Wikipedia Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I've just created this organization. (And will look forward to joining it myself in two months' time.) I hope that it is fruitful in producing collaboration and friendship.

Note: I don't propose that anyone bot- or AWB-spam invitations to everyone who's been here since 2002 - it will be much nicer to keep this organic and personal. — Scott • talk 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to rain on your parade or anything like that, but having an organization with a qualification for joining which is outside the normal structure may cause an MfD somwhere along the line (I do not plan to do so myself). Consider packaging it as an award? I will say the graphic is very nice--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "normal structure"; any Wikipedia editor can join the Society. They just have to stick around with the project for a while. (Quite a lot of people will be reaching the mark in a couple of years' time.) The Society explicitly has no powers or duties, so it's not a case of anyone putting themselves above anyone else, which is stated on the page itself. If it ever became the case that people in the Society did try and claim some sort of privilege, I would submit it to MfD myself, because that's not what I created it for. — Scott • talk 16:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will submit this to MfD, regardless how Hex -- or anyone else -- structures this group; every group of volunteers on Wikipedia has been sent to MfD. Anyone who has been at Wikipedia has seen that happen, & can think of a reason to open a MfD action. (Hmm, maybe that should be a second requirement of being part of this group. Or maybe simply not being too cynical.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Well, I hope if (when?) it happens, the discussion can be conducted without rancor. Or am I displaying optimism unbecoming of a veteran? — Scott • talk 12:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'll join ... if you'll have me. WP has changed a lot in these 10 years. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sure has. Welcome. — Scott • talk 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit in en:Wp was on 2003 January 24th. So I am not yet a ten-years editor here (after 3 days). However my first edit in Wikipedia (eo:WP) happened in 2002 December 21st. So I'm however a ten-years Wikipedia editor. Nice to join such a Society ! --Arno Lagrange ✉ 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be joining you guys sometime in the next year or so. Cheers!   — C M B J   08:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the same boat as ArnoLagrange (was). X's Edit Counter shows I registered an account on 18 Oct 2003, but I started editing the previous year from IPs. May I add the template now? Incidentally, I'm not madly into badges/banners/skite boxes normally but I support this one, and do like the graphic. Moriori (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not! Welcome aboard, nice to meet you. And the other folks above, too. — Scott • talk 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will also join, of course -- thank you for the invite! It's been quite a ride. Barely recognize the place I first jumped into ten years and six days ago. Antandrus (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who was just invited to join, let me say that I find this idea charming, and just as useful as WP:Barnstars and other awards already enshrined in tradition here at WP.

For me, it was an opportunity to reflect on what I've experienced in these ten years. In accepting, I added the following observations:

Editing here is usually a fulfilling and enjoyable activity. Sometimes, it can be frustrating, as the guidelines require certain kinds of published sources when sometimes there are none such to be had on apparently notable topics. Another reason for frustration is the difficulty of dealing with opinion conflicts between editors. Rarely, editing can be traumatic--it can require a thick skin--many sensitive folk have left WP when such frustrations reached overwhelming proportions.

I think such "society" awards should be constructed and presented for each decade of editing, as WP itself reaches each decade in its own history. David Spector (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a very good way of weeding out newbies and the like - if someone disagrees with you, you can just point to your ten-year badge and tell them not to pick a fight they can't win. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

???????? @Ashley Pomeroy: Care to elaborate? I hope you don't mean that. Moriori (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently un-redirected this article, about one of your respected members, Magnus_Manske; I was able to find a number of sources which directly discussed Magnus and his contributions. Corrections/additions welcome. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to report that as of today, we have fifty members. That's 500 years of editing between us! I hope that one day we can have some kind of gathering to celebrate having stuck around this long. — Scott • talk 00:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, boys and girls. -- Simplicius (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I'm here, but I rarely edit at all. Right now less in a year than I'd do in an hour in 2004. We know that Wikipedia grew exponentially during 2004-2005, so we can expect many more ten year wikipedians to join in the coming year! sverdrup (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, you're still around, so welcome. And yes, it's going to be interesting seeing past growth reflected here! — Scott • talk 23:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to increase membership by one more. I started contributing here 11 years ago. — Zigger «º» 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I just stumbled onto this page, had never heard of this. It's a nice way to know who the other long-termers are. Skyerise (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe it has been that long. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. I foresee this category growing quite considerably in the future! ;) -- œ^™ 10:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed User:Quinto Simmaco from this page as he has been editing only since 28 February 2015. ClaireWalzer (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my response on your user page, I'd prefer you had reached out to me first. I've been a Wikipedian since the inception of the project, and had a previous account which I registered well over a decade ago. I know you were acting in good faith, but as I said, it's best to contact people first before removing them from group pages, even ones with certain specific criterion- this makes the person being removed (in my opinion) look incompetent or not cognizant of what they were doing when making that revision. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Claire, please talk to people first before jumping in and doing that.  — Scott • talk (creator of the TYS) 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get to know the sekrit handshake now?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humph. I didn't even get invited. bd2412 T 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. :) Sarah ^(talk) 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handshakes? (Thanks for the ping, Scott!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dink! Potato142870 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.. that is all .. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!!  — Scott • talk 17:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;) Time to make a 15y society soon !! -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating myself for membership. Welcome, Valfontis! Valfontis (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled into this page and from the small number of members it appears that very few people get to know about this club. It is also kind of awkward to ask about that secret handshake here (but, tell me anyway). It may be impossible to know when people really started, as many of us first edited anonymously for months, but anyone keeping the same username for 10 years should be easily identified. Of course, once the invitations fly out, it won't be an exclusive club anymore;-) Afasmit (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exclusive and there is no "secret handshake". (That was somebody making a joke, you know?) Automated invitations would (a) remove the personal nature of the group and (b) exclude those whose contribution pattern isn't so obviously measured. The whole point of this thing is to be friendly and meet people in an organic fashion. If you think that more people should be here, then by all means go find and invite some.  — Scott • talk 11:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those who edited all summer, anonymously, before making an account. So, I don't get credit in May, except perhaps if I track down what I was doing then. What, me worry? If I waited all summer, long ago, to register, then jolly well I can wait all summer for my place in the decennial sunshine. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mildly puzzled as to why the wiki database has my start date as 26 January 2002. (You know, when you hold the mouse over your username). On Nostalgia my earliest update appears to Sept 24, 2001. But whatever :) Manning (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Members of this august society may be interested in a new automated report showing the longest-established still-active accounts. Thparkth (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... there's something wrong with the report. I have edits dating back to September 2001, yet this says I started February 2002. Cheers Manning (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I (sort of) figured it out. Somehow my account got split into two during the change-over from UseModWiki to MediaWiki in February 2002. Graham87 did some hacking a while back to try and sort it all out. Manning (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thparkth and Manning Bartlett: Sorta. You edited as "ManningBartlett" in the UseModWiki days and "Manning Bartlett" in the Phase II and MediaWiki days, with some other things going on in the meantime. This list also misstates the first editing date of people affected by the bug described in the fifth paragraph of the section about moving over a redirect; however that bug was fixed well before April 2006! Graham87 06:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True but that was only because we couldn't have spaces in titles in the UseModWiki days. If I'd known this would be the result I never would have added the pesky space :) Manning (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new top icon for the 10 Year Society: {{10 Year topicon}}. Please feel free to use at as you wish! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Thank you!  — Scott • talk 09:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the template to my user page based on the text "has been editing Wikipedia", but the text of this page seems to imply members have been "contributing". I registered my account over eleven years ago, but I hardly edited Wikipedia at all for something like four of those years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been registered that long, you're an editor... seems fine to me. This isn't a rigid qualification kind of deal.  — Scott • talk 00:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are approximately 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. One of them contains roughly 100 billion planets. One of those planets happens to take a particular amount of time to complete an orbit. That planet has between a million and a trillion species. One of those species has 20 digits, but for some reason we are going to ignore half of them. There are over 1 billion websites on the Internet. If the time that an individual has been registered on this one particular website divided by the time it happens to take one particular planet to orbit one particular star is larger than 50% of the number of digits that one particular species has they can list their username here. Now that is what I call a significant accomplishment! Almost as significant as The Most Notable Page On Wikipedia... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chuckle. However, I must confess I found the non-meta article to be more notable.  :-) --Dan Harkless (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the strange sort order on Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikipedia editors? It goes B, 0–9, A, N, C, and then is alphabetical from there on (minus the later skipping of "N", of course). The "(next page)" button also behaves strangely, going not from "B" ... "R" on page 1 to "R" cont'd ... "Z" on page 2, but instead to "I" ... "Z" on page 2. Very odd. Oh well, in exchange for this pseudo-constructive discussion (and my logged-in contributions since 2005-07-28), may I ask to join your society? :-) --Dan Harkless (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Help desk#B, 0-9, A, N, C, D... and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sorting in categories unreliable for a few days. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky -- I wouldn't have thought alpha-sorting would be something that would become "unreliable" and take days to correct, Unicode or no. Thanks very much for getting that answered. Since I am not yet in the Society, I guess I need not care for now.  :-) --Dan Harkless (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like both the screwy sorting and the strange "next page" behavior are both fixed for Members of the Ten Year Society page now.

And regarding my request to join the society, since no one has responded, and since I just noticed that using Template:User Ten Year Society on one's user page causes the user to be included in the membership list, reversing my understanding of which was the chicken and which was the egg (and given the "membership is freely given" policy), I guess I'll go ahead and crash the party. We now return you to your previously scheduled static content.  ;^> --Dan Harkless (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that long-time Wiki users should have some sort of recognition no matter how discreet it is. I know there's a lot of contributors who helped improve Wikipedia more than I, with only a couple of years under their belt who deserve recognition, but still, ten years is TEN YEARS! A Decade! I am proud to to have a Wiki account for this long, so thank you again for making this a reality.jpogi 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for over 11 years and have added my name to the list by adding the category to my user page. Trust it is in line with the usual practice. --jojo@nthony (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott --

May I nominate myself, if not for the secret handshake, then maybe for a secret milkshake?

My first edit was August 2005 here

Cheers and thanks! ch (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just add yourself to the list. The admissions officers have been asleep for ten years. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will nominate myself, then open the envelope, award myself this cherished honor, and then also thank my agent, my family, and the Wikipedia community. Nice logo, too.ch (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 — Scott • talk 21:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you have to know to get admitted to this society?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above: Congrats on this honor! ch (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added (and documented) an optional unnamed parameter to the Ten Year Society userbox, so that if one wants to include the actual number of years they've been editing, they don't need to use a separate account age userbox to do so.

{{User Ten Year Society| (12+)}} produces the following userbox:

This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years (12+).

I also added {{Template:User Ten Year Society}} to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Stats and tools/account age.

--Dan Harkless (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... by Chris Troutman, with my inestimable thanks, but I'm not sure I qualify. Certainly, I first registered ten years ago, but I wasn't active for about half of that, leaving in frustration over something or other and coming back only after seeing the mess that had ensued of an article I had been watching. On the other hand—and with a lot of help—that same article became my first to be featured.

Thoughts? —ATS 🖖 talk 18:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ATS: If you don't feel comfortable with joining you can always wait an extra five years if you choose. The only requirement as I read it is "having been an editor for at least ten years". It doesn't say that you had to have made 300 edits every year or that you were an "active editor" for that entire time. You joined Wikipedia ten years ago and that's what I think we're recognizing here. It's your call. Earn your ten years the hard way if you so choose. You're not the only editor in this situation. Only our service awards require both edit count and longevity. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chris. Just for fun, let's say this was a service award; would you consider me having "earned" it? —ATS 🖖 talk 19:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's my answer. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In making a few minor edits on your society's page, I discovered a grammatical error in the banner associated with your society. Your banner states "This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years." The error in question is the word "ten." Ordinarily I wouldn't give the error much thought since the general public probably doesn't visit our user pages. However, given that this society is made up of experienced, knowledgeable editors, it would be an injustice to the society to allow the error to go unchecked. As you know, for numbers greater than nine, the appropriate usage is to use numerals. Your title is excluded from this rule, of course, since in proper names you are free to use whichever you choose. I hope I do not step on anyone's toes as that is certainly not my intention, but I've made that edit on your behalf to ensure your society is recognized as reflecting the highest quality in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarydaleEd (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that there is no hard-and-fast rule WRT numerals; Chicago MoS writes out up to one hundred, then 101 and up; AP MoS is one through ten, then 11 and up. Our own MOS:NUM does not specify. In any event, this does not qualify as a "grammatical error". Cheers! —ATS 🖖 talk 22:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have reverted the change. Especially if one is using the optional parameter I added (e.g. as in "This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years (12+)."), the original "ten years" just looks better. --Dan Harkless (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect so I'm happy to remove the idea of the ten/10 edits being characterized as grammatical errors, even though I believe they are. However, just so we are clear, individuals don't get to change the rules of the English language based upon what "just looks better," (except, perhaps, on Wikipedia). People who write the English language using whatever "just looks better" do so because they don't know the proper rules. It is ignorance that drives the "write-whatever-looks-better" movement. As a matter of fact, it is the actions of people making up their own English grammar rules based upon what "looks better" that is ruining the English language and causing miscommunications and misunderstandings. The reason standards were created in English grammar was so the writer, speaker, communicator could be properly understood. Using whatever "just looks better" is the bane of the English language. I welcome you to visit my Talk page to read my more expansive thoughts on this very issue, written well before I made an edit to this page. Changing the reference back to a word instead of a numeral was wrong. However, as I said in my explanation, it's a small group created by people who wanted recognition for their service to Wikipedia, and as such, is of no concern of mine. Reference your number however you choose. I've removed it from my watchlist and will speak no further on this particular page. All my best. MarydaleEd (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there's no reason to respond, since MarydaleEd has washed their hands of us, but as previously discussed, style guides certainly do not agree on "ten" being wrong (unlike numbers below ten, which are widely preferred to be spelled out in contexts other than math, technical documentation, addresses, etc.), so expressing that "ten" looks better than "10" in this context is certainly not representative of some evil movement dead-set on ruining the English language. --Dan Harkless (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone able to set up society for 15 years ? I'v got no clue how to.. Does User:Scott take the challange? -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. This isn't intended to be the first tier of a series.  — Scott • talk 21:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your 15+ years, though! "35'th earliest user still 'active'" -- pretty cool. I see you're already using {{User Wikipedian For}} plus [[File:Ten Year Society.svg]] on your user page, but it was for people who wanted to recognize that they'd been editing for more than 10 years but didn't want to separately use {{User Wikipedian For}} or equivalent that I added the optional parameter to {{User Ten Year Society}} to allow one to specify the number of years, as in:

This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years (15+).

--Dan Harkless (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all the "old timers". Where's the cake? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The ratio of people to cake is too many!" --Milton Waddams

--Dan Harkless (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make a BIGGER cake <grin>. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I registered over 10 years ago... but my first edit from this account was in 2009. Anakimi (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anakimi: As the page says, editors must "have been contributing to the Wikipedia project for ten years or more". If you weren't contributing but only registered an account, I would say no. That said, I've not seen stringent application of the criteria since any editor might take an extended break... we have no requirement that an editor will have edited every day without exception for ten years. In my opinion, consider yourself a member if you think the label fits. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Well, I'm pretty sure my first edits were from even before 2006 – from IP and just not from this account. So it's a bit confusing. Anakimi (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to be formally invited to join? I hit ten years as of the end of May. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ks0stm please consider yourself invited. The cake is over there and the bar is that way. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming up on my Sweet 16 soon. I'd ask for pie, but it will probably just blow my decrepit arteries. Manning (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I am still trying to finish elementary school (almost there), senior high school life is still so far away! Alex Shih^Talk 08:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I can get my driver's license? Also, this is really petty, but my start date is Sept 24 2001, yet if you hold your mouse over my name it says Jan 26, 2002. Should I be as annoyed by this as I won't admit I am? Manning (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the hover text couldn't be fixed to include earlier edits, but the date it shows is probably because the very first version of MediaWiki went live on English Wikipedia on Jan 25, 2002.-gadfium 08:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]