured article candidates (FAC), which promoted an average of 31 articles a month. This was followed by featured picture candidates (FPC; 28 a month). Coming in third was featured list candidates (FLC; 20 a month). Featured topic and featured portal candidates remained sluggish, each promoting fewer than 20 items over the year.
Following on from last week's reflections on 2012, this week the Technology report looks ahead to 2013, a year that will almost certainly be dominated by the juggernauts of Wikidata, Lua and the Visual Editor.
Just a suggestion. While looking at the source of several talk pages you have commented on, I noticed curious syntax highlighting of sections that should not have been highlighted. After careful examination, it appears that the HTML and wiki markup in your signature is not correctly formatted.
Your current signature:
[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|'''<span style="color:Blue">Automatic</span><span style="color:Orange">''Strikeout''</span>''']] <small> ([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#FF8C00">C</span>]])</small>
Notice that the bold on on "Automatic" is not closed before its span tag, and the "Strikeout" bold and italics markup is mismatched. The span style=color:#FF8C00 tag is not closed.
A visually indistinguishable signature with correctly closed tags and wiki markup:
[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''Automatic'''</span><span style="color:Orange">'''''Strikeout'''''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Blue">'''T'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:Orange">C</span>]])</small>
Although there is no display difference, and outside text is not actually altered, syntax highlighters commonly used to aid editing will render text below your signature in the wrong colors. As well, future changes in the MediaWiki software could cause display problems with pages you have signed. To ensure that any pages you sign remain at least technically sound, please consider changing your signature as I have suggested. Thank you. - HectorAE (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so familiar with html, but if the only change AS made would be to add the final </span> wouldn't it have the same effect? His apostrophes after strikeout should be closing the bolding for the word Automatic and Strikeout I believe. RyanVesey22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
In the syntax highlighter I am using, no. It stills thinks everything following "Automatic" is in bold even with the last closing tag. And in any case, separating the words in bold and italicized bold is much cleaner wiki markup. - HectorAE (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for the support you have offered.
He is a child with autism and sometimes he finds it very difficult to understand things,
He does really want to be a great Wikipedian, and I think he will one day if he can slow down and take the time to learn what he needs to do.
I have tried to talk him through some of the messages that have been left for him and I think he will settle down..for now he will concentrate on editing.
I agree. He's just trying to go too fast but that can be typical of any young person (even me when I first started here). Given enough time, I think he'll do just fine here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
ITN offers recognition banners for the nominator and article updaters (see Wikipedia:ITNMP#Recognition), but in terms of WikiCup scoring, only those who have significantly updated the articles can get WikiCup points. For an example, I worked on Wegelin & Co.; here's the diffs showing work I did to update it to be ITN-suitable: [2]. SpencerT♦C01:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't been watching TAFI recently, have you? I checked the most recent article, and it's seen a lot of improvement. I was pleasantly surprised as I had assumed the project was going to die off to some extent since some of the earlier articles weren't receiving much work. RyanVesey17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't been watching it much either except for updating the blurb, moving the TAFI template to the appropriate article and adding the former TAFI template to the talk pages (so basically, once a week), but I had kinda given up on it too, so I'm glad to see that it is picking up some steam. To be fair, the current article was pretty barebones when it was selected, unlike some of the others. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Who, what, when, where, and why
I'd suggest not asking such questions like that at WP:ITN/C (or any other namespace than the user namespace). It's a good way to cause unnecessary drama. RyanVesey20:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It's gratifying (and rare) when my attempts to be funny produce desirable results. Btw, if anyone catches any errors in the essay, please feel free to correct them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a very good, funny essay. And it's not as unrealistic as it seems; I've encountered a few too many IPs (and by that I mean a few IPs) who have done most or all of those things, claiming to be in line with policy. I get their point now!RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Love it. The sad fact is, I have had to argue with the fella you are writing about, but I am betting that everyone who has been here longer than 6 months has met him too. He has lots of names. Are they all socks? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your two comments till just now. Actually, the four fathers part is intentional and the essay wasn't written with anyone in mind. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I passed 60 and owned a 1961 Corvair in the '60s. Loved it. Your example of IAR is so perfect and ironical because Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed[non-primary source needed] would have been rejected if Wikipedia existed forty-some years ago. Many of Nader's assertions were proven incorrect when actual tests were completed even though the book had a huge impact. I can personally attest to the stability of the Corvair.[original research?] Corvair was a great[peacock prose] car. Nader did ignore the rules (of conduct) of his era long before there was a rule to IAR. I suspect he would have been a disruptive editor who ultimately ended up blocked.(WP:NOTCRYSTAL) Your essay includes twists understood by an old man in ways you may not have intended but that parallel your intent. Well done. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER23:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, AutomaticStrikeout, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.
Yep. Scores go back to zero at the end of the round. Anything promoted during the interim period (2 days) can be claimed in the round afterwards, but not until the next round has begun. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
AS, I see that you responded to the second batch of comments I put at the FAC. I'm planning on doing a review for a different article tonight, but will take a look at the West article on Monday. Hope this is all right. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
After six years without creating a new class of content projects, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has finally expanded into a new area: travel. Wikivoyage was formally launched—though without a traditional ship's christening—on 15 January, having started as a beta trial on 10 November. Wikivoyage has been taken under the WMF's umbrella on the argument that information resources that help with travel are educational and therefore within the scope of the foundation's mission.g
On January 16, voting for the first round of the 2012 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year contest will begin. Wikimedia editors with 75 edits or one project are eligible to vote to select their favorite image featured in 2012. ... On January 15, the foundation launched its latest grant scheme, called Individual Engagement Grants (IEG).
This week, we set off for the final frontier with WikiProject Astronomy. The project was started in August 2006 using the now-defunct WikiProject Space as inspiration. WikiProject Astronomy is home to 101 pieces of Featured material and 148 Good Articles maintained by a band of 186 members. The project maintains a portal, works on an assortment of vital astronomy articles, and provides resources for editors adding or requesting astronomy images.
Comforting those grieving after the loss of a loved one is an impossible task. How then, can an entire community be comforted? The Internet struggled to answer that question this week after the suicide of Aaron Swartz, a celebrated free-culture activist, programmer, and Wikipedian at the age of 26.
Continuing our recap of the featured content promoted in 2012, this week the Signpost interviewed three editors, asking them about featured articles which stuck out in their minds. Two, Ian Rose and Graham Colm, are current featured article candidates (FAC) delegates, while Brian Boulton is an active featured article writer and reviewer.
The Wikidata client extension was successfully deployed to the Hungarian Wikipedia on 14 January, its team reports. The interwiki language links can now come from wikidata.org, though "manual" interwiki links remain functional, overriding those from the central repository.
