User talk:John Broughton

Click here to start a new section. (The edit summary will be created automatically; it will be the same as the heading of the new section.)


18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

20:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #5

[edit]

Welcome to the fifth newsletter for the new Growth team!  

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

New projects for discussion

[edit]

We began the "Personalized first day" project with the welcome survey so that we could gather information about what newcomers are trying to accomplish. The next step is to use that information to create experiences that help the newcomers accomplish their goal – actually personalizing their first day. We asked for community thoughts in the previous newsletter, and after discussing with community members and amongst our team, we are now planning two projects as next steps: "engagement emails" and "newcomer homepage".

  • Engagement emails: this project was first discussed positively by community members here back in September 2018, and the team how has bandwidth to pursue it. The idea is that newcomers who leave the wiki don't get encouraged to return to the wiki and edit. We can engage them through emails that send them the specific information they need to be successful – such as contact from a mentor, the impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?
  • Newcomer homepage: we developed the idea for this project after analyzing the data from the welcome survey and EditorJourney datasets. We saw that many newcomers seem to be looking for a place to get started – a place that collects their past work, options for future work, and ways to learn more. We can build this place, and it can connect to the engagement emails. The content of both could be guided by what newcomers say they need during their welcome survey, and contain things like contact from a mentor, impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?

Initial reports on newcomer activity

[edit]

We have published initial reports on each of the team's first two projects. These reports give the basic numbers from each project, and there are many more questions we will continue to answer in future reports. We're excited about these initial findings. They have already helped us define and design parts of our future projects.

  • Welcome survey: the initial report on welcome survey responses is available here. Some of the main findings:
    • Most users respond to the survey, giving it high response rates of 67% and 62% in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, respectively.
    • The survey does not cause newcomers to be less likely to edit.
    • The most common reason for creating an account in Korean Wikipedia is to read articles—not for editing—with 29% of Korean users giving that responses.
    • Large numbers of respondents said they are interested in being contacted to get help with editing: 36% in Czech and 53% in Korean.
  • Understanding first day: the initial report on what newcomers do on their first day is available here. Some of the main findings:
    • Large numbers of users view help or policy pages on their first day: 42% in Czech and 28% in Korean.
    • Large numbers of users view their own User or User Talk page on their first day: 34% in Czech and 39% in Korean.
    • A majority of new users open an editor on their first day – but about a quarter of them do not go on to save an edit during that time.

Help panel deployment

[edit]

The help panel was deployed in Czech and Korean Wikipedias on January 10. Over the past four weeks:

  • About 400 newcomers in each wiki have seen the help panel button.
  • About 20% of them open up the help panel.
  • About 50% of those who open it up click on one of the links.
  • About 5% of Czech users ask questions, and about 1% of Korean users ask questions.

We think that the 20% open rate and 50% click rate are strong numbers, showing that a lot of people are looking for help, and many want to help themselves by looking at help pages. The somewhat lower numbers of asking questions (especially in Korean Wikipedia) has caused us to consider new features to allow people to help themselves. We're going to be adding a search bar to the help panel next, which will allow users to type a search that only looks for pages in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces.

How to create a good feedback page?

[edit]

What is the way to built a good help page? What blocks you when writing an help page? Your replies will help to create better help contents to newcomers, that would be used on Help panel.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot, 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC) • Give feedbackSubscribe or unsubscribe.

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

[edit]
Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

[edit]

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, I mentioned your book at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Discussion tools in the past. Please Be Bold and correct any errors and omissions that you see, or drop by the talk page and tell stories about what Wikipedia was like back in the day.  ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

[edit]

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

[edit]

Hello John Broughton,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.


Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Growth team updates #6

[edit]

18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

18:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Judicial service

[edit]

In my experience, it is the norm to refer to "judicial service"; we have literally thousands of articles with headings for judicial service, or specifically for state judicial service and federal judicial service. bd2412 T 01:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I'll defer to your expertise, though I'm glad to see that you didn't think there was a need to repeat "service" in the subsection headings. (My larger gripe is with sentences that read, for example, "She served in the position of Deputy Whatever from [date] ... ", when it could simply read "She was the Deputy Whatever from [date] ... "). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That, I am fine with. Thanks. bd2412 T 02:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

[edit]

16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

18:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

19:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #7

[edit]

16:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

22:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Jay Shetty

[edit]

Just submitted new Jay Shetty draft for review. Thanks for getting the word out and I hope you’ll take a look. Thank you.

Added a new source to Jay Shetty’s draft - I hope you’ll take a look. Thanks!--Marysairplane (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a recent edit to this page due to no source. Did I do this correctly? --Marysairplane (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marysairplane - yes. That wasn't a particularly bad edit, but it wasn't helpful, so removing it was a good idea.
If this had been a registered editor, rather than an IP address (anonymous user) doing the edit, I would have checked to see if you had posted a comment to the user talk page, letting the user know why you did the revert. But it's generally not worthwhile to do this for an IP editor, since the chances of the user subsequently seeing your comment (let alone considering it seriously) is very low. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointers. Just checking - another anonymous user left an edit with a tag that reads “notable?” at the top of the page and I’m not sure how to proceed. Looking for advice. --Marysairplane (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marysairplane - I've reverted the edits that are related to the template/tag. It was an anonymous IP editor that put up the template, and there was no explanation on the article talk page about why he/she thought that the topic wasn't notable. Given the source of the edit (IP editor with no history of other edits), the lack of detail in both the edit summary and on the talk page, and the number of sources actually cited in the article, the posting of the template isn't credible. So I deleted it, with an invitation, in the edit summary, to discuss further the matter on the article talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John - this page has been vandalized multiple times by anonymous users over the last 24 hours. Do you think this qualifies to be protected? —Marysairplane (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marysairplane -- I don't think that the amount or type of vandalism has quite risen to the level where semi-protection (preventing anonymous editors from editing) is justified, though this is subjective. The policy is at WP:PREEMPTIVE, if you haven't looked yet.
The most persistent of the editors has been blocked (for 31 hours), and I added a post to their user talk page to try to explain Wikipedia policies; they're trying to add content, not vandalize per se, though unsourced negative content is still unacceptable.
But if you want to ask for semi-protection, I certainly wouldn't object. Or you could wait a day or two and see if problem persists. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. The problem persisted for several days, so I went ahead and requested semi protection. —Marysairplane (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is receiving vandalism again and I’m looking for some help. I reverted some edits yesterday due to a lack of independent and reliable sources and the user has replaced them. One of them is a self-published source. I’d like to get a second pair of eyes on this if you can take a look. Maybe we should consider requesting protection again. —Marysairplane (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marysairplane -- I've made some changes to the article, and posted at Talk:Jay Shetty. This conversation should be continued on that page, if you don't think the information now in the Wikipedia article is acceptable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]