User talk:SmokeyJoe

Wikipedia:Numbers

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

go ahead and delete these two

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Hag2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help Project newsletter : Issue 4

The Help Project Newsletter Issue IV - September 2012

Project news summary The in-person usability tests from the wub's community fellowship have been written up. Three new introductory tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Wikipedia. The Article Feedback Tool has been deployed to pages in the Help namespace, and can be added manually to help pages in other namespaces. Read more... Page statistics were updated for the month of August.

From the editor Hi, and welcome to the fourth issue of the Help Project newsletter. It's been another busy month in the world of Wikipedia help. The results from the in-person usability tests conducted as part of the help pages fellowship have been released. There are no great surprises here, the tests confirmed that people have trouble with the existing help system, and people looking for help on the same topic often end up at wildly different pages. Editors who experienced a tutorial and/or edited a sandbox as part of their learning were noticeably more confident when editing a real article. Drawing on that, three new "Introduction to" tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Wikipedia. These join the popular existing introductions to policies and guidelines and talk pages. Feel free to edit them, but please do remember that the idea is to keep them simple and as free from extraneous details as possible. All three have been added to Help:Getting started, which is intended to be the new focal point for new editors, and will also be seeing a redesign soon. In other news, the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) can now be used to collect feedback on help pages. By default it has been deployed to all pages in the Help: namespace. It can be disabled on any page by adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, or enabled for pages in other namespaces by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. Once a page has AFT applied, you can add feedback using the form which appears at the bottom of it. Feedback can be reviewed by clicking "View feedback" in the sidebar, or the "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of your watchlist. I'm now entering the final month of my fellowship, and will be focusing my efforts on making much needed improvements to Help:Contents, the main entrance point to our help system. It's been a pleasure working as a fellow, and I just want to thank all the people who have helped me or offered advice over the past months. That definitely won't be the end of my involvement in the Help Project though, I'll be sticking around as a volunteer and continuing to write this newsletter. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. -- the wub "?!" 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at BrownHairedGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help Project newsletter : Issue 5

The Help Project Newsletter Issue V - January 2013

Project news summary Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Contact us have seen a major revamp. Page statistics were updated. Alerts are now available for discussions related to Help Project pages Many more Help Project pages now have the Article Feedback Tool (v5) enabled. GettingStarted is an experimental feature to guide new users with their first edits.

From the editor Hello again from the Help Project! In the last newsletter (which was quite a while ago sorry!) I talked about my fellowship and the plans for improving the main portal page, Help:Contents. Well I'm sad to say that my fellowship is now over, but very happy to say that the proposed improvements to that page have been completed and implemented. Do check it out if you haven't already. Another important and frequently used help page, Wikipedia:Contact us, has also seen a significant revamp. You may recognise the design inspiration from the new tutorial pages. In project news, we now have a subscription to the "article alerts" service. Any deletion nominations, move discussions, or requests for comments on pages within the Help Project's scope will now show up at Wikipedia:Help Project/Article alerts. So that's definitely a page which project members might want to watch. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject:REHAB update

You signed up for WikiProject User Rehab

Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page
RDN1F TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 6

The Help Project Newsletter	Issue VI - April 2013
Open Help Conference The Open Help Conference will be taking place June 15-19 in Cincinnati Ohio, USA. The conference includes two days of presentations and open discussions, followed by team "sprints" - collaborative efforts to write and improve documentation. It has been suggested to send a team from Wikipedia/Wikimedia: to share our own knowledge about help, learn from others in the open source community working on similar problems, and to carry out a sprint to improve some aspect of Wikipedia's help. There may be support available for volunteers to attend from the Participation Support program (and your editor is certainly hoping to be there!) Please join the discussion in Meta's IdeaLab if you're interested, and/or have suggestions about what we could work on.	Other news The Article Feedback Tool (v5) has now been changed to be opt-in for all pages. It can be enabled for specific pages by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 to them. There are also a number of new features. It has been proposed to merge the questions forum of the New contributors' help page into the Teahouse. Discussion is taking place here. The help menu at Help:Contents/Browse and its subpages have been largely cleaned up. User:Moxy has created a descriptive help directory. A project on Video and Interactive Tutorials has begun, supported by a Wikimedia Foundation grant. Suggestions for subjects are invited on the talk page.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. the wub "?!" 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zzz369/sandbox

Hello. I am writing to you regarding the deletion of my sandbox page. First, I am not clear why my harmless sandbox is deleted, I think it was a valid page listing all currently transmitted telenovelas, similar pages exist in wikipedia, this one is just more detailed and in the end it is only a sandbox. Second, I honestly do not understand what user User:Philip J Fry has against me, instead of contributing for the good of wikipedia he is constantly chasing me. Now he has gone against my harmless sandbox, and previously if you take a look at the history he has reverted many of my edits of en.wikipedia, those edits that I made were usually corrections of the erroneous data, and he has on various occasions insisted that his or previous edits are somehow right, providing no or no valid reason. Therefore, please help me retrieve my sandbox and warn the user Philip J Fry to stop chasing me. I know that lately I did not contribute much on en.wikipedia, but on es.wikipedia I have good references where I have introduced many new things and they have been now accepted by other users. All the best, --Zzz369 (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)

Don't understand your "support (1983 album)" comment on the album RM. Are there two albums by Madonna both called Madonna? AFAIK the other 2 are by 2 other artists. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Madonna (Madonna album) is silly. Madonna (album) is ambiguous. Madonna (debut album) or Madonna (1983 album) would be good titles. Do you have a better idea? Every article should have a decent title. Sometimes the parenthetical suffix should be considered a subtitle not a technical disambiguator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is Madonna (Madonna album) silly? Very many artists have self titled albums, they are all titled in this way if there are two albums. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The repetition reads silly. If one Madonna reads to you differently to the other, then you are reading it as a deeply encultured Wikipedia titling aficionado, and not as a casual reader. Does Madonna make albums that are not Madonna albums? The parenthetical Madonna could be improved by change to “eponymous” or “self-titled”. I prefer 1983 as the year provides valuable information. It tells me that it is a very early album. “Debut” too. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you're overstating it, compare Avalon (Roxy Music album), to Avalon (Avalon album) or H2O (H2O album) vs H2O (Hall & Oates album) All Saints (All Saints album) vas All Saints (David Bowie album), there are literally dozens of self-titled albums which require the artist dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not all self-titled albums are debut albums, so there would still be plenty of edge cases if you went with (debut album). Also, if you go with year, its still possible to have two albums in the same year with the same name, having one use the year and another use a band name could be confusing. "Eponymous" is not a common word, most sources won't use it. I do like (self-titled album) as the way to go. -- Netoholic @ 22:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Avalon (Roxy Music album)? I don't see a problem.

Avalon (Avalon album) should go to Avalon (1996 album), then it wouldn't be sill and wouldnt need the hatnote.

H2O (H2O album). silly. Instead H2O (debut album) Its single reference begins: "H20's eponymous debut ..." (sic).

Similarly, All Saints (All Saints album) --> All Saints (debut album), or better All Saints (1997 album)

Self titled albums that are not debut albums can be titled "(yyyy album)". So could debut albums. Personally, I would prefer the date over "debut" generally, because the year is definitive and factual, "debut" can call into question the status of some uncirculated self-published experiment. Who's to say that Madonna didn't compose an album in 1982, or 1979, that she didn't release.

Multiple eponymous albums in the one year? Easily accommodated, a very old question long since solved, commonly by Parenthetical_referencing#Author-date dot point #7. There are so many easy solutions for this rare occurrance.

I agree with you on the slight preference of "self-titled" over "eponymous", and agree with using "self-titled" over a repeat of the name. Good writing avoids repetition of the same words. Repetition on the title is extremely silly looking.

(a) H2O (1996 album)

(b) H2O (self-titled album)

(c) H2O (debut album)

(d) H2O (eponymous album)

All are better than H2O (H2O album). My preference is the order listed. (a) gives the most information assisting recognition and avoidance of mis-recognition, and is even the shortest --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well there are reasons the Music project has rejected these kind of dabs. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What kind of reasons? Do they have records? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SmokeyJoe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

G11 and sourcing

Following up here so as not to overwhelm that MfD: I think we are in agreement on most things here. XfD is preferred when something isn't fundamentally promotional but is still spam. I think if you check my XfD to G11 tagging ration, you'll find that I send most spam to XfD because I interpret G11 very narrowly. My answer to your question would be if there are two decent paragraphs/headers it doesn't matter what the sourcing is: it isn't G11 eligible. My disagreement on the draft in question is that the only header that doesn't need a fundamental rewrite on my view is a sentence that includes information about his family and pet dog. All speedy deletion criteria are discussing the article as it stands at the time the admin is reviewing the tag, and any previous version in the revision history, not a potential future article. On G11 the question is if by removing or tweaking the promotional content in a non-fundamental way, would there be an article left at the end of it. If that is the case, the sourcing doesn't matter. If it isn't, the sourcing also doesn't matter as it should be kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Widr (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ghits

Hi, just a clarification about search engine hit counts: at this Rfc you said, "great care has to be taken to select only introductory uses, to eliminate repeat usage in the same document." I think you might be confusing the concept of PageRank on the one hand, for which the number of occurrences per document does play a part in ranking, with the search result hit count on the other, which is a count of the number of documents containing a given search term. If a document contains the search term 100 times, that document counts for one hit. (Naturally, it's not quite that simple and many other factors can affect hit count, but that's the basic principle.) But in general, you are right about having to use hit counts carefully, because they can be affected by many factors including double quotes, multiple terms, stop words, delimiters, pluralization and other suffix inflection, and many other factors which could fill an essay. But multiple occurrences of the search term per document, isn't one of them. You can prove it to yourself by experiment, using a search term that returns very few documents, where one of the documents contains the term twice or more. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Monasteries

I'm not sure how to interpret your closing comment on the category discussion. Do you mean that the article result came to the "wrong" decision? Because that's what I think happened. It was overly parochial. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article RM came to the wrong decision. The participants have an English background bias, I guess. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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 1^st and run until January 29^th. 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)Template:Z48

Dude seriously...

Just type "reply" and it will suffice. GMG^talk 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)