User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you SmokeyJoe Arangel1970 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

Although we disagree on Draft:Pulse Fitness, I absolutely agree with your point re. "(2) rejected for improvement, or (3) rejected outright" at the Village Pump. I almost think we need a fourth button, along with Accept, Comment, Decline, that is something like "Never in a million years", or "Begone, and never darken our doors again". Obviously, we'd need to tone the language down. KJP1 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 06:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Idyllwild Town Crier

Hi. Thanks for reviewing the page. I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in on the notability issue. Personally, I find it unjustified and unfair, which is why I am soliciting your opinion. There's a discussion on the talk page. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion ...

... means just that.

Same with "No further edits should be made to this section."

So I have reverted this edit[1] by you to a closed CfD.

If you object to a close, post on the closer's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Gus Giordano

If you had time, I'd appreciate a view on the above. Although it looks like it has inline cites, it actually doesn't and would appear to be completely unsourced. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Wow... I don't know what to say. I've never had a plan named after me! <Wipes away a solitary tear>

Seriously, though, that gave me a small chuckle (even if it may not have been your intention), so really, thanks! Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just supporting BHG’s support for your sound plan, her words.
I had a look back a while ago, for over ten years, we have often had encounters in broad agreement, but where you present more sofisticated or sensible implementation plans. In my mind, a Black Falcon plan is very probably a very good way to do it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
My sincere thanks—I appreciate your kind words. I know we've often agreed and occasionally disagreed, but you always have an insightful perspective. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Occasionally disagreed is a bit strong. Occassionally we debate along different lines and things move on before the debate is resolved. The only disagreement that comes to mind is the notion that members of wiki-advocacy categories should be invited to the CfD. I argued one side, and accept yours and VegaDark's point that a rush the wiki-advocates will make the discussion difficult to close. I think outside experienced closers can handle that, but agree that it is complicated. "Wikipedians who have had the appearance of their user page modified against their will"? The members who signed on to that one-liner included some experienced, normally well respected Wikipedians, and I certainly gained no no pleasure of what ensued. It was distressing. Was it a worthwhile catharsis? I was concerned in particular that VegaDark took the personal insults personally. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Current is not terrible"

You're not British? Current is way beyond terrible. We never use middle names like that in the UK, for anyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the nom B2C has now proposed instead Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Brown

I withdrew the nom and thinking of going with a modified version of what you suggested, using a table. What do you think?

Draft:

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table

Thanks! --В²C ☎ 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC) 

Hi, I have created Rahul Verma (social activist) after Allow creation decision in deletion review/Log/2018 February 9 [2]). Please have a look. Warm Regards Shibanihk (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template:Promising draft

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template:Promising draft. VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude seriously...

Just type "reply" and it will suffice. GMGtalk 23:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a script. I'm pretty sure I've seen other editors use it as well. Might be worth turning it off for a while? Primefac (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Whoa. I see that sinebot detected that I used the wrong number of tildas. I like that bot feature.
I guess the surprise is the number of characters in the edit summary. I count 971. That's huge, I've never seen that possible before. I guess the software has changed. I'll have to take care not to add so much to the edit summary. I like to copy my entire post into the clipboard, in case of edit conflict or browser crash, but I see there will now be a big problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup. People on IRC are of the impression that the change happened within the last couple of hours. But copy/pasting your comment still isn't a terribly helpful summary for folks browsing their watchlists. GMGtalk 23:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was helpful, I find it helpful. Now that someone has said something, I'll try to break my old habit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey no worries. I had to have it explained to me too. I was just like "Holy wall of text batman!" GMGtalk 00:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This habit is going to be hard to break. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack

I, for one, consider referring to a fellow editor's "delusions" as a personal attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequested_moves&type=revision&diff=828522325&oldid=828519002

Please revert.

Thanks --В²C ☎ 02:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I can clarify. “An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument”. Your arguments are “self consistent” for sure. You are not stupid. You have a problem of lack of self perception of your own biases. Anything that contracts your framework you write off as wrong. Occasionally, rarely, you attempt to work out why people disagree with you, but not very successfully I think. You are fixated on your own perspective, and that perspective appears impenetrable by any number of people or explanations. I chose the word with care, I believe you are deluded in your firm fixed beliefs, and as such you are disruptive to the community. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
even if 100% accurate it’s a violation of NPA and certainly has no place on a policy talk page. —В²C ☎ 08:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought it justified, called for, given your multi-pronged venting of so much opinion, mostly unactionable, unconnected to improving the process. Sometimes, short clear statements are needed. It was commenting on the person, ok, but it was less of an attack that you would have felt if I’d have initiated a “ban B2C from WT:RM for a week” thread. That would have invited others to jump in and the huge distraction would have continued. On your part, your comments to TonyB, telling him to go read a proper close, and telling him he close wrong, that was a personal attack. It was not defensible constructive critics. And then bringing in stories of self driving cars? Maybe it works for some people, but it sure didn’t illuminate anything for me, and I saw no sign it was helping anyone else understand what you were really trying to say.
If you want to criticise the close, you should do that only at MRV. Closer talk pages are for asking questions, maybe making requests or suggestions, but not criticism or labelling a close as “wrong”. WT:RM even less so.
I admit to being irked by your comments on deciding consensus. I really believe that you don’t get “consensus” in difficult cases. Maybe if you try to participate more in non-RM discussions? AfD has plenty of line decisions that have to be made.
You appeared to me to have been suffering an excited and emotional rush of verbosity and were proceeding on the assumption that you are surrounded by people who just need it explained to them one more time. Sorry, but I think it called it accurately.
So you think the community gets things wrong sometimes. Much like I think the community was wrong on HRC, and on not being firm with undeclared paid editing, and on a variety of things in AfC? While complaint about these things, it is easy to forget that others don’t appreciate the verbosity, particularly when they think that discussion had finished. It’s like finishing a difficult meeting and someone follows you to lunch wanting to continue a pointless argument, pointless because the meeting is already over. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe] - I definitely agree that the community is not firm enough with undeclared paid editing. I think that is because assume good faith does become a suicide pact in that some of us believe that we have to assume good faith of an editor who says that they aren't being paid; they are just a single-purpose account or edit sporadically. We definitely need to start applying the duck test to paid editing that is currently applied to sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw and apologise

Hi SmokeyJoe. I expect a withdrawal and an apology on AWNB for your bad faith comment about my "sneakiness" here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Further, if you feel I have misused the admin tools and deleted items inappropriately you should report me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Mattinbgn, your post

    Personally, I would prefer us to get on with removing all the superfluous disambiguation terms from all Australian locality titles. This would however have the potential to create some (short to medium term) disruption so the best approach in my mind is the incremental one - rename articles to their succinct and precise title as and when required. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

    amounts to a statement if intend to quietly move Australian place names contrary to the understanding the these pages will not be moved. The wording of NCAUST represents an acceptable compromise for what is usually done, but the consensus behind it was very shaky, very contest. You are undoubtedly well aware of the contentiousness of these page moves, being one of the most vocal proponents for minimising the titles of Australian towns. By doing the page moves, as seen in your move log, undisclosed, on quiet pages, no user of WP:RM/TR let alone WP:RM, in full awareness of the contentiousness of these page moves, you are, in my considered opinion acting "sneaky". I stand by that word, by the measured strength of that word, and further accuse you of feigning offence.
On the issue of G6 deletions to enable the page moves, I draw attention to it noting the common criticism of overly generous reference to G6, often and currently evident at WT:CSD. You have used your admin privileges, namely G6 pages, to enable your sneaky pages moves to minimised the titles of Australian towns. I ask you to stop that now, and to use WP:RM instead. I also ask you to confirm for me whether any of the G6 deletions deleted pages with non-trivial histories behind the redirect. If the worst of my allegations are true, I do not consider it worthy of a WP:ANI thread. Instead, we should seek a clearer consensus on Australian place names, and a clear consensus on what to do the vast majority of Australian towns that are titled under the comma-state convention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
My statement suggests nothing of the sort - only your continued and unrepentant assumption of bad-faith would lead to such a tendentious reading. Continued WP:RM discussions for non-controversial moves (and that is what they are; moving an article title to one that complies with the guideline is almost by definition non-controversial) would be pointless given that every single name I have taken to RM has seen consensus for a mov,e as has every move I have made that has later been challenged. Regarding G6, point to one actual misuse of G6 rather than bad faith handwaving. You are making the serious accusations, you provide the evidence. Lastly, my offence isn't feigned - I have been an editor in good standing here for more than 10 years and I stand behind my editing and admin record. Your accusation of bad faith is by far and way the worst accusation made towards me (other than by obvious trolls) in that time. I remember when WP:AGF was a thing here. You obviously don't. Again, withdraw and apologise or I will escalate. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No allegation of bad faith. You believe in what you were doing. The problem is you are doing bold pages moves quietly despite knowing they would be opposed if advertised.
G6. I asked you to confirm the lack of deletion of non-trivial histories. I don't have the privilege of access to that information.
I do not withdraw or apologise. I was considered and deliberate. I want your bold page moves to stop. I am more than happy for you to seek to survey others about the appropriateness of a particular word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, consider me "surveyed" (as I already remarked on your use of "sneaky" on the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard). I do not see how doing an action that conforms with a published guideline (whether or not you personally agree with it) is "sneaky". And I don't see how the use of the term "sneaky" is consistent with your remark above that there was "no allegation of bad faith". I have a lot of Queensland place articles on my watchlist and consequently I have noticed Mattinbgn doing such moves, so they haven't been done on the "quiet" as anyone with a watchlist can see them and many of us probably did. As I recollect there were always edit summaries that made it quite clear what was happening. I was certainly aware that Mattingn was gradually implementing the guideline; he has never been bold or secretive about it? Surely you would have noticed Mattinbgn doing such moves when checking your own watchlist each day, so why wait until now to raise an issue about it? And despite you being apparently well aware that there was a guideline and that it was a contentious issue within the Australian community, you did not choose to raise the matter at the Australian Wikipedian's noticeboard, but preferred to push for an outcome contrary to a guideline on Caboolture. What adjectives would you use to describe your own behaviour? FWIW, I had no involvement in creating that guideline, I have somewhat ambiguous feelings about what thay guideline says, but I do know it's there and, while I might sometimes forget to follow it, you can look at my move history and see that I too regularly rename place articles as Mattinbgn does, to try to be more conformant with the guideline. Kerry (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I was not happy with the guideline, but noted it did not authorise doing mass moves. I haven’t found the evidence of consensus supporting it. I had not noticed a pattern before, but had been thinking the issue had gone quiet, for many years. I have noticed others unexpectedly make these moves to pages I watchlist, but I usually walk away from little things that annoy me. I disagree with the historical rampant minimalist titling because it is bad for readers, and have never met an editor give a coherent product-based explanation. Even on the bulletin board, where twice I’ve been told someone used to think like me, but changed their mind, they given no “why”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kerry, with all due respect, I find your claims (as well as Mattinbgn) to be moving pages to "be more conformant with the guideline" very peculiar when the guideline (explicitly) doesn't state a preference. It says that either can exist, reflecting that this has been a heavily-argued topic for years and that there is not a consensus either way. Mass moves from one to the other go against that - there is no reasonable basis in the text of that guideline to justify mass moves, and people in support of a guideline that would permit that have consistently failed to win a consensus for it. As the main person pushing several past failed attempts at winning that consensus, Mattinbgn was very well aware of this. 10:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Submitted Sandboxes and Other Stupid Drafts

I was told to take this here, and it may now go to Articles for Creation, because it seems that you don't think that Submitted sandboxes should be treated in the same way as drafts. I don't like lengthy discussions on user talk pages, at least not about policy, because I think that discussions that involve policy should be in more public places.

Continuing a discussion here that was in a deletion discussion (which will therefore be archived within a week). User:SmokeyJoe wrote: "I agree. Idoh shouldn't feel dumped upon because I think non-drafts should not be moved to draftspace." No, no, no, no, no. SmokeyJoe was dumping on a reviewer, User:I dream of horses. The reviewers get tired of having difficult criteria set and getting dumped on for not having superpowers. I don't entirely know what SmokeyJoe means when they say that non-drafts should not be moved to draft space. Does that mean that sandboxes that have been submitted to AFC should not be moved to draft space for review, or that there should be some objective criterion as to what is and is not a draft? At present, if a sandbox has been Submitted for AFC review, the tool encourages the reviewer to move it to draft space. In fact, I completely agree that a sandbox that has been Submitted should be moved to draft space if possible, for various reasons. The tools provide various useful features, but only if the draft has a title in draft space. The tool shows whether the title already exists in article space, and whether the title has previously been deleted in article space. These are very useful information. If the article already exists, it is very useful for the reviewer to see that it exists, and to compare it to the draft, and determine whether the draft is an improvement (urge the editor to improve the article boldly), or the article is better (the more common situation, just decline the draft). If the article has been deleted, it is very useful for the reviewer to see why, and whether this draft is worth reviewing in detail, or may be no better than the previous A7, or may even need G4. None of these useful features are available until the article is moved into draft space. If User:SmokeyJoe is saying that reviewers should not move Submitted sandboxes into draft space, then maybe they don't understand, or maybe they should explain why Submitted sandboxes should not be moved into draft space.

There is even an advantage to moving hopeless drafts into draft space before declining them or before tagging them for CSD. That is that sometimes the titles need salting. It really does help to move Submitted sandboxes into draft space and treat them as drafts once they are Submitted.

I'm sorry, but it does appear that User:SmokeyJoe is dumping on the reviewers by saying that we shouldn't use a very useful feature, or is saying something, such as that the reviewers should use some sort of superpower to treat Submitted sandboxes differently than other drafts. Please explain in more detail why you are not dumping on the reviewers, and what you think the reviewers should and should not do with stupid stuff and with smart stuff.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think sandbox tests should end up at MfD.
AfC seems very opaque when it comes to changing anything. I once had the impression that you ran the place. Later, I gained the impression that it is a system set up in 2013 and that the architects and long since left the building. It now seems that User:Primefac knows how to fix stuff, but he won't without a consensus. I don't know how to change things there, it being so template-heavy.
Yes. The tools are very useful but are very opaque with regard to how they can be changed. By the way, some version of the system has been around much longer than that, and it has always been flawed. It is just that it is less bad than any identified alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Why would User:I dream of horses move an obviously not-draft to draftspace? Because there is a tool to do it? And why did it later get nominated at MfD? It looks like busywork to me.
Maybe if there is a draft in a sandbox, it should be moved to draftspace. I think it is very unfortunate that the culture here doesn't include talking to the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Dump dump dump. The comment that it is unfortunate that the culture here doesn't include talking to the author itself illustrates the Wikipedia culture well. The culture does include dumping on the AFC and NPP volunteers. The Wikipedia culture does include dumping on any volunteers who aren't sufficiently welcoming to new editors. There are two reasons that we, the AFC volunteers, don't talk to editors any more than we do. The first is that it would take more time, and we are also dumped on because of the backlog, and talking more to the authors would take time that we spend reviewing the drafts. It really is a situation where trade-offs have to be made. The Wikipedia culture is of course that the trade-offs get made, and the volunteers get dumped on. Second, the second reason why we don't talk more to the authors is that many of the authors aren't worth talking to (and a few of them are good and don't need talking to). There is a myth, at least I think it is a myth, that if the existing volunteers were only more welcoming to new editors, we would have many more excellent new editors, and it is the fault of the volunteers that new editors are not sufficiently welcomed and as a result go away. Many of them do go away, and many of them really should go away, but it is contrary to the Wikipedia culture to say that some editors aren't worth welcoming and keeping. I think that you, User:SmokeyJoe, agree that undisclosed paid editors aren't worth welcoming and retaining, only worth getting rid of. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: I moved it since it wasn't vandalism, giving an above-zero yet still small chance that it could be improved enough to become a stub. If it wasn't improved (most likely), typically a draft creator will get the hint, and the draft will become G13-able. This shouldn't be interrupted by a MfD discussion; that was the mistake in this situation.
Since Primefac was mentioned, I have pinged them.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


You also wrote at WT:MfD:
@SmokeyJoe: Good luck trying to get rid of AfC. It has enough consensus to continue existing that trying to get rid of it is beating a dead horse. It would be more productive to try to improve the AFC helper tool.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We are talking about the content of User:Karthik sivagami/sandbox which contained the text:

Everyday I would like to start off with a quote that is why I waken up today,whats the difference today will make in my life.

, with the AfC template {{AFC submission|||ts=20171004083856|u=Karthik sivagami|ns=2}}
On 4 October 2017, you moved it to draftspace and declined the submission.‎
At MfD, I review nominations for deletion. In reviewing this page I formed the opinion that it should not have been moved to draftspace. I'm sorry that you read this as being dumped on. My hope is that the AfC processes can be improved. In my sceptical movements, I suspect that AfC costs more than it delivers. There is no doubt that it delivers some, but the cost include both volunteer time, and the burning of newcomers who receive unwelcoming receptions. The volunteer time is the choice of the volunteer, and the burned newcomers I suspect are never due in any way to you. There have been bad reviewers, but actually the biggest problem is the waiting time. I have mentioned these problems, but I don't have a silver bullet fix.
I personally think that the burning of the newcomers who receive unwelcoming receptions is exaggerated and has elements of a myth to it, the myth being that there is an enormous pool of new editors out there needing to be welcomed, and most of them get burned because of their unfriendly welcomes. I personally think that most of those who get unfriendly welcomes weren't assets anyway, but that attitude on my part is contrary to the official party line that we need to be more welcoming. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the real problem is the waiting time, and it would be longer if we spent more time welcoming the new editors, but that is a trade-off. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If you thought the page could have been improved, you were right to move it. Let's not quibble about what you might have though in that brief time many month months ago.
AfC definitely has momentum. It has inertia, and it has drafts flowing in and out. Consensus? I am not sure about that. I think it was put together and implemented with haste. I also think it suffers from lack of review. Just recently I again suggested a WikiProject additional goal of "Review and refine wikiproject processes".
"It would be more productive to try to improve the AFC helper tool." OK. How do we do that? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I agree.
What is the alternative to AFC? The alternative either is relatively minor fixes, or to do away with it and let unregistered editors and unconfirmed editors create articles freely, or to do away with it and not allow unregistered editors and unconfirmed editors any way to create new pages, or something not yet defined. Letting unregistered and unconfirmed editors create articles freely would just shift the burden back to NPP (as it had been before ACTRIAL), or would just completely flood Wikipedia with crud. Not allowing unregistered and unconfirmed editors to create new pages at all would maintain quality, but would be contrary to the concept that anyone can edit. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
Hi Robert, I'm pretty sure that was you. Not IDoH? You've posted a lot of interesting things on my talk page, more that I can meaningfully respond to quickly, but I am reading it. This is to acknowledge it, and to respond to one easy question: Not allowing unregistered and unconfirmed editors to create new pages at all ... would be contrary to the concept that anyone can edit? No contradiction. Anyone may edit, but edit doesn't include creating new pages. Newcomers do best jumping in to improving existing content, and creating mentions of new topics BEFORE creating the new topic page. IPs are well acknowledged for having added the bulk of Wikipedia content. Registered editors edit more than they add. Post-2006, The probability of a newcomer coming to Wikipedia with a new topic needing addition THIS WEEK that no existing editor is not already adding is very small, and if it does happen, the {{welcome}} template tells them how to ask for help, such as using {{helpme}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe - Yes, well, I would support not allowing unregistered editors and unconfirmed editors to create new pages, but I think that the big boys will never agree to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, I wouldn't disagree, but we have had enough trouble getting the WMF to agree to ACTRIAL, and I don't think that they want to turn off the remaining way for unregistered and unconfirmed editors to create new pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dumping About Dumping

Wikipedia has a complex culture consisting of many subgroups of volunteers, and most of the volunteers usually interact primarily with other volunteers in their own groups, and only occasionally with other groups. One of the less attractive but more persistent elements of this complex culture is dumping, in particular dumping on volunteers in other subgroups or on whatever technical systems they have (and it is made more complicated by the fact that the technical stuff is partly done by volunteers, over whom we have little control, and partly by WMF staff, over whom we have no control, who are like zombies without a zombiemaster). Some of us volunteers at AFC are now interacting more than before with the volunteers who handle MFD. It is easy, and very much the Wikipedia way, for the MFD volunteers to dump on the AFC volunteers, saying that we shouldn't have moved stupid drafts to draft space, or shouldn't have tagged the stupid drafts for deletion, just let them die G13, or that we should have been more welcoming to the new editors who create the stupid drafts. (One of the most common forms of dumping is saying that the AFC volunteers or NPP volunteers or any other group of volunteers are not being sufficiently welcoming to the new editors, whom we all know all want to improve the encyclopedia, but, because they aren't helped, they are stupid.) In this case, SmokeyJoe did second-guess the AFC volunteers, and maybe thought that we shouldn't use a very useful feature, the move to draft space, although it is very useful in many cases. An apology is due, but of course there won't be one, because it isn't the Wikipedia way to apologize for dumping on other volunteers. If you don't know the roles, let alone the names, it isn't a personal attack, just the Wikipedia way. By the way, I do apologize if I have been dumping on the MFD volunteers. I don't mean to, but it is the Wikipedia way.

I don't apologize for dumping about disruption due to cleaning up of math drafts. That cleanup has been disruptive, and the dust makes us sneeze.

Yes, User:SmokeyJoe, you were dumping on the AFC volunteers. It is the Wikipedia way, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Yes, the tools need improvement. In particular, the standard wording of the decline template should not say that the editor is encouraged to improve the draft and resubmit, unless the reviewer requests that that wording be used. (However, the wording is there because we have to be deferential toward the new editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hydroelectric Cell

Thank you for deleting that section from NPL. I wondered why I couldn't find it, and then I saw that you deleted it with an edit summary saying that it was perpetual motion.

The same author put that in the NPL article as wrote the draft that is being discussed. I think that we should assume good faith, which is to assume that the author believes it, and doesn't see the bunk. I am thinking that the whole venture is a con game, intended to get investors who don't realize that it is scientifically invalid to invest.

By the way, on further analysis, it is worse than I had originally realized. The source of the energy is the zinc, which reacts with water. But the zinc metal has to be smelted from an ore, typically zinc sulfide, which requires energy. Also, the sulfur in the zinc sulfide is another environmental concern. In the past it was simply burned off, but that results in acid rain. It is now scrubbed, but that also uses energy.

There's no free lunch. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Investigating redirect targets for draftspace nonsense is probably a good practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

AFC Proposal

Did you say that you had made a specific proposal about AFC? I can't find it now, and would like to review it and probably agree. Where is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon. I've been venting for some time about a variety of aspects of AfC and other things, trying to see what resonates. Perhaps this was unproductive. Can you remind me of what you may remember? I have attempted to collect my ideas at User:SmokeyJoe/AfC wishlist. Does any of that ring a bell? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm also pretty open to supporting AfC reform. We keep talking about changing the decline templates for example but nothing changes.
We need to look at ways to:
  • discourage submission of unwanted content
    discourage resubmission of hopeless content
    encourage and welcome new good faith editors
    process unwanted content out of the system to reduce resubmissions that waste time
    make it easier to get notable topics approved not rejected. user:insertcleverphrasehere and I have been running research on that and the problem of 4 plus declines and the time sink they are
    Addressing the problem that the reviewer's name is attached to every accept but the creator's name is buried in the history. Reviewers are rightly afraid of making judgemmet calls to promote anything but the most clear cut notable topics - or they can be kicked off AfC or worse.
Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "the reviewer's name is attached to every accept ". I saw that notion for the first time in the last 24 hours. You know, that might explain some things. AfC reviewers are only accepting things that are sure to pass at AfD, and that is an unreasonable standard. WP:NPP is so much easier. Many new pages in mainspace are acceptable, and the borderline articles are so tedious to evaluate that the chance of someone looking again is quite low. If someone wants to complain, they can AfD it, and the NPR-er can comment at length there.
An old gut reaction of mine is to simply shut down AfC, once the decision is taken to restrict new article creation to autoconfirmed accounts. I know some people who went to an editathon. They were fed to AfC. They never encountered the community of Wikipedians. Some decent article, historical figures, borderline notable, never submitted, G13-ed. These people are a lost opportunity. It would have been better to advise them to add information about these historical people into existing articles. They could then watch what happens to their new content, and could engage with subject-interested Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I was topic banned very unfairly for allegedly poor accepts. Others have had AfCH yanked. The accepting reviewer's name is forever at the top of the talk page. The blame/assumed ownership issue is why I bring borderline cases to MfD sometimes kind of suggesting Keep. With an MFD result of Keep I can always point to the decisons of the other editors at MfD and share the blame with them if anyone complains. A standard of "more than 50% likely to survive AfD because the topic is notable and sources appear to exist" would make things a lot easier on everyone. Right now you need an iron clad notable case to pass AfC, and the page needs to be nearly perfectly complete. It's a very tall order for new editors. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw you get blocked long ago, and was unable to make sense of it. I urged Robert McClenon to re-apply at RfA and was shocked at the result. I told you to go get page-mover right, really, suppress-unwanted-redirect-creation-right, and had no expectation that they would say "no". Busywork at MfD, seeking deletion for things that could be blanked or will be G13-ed later annoys me, but I could try to get over myself. I understand you seeking a second opinion for mainspacing a rejected draft, I should support you there. I have this urge to say that there should be an AfC back room forum for these proposals to override past rejections, but until that happens, I can see that there are few options. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Golden Lotus (musical)

The StandardHK is a very credible source as the leading English newspaper in HongKong. Sing Pao is one of the top two Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong. There are two references from STandardHK and one from Sing Pao that comment directly about the subject and they are referenced in the article. MaddBuzzHK and wenweipao sources are also reliable sources in English and Chinese respectively. John99Wick (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Equivocating?

You asked me why I "equivocated" on G11 about a particular autobiography. The answer is that I don't interpret completely non-notable completely worthless autobiographies as being promotional unless they consist largely of promotional language. I take the same reading on worthless corporate stubs. I will re-read the G11 criteria as per your question, but I don't view autobiographies as advertising unless there is some business claim. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon. As always I appreciate your responses.
So you hold the commonly held position that G11 is for blatant promotion involving blatantly promotional language.
I am pushing for more recognition for G11 also applying to less overt promotion where the sourcing is all entirely unsuitable on the basis that none of the material can be reused because material from unacceptable sources is unacceptable. I argue that adding acceptable references to material taken from unacceptable sources is straight scholastic fraud, and unacceptable. Also known as sloppy formatting, a reason to reject a publication regardless of the merits of the core content.
For these autobiographies, as I muse at User:SmokeyJoe/AfC_wishlist#Onus_on_the_author_to_provide_notability_evidence_for_promotion-related_topics point #(4), biographies of rising young people are “promotion-related”. “Promotion-related” plus “all sources unsuitable”, triggers G11.
Do you think it would be helpful to run test this at WT:CSD? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, it would be helpful to discuss this at WT:CSD. We can't test run the draft in question now because either you or someone else did tag it for G11 and an administrator agreed. I think that we should discuss our reasonable disagreement. I personally don't tag things in draft space for G11 unless something about it annoys me, such as the use of first person plural, or other blatant language. NPP is a little different, and I am more willing to tag things there because I want to kill crud in mainspace with fire as soon as possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Score voting

2-level Score" is Approval voting.

Yes, but this is "2-level score with abstentions", which are never part of approval voting that I'm aware of. Abstentions are sometimes part of Score, though: http://scorevoting.net/Blanks.html

Borda is the most well known score voting.

Borda is not score voting; it's an ordinal system where you must give a unique ranking to each candidate. Score voting is a cardinal system where you give independent ratings to each candidate. — Omegatron (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I saw the previous proposal to rename "range" to "score". Borda and score voting depends on the definition of "score". Score is both a noun and a verb, it commonly means values, and commonly means a scratch. You score pig skin before rubbing in oil and salt, and this meaning lends itself to thinking that when voting you just mark the ballot, with a cross, with a thumbprint, plurality or approval style. I think "score" is very ambiguous term and to be avoided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
You should say that on the talk page. I was going to go ahead and move it to "Score" because no one had objected.
Do you have an opinion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Range_voting#Usage_examples? — Omegatron (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian Fitchuk

I partly agree with what you say. I agree with your criticism of the standard decline template that encourages them to improve the draft, which reflects the standard party-line Wikipedia philosophy that the encyclopedia will always continue expanding without limit as long as we remember to be sufficiently fulsomely flattering to new editors and encourage them to create new articles. It isn't the fault of a good-faith new editor that they submit seven times. However, it is the fault of a new editor that they don't answer my question as to conflict of interest (after being eager to submit repeatedly, they go silent on being asked whether they have a conflict of interest). I wasn't tagging it for notability issues, but for COI issues. (Also, although notability is not a reason to tag for MFD, I do consider it valid to tag a draft for MFD if the author seems unable to respond intelligently to a question about notability. That isn't the issue with Fitchuk, but sometimes it is the issue.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree. I am uneasy with myself making these comments at MfD. Part of me wants to BITE the promoting WP:SPAs, and part of me says there is collateral damage in any BITING. I am currently hopeful that there is productive discussion, even movement on better decline templates, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#New_decline_template for example. I would tag Draft:Ian Fitchuk, as {{Hopeless}}. If feel a less offensive word that "hopeless" is desirable, but given that the author is a complete newcomer, a SPA, a probable COI, likely motivated by promotion, and that my assessment of the included sources is that they are inadequate, and that my search for sources leads me to conclude that this person is not Wikipedia-notable, I think the author needs the message that there is no hope for this person getting a Wikipedia article. Deleting the draft at MfD, I note that I did not bold-!vote opposition, I don't think is the best way to do it, but something new needs to be done. I am hopeful that WP:ACTRIAL will become permanent. I hold further hope for it spreading even to draft space, certainly to being able to press the "submit" button.
This is, however, still tangential to my first complaint about AfC, which is due to newcomers invited to edit Wikipedia, being shown how to create draft article, and then NEVER ENGAGED BY THE COMMUNITY. They never submitted their draft. They should not have been encouraged to start their editing with article creation. Maybe having got the message that I should stop insulting reviewers like you, I might wander into insulting edit-a-thon volunteers? It is very hard to productively give advice as an outsider. It is very hard to receive advice from outsiders. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it is a mistake for new volunteers to start their work with Wikipedia with article creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
As to dumping on the AFC volunteers and other volunteers for failure to engage the new editors, I have suggested in the past that we need to have a special volunteer function of meeting and greeting, to welcome the new editors, or at least to determine whether they are worth having as new editors, and, if so, welcome them. I don't think that there are that many potential good new editors out there, but I don't know, because we aren't meeting and greeting them, but putting the burden of meeting and greeting on AFC or NPP is the wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at something I've built?

I've created a new tool (in the form of a user script).

It's called SearchSuite.     — The Transhumanist    23:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

On your userpage

On your userpage, I noticed you wrote "To reduce the bitiness of deletion, all deletions of pages created in good faith should be logged with a link to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets". I second the idea. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Check out User:Legacypac/A7 I'd love your collaberation. Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

See Template:NSFW if we can come to agreement I'd love to jointly propose this be implemented within AfC. Legacypac (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha I like that idea! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Kudpung#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Kudpung#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

fyi

Hello SmokeyJoe, fyi [3]. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Meena Lalit

It is true that the nominator named the wrong AFD. I noted the correct AFD. The history of the draft showed that the author of the draft was blocked, primarily for disrupting the AFD, but was able to create the draft before being blocked. The subsequent resubmissions were by IPs, almost certainly the author. So this was not a case of the stupid template encouraging persistent resubmission. This was a case of disruption and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Also by the way, that draft went G4, so MFD wasn't necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Given the new information I agree with you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Dump Dump Dump

You suggested in one of the MFD discussions, Draft:Akhilendra Sahu, that reviewers should remove the stupid template. Please explain. I thought that might be useful advice, but I see that all that I can remove is the entire AFC decline notice. I can't remove some of the words. The AFC process relies on the use of the templates. There isn't a way that I can see for a reviewer to change what is displayed. Maybe you would prefer that the reviewers bypass the process entirely and just put comments in the draft talk page or something. That would be an alternative, but it isn't fair to scold the reviewers because we haven't done what we can't do. I know that you don't like the saccharine wording of the decline message. Neither do I. However, I think that, by !voting to Keep crud because of the wording is to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. !Voting to Keep crud because of a belief that it can be improved is a case where reasonable editors can disagree. However, continuing to dump on the reviewers because of the wording of the template that we have to use is just troublesome. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

We could remove the AfC submit tag - I just did that while blanking a stupid sandbox. You can't decline the submission without templating a reason. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Legacypac, User:SmokeyJoe - Removing AFC tags is deprecated. Removing AFC decline templates is occasionally done by tendentious submitters to try to pull a fast one on reviewers and hide the history of declines. (Reviewers aren't that stupid, but ....) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Says who? If it is a bad tag, it should be removed. If the draft is hopeless, and the tag communicates saccharine encouragement to edit improve and resubmit, then the tag should be removed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be helpful to us AFC reviewers if you would help direct us to the appropriate forum to discuss the wording of the decline template. As we know, there are multiple discussions, but your issue appears to have to do with the wording of the decline template. I am sure that you mean to be helping, but please let us know where we should contribute in order to help, rather than continuing to dump on the AFC reviewers. I know that dumping on other groups of volunteers is a very important part of the Wikipedia way, but it isn't really a desirable part of the Wikipedia way. Please direct us to where we can try to get things changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, as common with every systemic problem, no one is singularly to blame, and there is no pre-prepared route to correction. The AfC process designers have left the building. The most knowledgeable person for answering your question, my guess is User:Primefac. Last time I asked him, he pointed me to a discussion where a fresh young idealist “(WMF)” account is obfuscating the path to correction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record (and for that I do apologize) but the template language itself (and even the "switching" for different reasons) is dead easy to change, but we need to determine when we use the "please resubmit" and "please go away" decline notices first. Our WMF pal kind of screwed us over on that one, because I was in the process of formulating that discussion when they hijacked the whole train with their "improvement plan". There's clearly support to make it clearer that some drafts will just never cut it, but if we can't point to a consensus where we outlined what "makes the cut" so to speak, it won't fly if someone calls us out on it. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
Primefac, thank you. His “improvement plan” derailed your plan? What can I do to help? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Resurrect this thread, I suppose. It was going reasonably well until 31 March, and then the WMF proposal got dropped on 3 April and it hasn't been touched since. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing an AfC tag on a userspace page removes it from G13 so not a good idea. Sandboxes are some of the worst submissions for whatever reason. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The worst are speediable. Non speediable (mild) inactive user sandboxes should be blanked. Are you referring to something specific? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, you, User:SmokeyJoe, tend to disapprove of deletion of sandboxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't tried removing an AFC tag, and don't plan to do so, but my assumption is that the editors whom you consider to be newbies who are encouraged by the template will also be encouraged to resubmit by the lack of a template. However, I am aware that I have politically incorrect views about some new editors. I think that the ones who start by making minor edits are likely to be good assets, and the ones who start out with articles are often clueless or self-serving. I am aware that that viewpoint is politically incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor

Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JarrahTree 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Portal

Portal:Portal is linked from the new {{WikiProject Portal}} (via some complex template chicanery). I agree that its old target was inappropriate but it should probably be a redirect to somewhere. Any suggestions? Certes (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"The direction of this looks beautiful"

If you think that was good, you've got to take a look at what follows your quote.    — The Transhumanist   18:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: (in the thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Creating a template called Transclude lead excerpt).

Heads up: the template is finished!    — The Transhumanist   03:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The template is indeed finished. The module behind it appears to work, but is still being enhanced. Please feel free to use it with care and report any bugs or missing features that you find. If you deploy it on any particularly intricate or important pages, let me know so I can add them to the testcases. That will enable us to detect any incompatible developments that might break your portal. Certes (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Userspace clean up

I appreciate your comments and leadership on G13. Pretty much the same arguments for expanding G13 to all Drafts apply to all Userspace drafts. There are a couple ways it could go. Either bring Mohammad to the mountain or bring the mountain to Mohamed. When I work on stale userspace I CSD anything that can be CSD'd, blank sandboxes, mainspace the odd page that makes a good topic, and for the maybe good but compeletely abandoned - move it to Draft space where someone might pick it up (if you start a new page and a draft exists at that title it tells you for example). Some of the now Draft pages will get swept away G13 but at least they had a chance of being used.

Another challenge is that many userspace drafts are tagged as such and therefore are pretty hard to find. A large scale clean up of userspace would be worthwile, though there will be detractors that like Userspace as a free for all no rules area and others that see clearing userspace as a waste of time. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

And I appreciate you energy and drive. I trust you saw Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Does_G13_apply_to_"userspace_draft"_tagged_pages?
In particular, do you agree with my suggested processing of old userspace drafts:
(1) Any applicable CSD criteria, starting with G11 then U5;
(2) blanking ({{Inactive userpage blanked}});
(3) moving to mainspace if OK; or
(4) leave it alone.
I do note that you are very good at #1. Occassionaly, I review your CSD log, and it is appropriate all red, except for rare declines that should go to MfD, and speedied pages re-created.
I am not much bothered if #2 is blanking or G13-ed under an expanded G13. If blanked, the content can still be found if the title was meaningful. If you want to apply personal judgement in moving to draftspace instead, good.
I think, since a hiccup some years ago, you are good with #3.
MfD should be reserved for things worth a discussion. Unusual things, declined speedy tagging, actual arguments with a disagreeing author.
Userspace drafts are easily found by browsing Category:Userspace_drafts.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't like "leave it alone" from a practical point of view. It makes sense when you think about one draft on its own but we have an ever changing group of editors looking through an ever expanding pile of pages. Broadly we have "valuable" (mainspace usable in some form) "useless" (not CSDable but unlikely to be used in mainspace) and "bad" (attack/copyvio/promo etc). As we pull out the valuable and bad pages the pile of useless grows and grows both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total pages. It gets harder and harder to find valuable and bad pages in the pile plus multiple editors end up reviewing the same useless abandoned pages again and again for years which is a soul crushing time sink. New pages are being added all the time that need review so you can't just say oh we got the bad down to x% and that's good enough. Like AfC and NPP there has to be an exit or bin for the useless.

Category:Userspace drafts is populated by an inserted template. You and I and many editors have userspace pages that lack that template. The userspace draft universe is much bigger that the category.

Yes I agree that MfD should be for special cases that can't be CSD'd, the CSD was declined or where blanking leaves an undesirable title. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Of course, you do not like "leave it alone". I would ask you only to consider leaving it alone. If you decide that is not a good idea, then you need further options. My list of a suggested sequence on considerations is not intended to be an exhaustive list. What makes me gripe is when someone lists something at MfD when one of the four suggestions, CSD, Blank, Mainspace, Nothing, have not even been considered.
You are no longer such a person.  
  I have many userspace pages, and really do not want anyone else fiddling with them.  I consider them to be my notes on my desk, even though anyone can read them and check them for policy compliance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
You are an active contributor and not creating junk userspace pages, so that is different. Please consider the problem of the ever growing pile of useless when you advocate "leave it alone". Delete after a period of inactivity would be a better solution. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
OK Legacypac. What I think I really mean is "if you don't know what to do, do not rush into doing something random", and "do not make ill-prepared MfD nominations" such as "Weird looking page, maybe something should be done about it". If you are going to to MfD it, you should formulate a statement as to what is wrong with doing nothing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Scylla - Meet Charybdis. Charybdis - Meet Scylla. In this case, however, I think that User:SmokeyJoe has an excellent point that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing a wrong thing. Don't do anything about user pages or even draft pages that have zero value. A zero is only a zero. Only do anything with them if they have negative value. Also, if in doubt about what to do with a user page or draft page, we know one wrong answer, and that is that moving it to article space is the wrong answer if there is doubt. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Nripen P Sudheer

Do you know what wikipedia policy states should (if anything) be done about pages like User:Nripen P Sudheer (i.e. pages where minors seemingly reveal information about themselves). I've read Wikipedia:Child protection but could not find anything applicable to this situation offhand. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

    • Name and age is not sufficient to steal someone’s identity or even to find them. It is not oversight worthy. Just blank it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That was name, age, and location, which is enough, especially for a minor. Primefac (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Name, age in years, and province (of millions), I don’t worry about. Name, date of birth, address, that’s a worry. If posted by someone else, it’s really bad. When I see these things, more often than not they are linked to a Facebook page with the same information public. I recommend blanking in all cases. You can request WP:Oversight, but if in doubt the worst thing to do is to advertise sensitive material on a forum page. Some people have reported back that oversight reject their requests, indicating that oversighters don’t want to be overused, but I’ve never seen a clear line. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it's better to be safe than sorry (and besides, what harm does it do the project?), and be liberal with use of oversight. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I don’t disagree, that would be for the oversighters to let you know. Wikipedia is very cautious with some things, BLP, privacy, and that’s not a bad thing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing others' comments

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Godsy's talk page.
Message added 02:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See User talk:Godsy#Please fix your signature. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you change your view?

Your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quidditch (2nd nomination) still says "redirect".    — The Transhumanist   21:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Promising drafts wikiproject notion

[@Calliopejen1:] I'm very keen on this idea -- is there somewhere we can start discussions without being accused of breaking the encyclopedia? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Work within WP:ABANDONED wikiproject. No one should be tagging pages that are actively being worked on or active AfC submissions as "promising" anyway. That is pointless - you are better to just accept the AfC submissions or work with the author to improve for acceptance. Rather mine the stuff that is abandoned or may be deleted soon. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. As I've suggested over & again, one of my ideas is that AfC submissions should be immediately triaged, so that those people who want to work on helping newbies to develop a notable-but-unacceptable (I'm abandoning the word 'promising', as it seems to be backloaded) first attempt. That way, we work on mentoring and encouraging potential new editors, too. What worries me most is the long-term effect on editor recruitment of ACPERM in directing good-faith, potentially clueful new contributors to the AfC process. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about triaging vs. just working on abandoned material. I agree that the entire AFC environment is toxic, and that it is problematic that new contributors end up routed to what often are some of the WP:BITEiest editors on all of WP. I'm not sure I can commit to assisting. I don't often work with drafts because I find the environment to be depressing and stress-inducing. (Like yesterday, when I moved a half dozen articles to mainspace that weren't great, but weren't terrible either, and apparently caused the world to end. Ugh.) (pinging @Legacypac: and @Espresso Addict:) Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Indeed, that whole teacup storm was... odd. Before ACPERM I often declined A7s on notable but substandard material, and though I've been called out on it a few times I've only received one fairly mild hint that I might be defrocked over it. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Let me explain. I also find it hostile and I don't like that so maybe you can help fix that as an Admin. You did something far worse than I've done with drafts, with no consequences. I believe strongly Admins should be held to the standards they hold us to. Draft handling with more care than you showed has cost me tools, perms, all kinds of ANi drama and attacks on my reputation. You mean well but your Admin armor is working full strength and you don't even seem to get that. I've never promoted a draft with zero sources. I've never taken such a lax approach to AfC approvals. By all rights you should have had AfC immediately suspended until you get up to spead on the correct process to follow. That is the precendent further up the talk page.
As the originator of that stupid "promising draft" template it is time to pay attention to the highly regarded Admins lining up to oppose it's use as anything more than an expression of one editor's opinion that can be removed by another good faith editor. I've had the opportunity to review many of your placements of that template and I've not been impressed. If it has any more power than an opinion that can be removed by anyone I intend to ensure you are topic banned from using the template based on the amount of junk you have protected with it. I set up Template:NSFW for junk drafts but I would never presume to make it unremovable and a way to ensure that anything so tagged can never be moved to mainspace. That goes against how Wikipedia works. We lost a valuable draft space maintainer and his bot over this crazy template. That is shameful.
If you want to do something useful with your Admin tools go check ANi to understand how you are being used as a meatpuppet to perpetuate long-term harassment. No Admin has stepped up to solve that issue just yet. Perhaps you are a willing participant or were you just unaware? Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: I have no idea what you mean by the meatpuppet situation. I also have only the faintest idea of how you have been treated, but from what I have heard I would disagree strenuously. Re: promising draft, I take essentially the same approach I would take to the removal of a PROD template. If I see something that merits more than unilateral deletion without community review, I apply it (just as I would remove a prod under the same circumstances -- both actions result in a community discussion about whether deletion is appropriate). I don't think there are yet established community standards for how it should be applied, so I think all the talk of bans is over-dramatic. I think that what is contrary to how Wikipedia works is the unilateral deletion of content that at least one editor thinks may be worthwhile. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure it makes sense to hijack SmokeyJoe's page to have this discussion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
No, sorry SmokeyJoe! I'm just blanking on a quiet corner where we can discuss this apparently controversial topic positively. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I didn't mean your general suggestion, I just meant discussing all the drama and issues with Legacypac/Godsy at ANI. Hopefully SmokeyJoe wouldn't mind the former! Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm cool. Is something happening at ANI? I find ANI too hard to keep up with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It was this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleting

I am pleased to see you !voting Delete on promotional crud again, rather than !voting Keep just to protest the wording of the AFC decline template. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I’m not sure, but am pretty sure, that I have always been agreeable to delete when the reason is promotional. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggest moving your not vote

Hello SmokeyJoe, I think your notvote would probably fit better under the opening post, rather than under Alternative C. Though its not a very well organized discussion so maybe its where you want it, in which case you may wish to add a bit to elaborate on the subtle difference between A and C. Or not, no problem. Thanks for taking another look NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Probably. Would you move it for me? Mobile devices are hard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
consider it done!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Behavioral Signals further references

- Realised that I posted this at the top when I should have put it in the bottom. So moved it.

Hello, I need advise, as a newbie. I have found some references pertaining to this specific page and not sure if it makes sense to add them since it's still in Draft. Not sure how it can get out of that status, either. I can add material from these articles or just the references. Your advice would be appreciated.

This artificial itelligence can predict your mood - MarketWatch WSJ May 24, 2018

Behavioral Signal Processing: Enabling human-centered behavioral informatics - USC

Signal Processing and Machine Learning for Mental Health Research and Clinical Applications

Behavioral signals: What is that? - Alexandros Potamianos on Medium

Thank you, Talos22 (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverts at NMFD

The RFC was explicitly about modify/weakening WP:NMFD with the wording inserted. [4] If you want to overturn that RfC you need to start another one. I'd suggest a reversal of your revert here. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  • What RfC?
  • User:Primefac I can’t understand, sneakily inserting “tendentious resubmission” in under the NMFD shortcut, is it obfuscation of what NMFD is about, and/or trying to evade his failure to implement the missing reject option in AfC reviews? All of the tendentious resubmissions are behavioural issues deriving from AfC’s failure to communicate the simple message to the submitter. Get the reject option working. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Read the two paragraphs that start the RFC here [5] as I linked above. The part right below the close by User:Primefac. The RFC had heavy participation. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC) User:TonyBallioni may want to discuss this with you if you can't see how you are edit warring against the RFC result. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Can you make more effort with your linking? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This RfC. I’m on mobile so diffs are a bit hard to compare, but from what I saw earlier, it looked like Primefac just copied the wording the RfC approved. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SmokeyJoe and NMFD. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Drafts. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
There was an RfC. You are at 3RR. Stop edit warring against community-wide consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • It is always the proper thing to articulate the dispute in a talk page section and add a "disputed" link from the section. It is not OK for you to remove that link, as a central party to the dispute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • There is no dispute. You are edit warring against consensus. Please revert or I will take you to ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
      • There is a dispute. Check the talk page. I have not re-removed the added text. I added the dispute tag, which is proper. You were wrong to remove it. Try getting an independent opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn’t realise 3RR has no regard for what was reverted, I always thought it was applied to reverting the same material. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc

You asked whether corporate notability guidelines apply to this non-profit. The answer is that corporate notability guidelines and organizational notability guidelines are two names for the same guideline. There is no difference in notability guidelines between a profit and a non-profit organization. There are only the specific exceptions that you quoted. Perhaps that answers your question. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD

Hi, apologies, that removal at the Mfd was a major cock up on my part. When I checked my notifications in my email account of mentions I went to the linked edit and added a comment but didn't realise I was editing an old version of the page so accidentally wiped out the later edits. Have restored them and hopefully fixed it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive_8&oldid=1079143177"