If I left a message on your talk page, or on an article's talk page, please answer there unless necessary, starting the message with ((re|PaleoNeonate)) to gather my attention. If you leave a message here, I'll answer here. Thanks.

This is PaleoNeonate's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Their input is welcome and their help appreciated.

Hello PaleoNeonate,

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 PaleoNeonate,

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.

Hello PaleoNeonate,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Happy holidays, PaleoNeonate. My plan fell through in an extremely frustrating way. I came very close to bringing about a resource which would have at least reset the discussion regarding the topic where my troubles originated. To a large extent, this was fair and informative, but a few things were confusing. In particular, a mixup between subtopics seemed like too big of a stain, and I couldn't get this fixed.

Nevertheless, I would like to at least get some clear improvements restored in Wikipedia. Since you have edited in these areas, I thought maybe you could take a look at the last eight edits of the account StuckWithBadVersions (talk · contribs). Explanations are given in the edit summaries, and the subsequent reverts had nothing to do with actual content. The Mark Geragos history in particular illustrates how absurd this is, and I'm surprised that one hasn't been fixed.

Also, I didn't do this. I can only guess that something appeared to match, but I know nothing about any such emails or other off-wiki activity. Yes, I was guilty of edit-stalking on Wikipedia, and I regret that, but that in itself does not appear to be grounds for what was done, and due to the linked comment, I would guess that the conclusion that I sent such emails was the main reason for this. But none of this really matters, if we just focus on actual content. 41.203.83.242 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi PaleoNeonate. This seems to be another tedious sockpuppet of Belteshazzar (WP:LTA/BTSZ). I have no idea what this "plan" stuff is/was about but my advice is to deny recognition and not to waste your time on this, whatever it might be. DanielRigal (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Daniel. Belteshazzar, he's right and the policy about banning also mentions proxying. But there also is a process to appeal, that may be successful after avoiding evasion long enough. The original account's talk page or the ticket system can be used (WP:APPEAL). I unfortunately don't have as much time as I would like for WP lately, so my replies may be delayed, sorry about that. —PaleoNeonate – 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other users, including an admin, have restored several of my reverted edits, especially to baseball-related articles, and as far as I can tell they haven't been punished or even warned for doing this. You have previously worked on WP:FIXBIAS, at least, so you could judge my edits there. In fact, an admin did restore some of my previous edits to that page, but I can't contact him as his user talk page is extended-confirmed protected (not due to anything I did). Anyway, you seem like a reasonable person, and I'm sorry to bother you. Things would have been different if not for the aforementioned mixup, or perhaps even if this article had been written a bit more carefully. 138.121.24.219 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above blocked proxy IP is the globally banned user Belteshazzar. It is very unlikely they would be able to appeal their block. This user stalked myself and another user for nearly 2 years on this website. I reported his on-site stalking behaviour and he was globally banned. His behaviour was completely unethical. The WMF staff are aware about his harassment campaigns. The user has since apologized for the stalking on their proxy IPs but continues to disrupt this website. He's confessed to having serious mental health issues so it is unlikely he will give up disruption of articles. Every week this user has a different proxy. The best thing to do is lock articles they are editing, revert and ignore them. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 05:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]