File:Kelebek.gif

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Please note that it is 7:49 PM (-1.5 UTC), where I live.

I recommend {{u|1=7&6=thirteen}}, {{reply to|1=7&6=thirteen}}, {{reply to|7&6=thirteen}} [[User:7&6=thirteen|7&6=thirteen]], or [[User:7&6=thirteen]].
My user name does not ping in the usual way, because of the equal sign "=", I am told. I thought it was ampersand "&", but am informed that wasn't true.^[2]
However, I am a Luddite, and my WP:User name has served me well for a decade and a half; so I am not about to change. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

• "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 7&6=thirteen,

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!

Hello 7&6=thirteen,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

I know you mean well, but the situation with the content regarding Gratiot Avenue in that article is getting a little crazy from my perspective. I get that someone removed it originally because the road's named after the fort, not him directly, but that means the road's named after him indirectly by one degree of abstraction. You want the road mentioned there, and I agree based on my work writing about it.

However, I think it looks a bit silly to have five citations after a two-sentence paragraph. Usually anything over two consecutive citations looks bad. Honestly, I've seen situations like that described as "desperate to make a point" or such. Trust me, I've been there, adding multiple citations to a sentence in the M-185 article to prove a point that it's a "motorless highway" or such in the face of someone determined to remove it. I saw the light and pared it down so that it was appropriate.

If that were the whole situation though, that would still look off. But you have that explanatory note there that leads to a seven-sentence paragraph that has eight footnotes to seven sources. I'm not saying that the idea of the note is bad, per se, but it needs to be trimmed. It's getting a bit far afield for an article about Gratiot the man. You don't need any mention of L'Enfant and Washington, DC, at all, and you probably don't need any mention of Woodward and Detroit's wide avenues because Gratiot Avenue would have connected into the city someplace regardless of the city's street plan. Realistically, the last bit of the note should be integrated into the body of the article to say that the road was named for the fort, which was in turned named for the man. With a little editing, you get a compact explanation of this facet of Gratiot's enduring legacy.

As a quick side note, Gratiot, Wisconsin, doesn't belong in the article at all if it's named for Henry and not Charles. Put that in Henry's article, not Charles' because it's not Charles' legacy.

Now, I've trimmed that section down again because it's turned into a coatrack to pile on sourcing. You have Dr. Barnett's book citation and Farmer's book citation to back that the road is named for the fort and therefore also for the man. That's enough to warrant including the roadway in the article. If anyone disputes that, I'll support its inclusion. I won't support writing a miniature article on Gratiot Avenue there when we already have articles about it. Imzadi 1979 → 17:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imzadi1979 You don't need my permission. And no explanation is necessary, but I appreciate the sentiment. I think Gratiot Avenue and the other places should be mentioned in the article. I was unhappy when it was wiped out.

You did eliminate quite a bit of material from here.

So, okay. I don't own it. And I'm done with the article.

FWIW, I think this belongs on the article's talk page, not here.

Happy editing. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this to the article talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is something for us, here. I tried to trim back the unneeded content once while respecting your desire to have it mentioned in the article once. That's why I specifically commented here to explain myself, to you. Copying comments made to you, for you, to a public forum without context distorts them. You couldn't even use the {{copied from}} template so others would know that the "you" to whom I referred was a specific editor.

As for the one comment about the dead link. Well, it wasn't really dead. However, it was a link to the top level of a news website without the name of the article or a date on when the site was accessed. That's not a useful citation, doesn't validate that at one time it could have been used to verify things. That would be like me putting in a footnote to The New York Times, no date/page/etc. How do you verify something to that? In short, you don't, meaning we need a citation there to replace it. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything to an article. I did post that it was copied. Posting it there "did service" and eradicating it didn't, although you disagree. Since I had posted it, that (meaning my talk page) would seem to be the source. IMO. I didn't think that it needed to be templated; but you may be right. Sorry to have irritated you.

We could argue over whether it was a dead link or not. It doesn't work any longer. If that is an important distinction, indulge and fix it.

Again. As I said, the ball is in your court. I was not criticizing anything you have done. I merely thought other persons who want to edit that page should be aware. Do your best. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Textbook Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Centrism • Waffle iron Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

February songs

my daily stories

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland is the world's largest island. Hello, 7&6=thirteen. The article for improvement of the week is: Island Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Textbook • Centrism Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Hi, 7&6=thirteen,​

Your recent edits necessitate a clarification on two related fronts:

• Regarding [1], your ArbCom TBAN is from deletion discussions, broadly construed. It is not from just participating in the AfD process, and looking at the final decision in WP:ARBXFD it's clear that ArbCom did not intend it to be, as some editors did get TBANs just from participation. The sanction is about deletion discussions as a topic.
• Regarding [2], your community TBAN includes All content pages that Doug Coldwell has significantly contributed to, or discussions in other namespaces related to those pages, broadly construed. To be very very clear, this includes comments such as the one you made to Wasted Time R, not just participation in formal discussions like a GAR.

If you have any questions about the scope of the ArbCom TBAN, you can ask the Committee at WP:A/R/C; if you have any questions about the scope of the community sanction, you can ask me or, if I am unavailable, ask at WP:AN. But what's important here is that these sanctions are all broadly construed. There are not exceptions for "Just a quick comment on someoene's usertalk". You are not allowed to comment on these topics anywhere on the English Wikipedia.

We are at, truly, the end of the road here. Three consecutive edits violating two different TBANs very much strains AGF, and honestly the only reason I'm not blocking is because I think if I did block it would have to be indef, and I want to be crystal clear on applicable policy before reaching that point. So, again, these sanctions are to be construed broadly. This is the only warning you are going to get regarding this, and the ArbCom sanction portion of it will be logged. (There is no log of warnings for community sanction violations.) I don't want to block you, but if you continue making comments like these I will not have another option.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]