SmokeyJoe

Sorry for the late reply. Feel free to reuse that title for Wikipedia: Notability (numbers), or a redirect to it. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:49 Z

Hi Joe! I just answered your question on the article's talk page!

Thanks and God bless! Antonio Me! Martin (Whats going on?) 20:55, 24 July, 2022 (UTC)

Hello SmokeyJoe,

 

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

 

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

 

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

You make a good point, and I have replied there. You also write: "Although there’s a lot there, it’s within reasonable leeway for 33,000 mainspace contributions over 21 years." I'm not sure what you mean. I assume by "a lot there", you're referring to total bytes, but maybe you mean "a lot to think about"? Also, what's the "33,000 mainspace contributions over 21 years" mean? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Valjean. They’re a lot there, in your user subpage. A lot of bytes and a lot of edits, and a lot of material that one could read through carefully, which I have not.

There is less in there than the value of your 33,000 mainspace contributions over 21 years. This is the first test for a case of possible abuse of Wikipedia as a free web host. Are you primarily a Wikipedian? The answer is clearly yes.

The valid challenges include that the page is written up like an opinion piece, sourced yes, but still it’s a lot of your opinion. That may be OK, but Wikipedia POV on a sort of sensitive topic like Trump is something Wikipedia should avoid, and that includes screeds in userspace. Whether you page is a humble Wikipedians POV or a screed is a question of whether it’s ok or not, in my opinion and experience. Another point is the misleading title. Why? Archives are meant to be archives, not altered from being a true archive, and your frequent editing of it draws attention. I think you’d be better with an accurate title. You might argue that the title and content is your prerogative, but that is a losing pathway.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good observations, ones I am not able to make myself. Self-insight is difficult for aspies. It still needs a lot of work, and I'll try to remove the opinionated aspects, even if they are based on RS. I need to "neutralize myself".   While I'm working, it's not totally forbidden as I'm "talking to myself", but it would not be appropriate on a talk page or in an article.

As for the URL/title, there are no rules for that, so I just put it there to not immediately draw attention to it. A certain editor was constantly in my head, making me paranoid. I think I'll move it to a vague, but more accurate, title. I would really appreciate more insights and suggestions, but by email. I am a very discrete editor and would not reveal what you write there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

User:BGerdemann (WMF)

----You have already completed this survey.

For further information please contact Wikimedia Foundation Research Team:

surveys@wikimedia.org SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I used the "thanks" tool for [1] but I wanted to specify that I particularly appreciate your politeness in response to my comment, which was obviously (and unnecessarily) snarky -- I should have done better in the first place. --JBL (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mirrored my unjustified snark, cleverly, and I am pleased that we were actually in agreement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply