User:Alien³₃₃

Here, the ultimate goal of technological optimization is to proofread only by reading. Most of the human input is unnecessary^[3], and we can go much faster without it.^[4].
We should not focus on notability or usefulness, as they are both very relative^[6]. I personally choose the works I do because why not^[7].
For technical stuff, the cache is the god and the devil. It is the cause^[8] or the solution^[9] of most problems.
We have a problem with documentation. No one actively takes care of the help pages^[10]. The /doc subpages of templates are in some cases good, but they're hard to find. We have a great lot of them, a nice help page that doesn't cover a lot of them and a category tree that doesn't either^[11]. Some templates are in categories that make them hard to find^[12]. I am neither the first, nor the second, and not the third either to think we have a documentation issue. There have apparently been a number of attempts to fix this already, and they've more or less all dwindled to nothing.
Everyone makes mistakes. Not saying it's inevitable; merely that we should at all times expect that we're maybe going to make one, and prevent it.
To me, it appears that the key instrument of integration into a wiki community is the watchlist, for two reasons:
1. Discussions. The moment I really started participating in a coordinated effort (as opposed to proofreading stuff, lurking in a corner of the room) was when I watchlisted WS:S, WS:PD and WS:CV. In the meanwhile, I've watchlisted most user talk pages^[13]. In a relatively small community like this, it allows one to be aware of virtually every discussion.
2. Corrections. Experienced users correct mistakes when they see them; that's good. But often they don't tell the people that made the mistake, about their mistake. It is also my watchlisting every page I ever created^[14] that has allowed me to learn how stuff works.
It feels a bit strange sometimes coming across old traces of a forgotten past.

↑ with an absurd quantity of footnotes for not really necessary information. I am usually more of a parentheses user, but refs clutter the text less, even though it's a bit awkward
↑ and you probably do, if you landed here
↑ e.g. copying in the previous/next fields names already written in the TOC
↑ it is a bit ridiculous that I am taking time that I could have spent proofreading to write on how precious time is
↑ though obscure doesn't mean bad, and the best I did were quite obscure
↑ notability also has the issue that it's when we duplicate most the work of others, as for instance PG has most famous texts, but likelily not obscure collections of poetry^[5] by authors of whom the work is the only trace
↑ and maybe an unreasonable liking of running gags. Can't tell me the 161 authors were notable, or that a lot of people care for them
↑ Notably for: scripting, you're looking for bugs that don't exist anymore; anything which relies on search-based page generators, with a wide range of consequences; images
↑ less often than it is the cause, sadly; but often useful for optimisation
↑ and despite my complaining about it most of the time I don't either
↑ and is sometimes a bit unclear in the distinction between subcategories
↑ e.g. {{ppoem}} in Category:Experimental templates
↑ Which leads me to comment in discussions between two other people quite often, but no one's found it offending yet, and I think I've been able to bring useful information. Will stop if someone does.
↑ Which means having more than 51 000 pages on my watchlist, that I can now edit only with the raw form (else it crashes), but that's ... another question.

Stuff

This is not an alien (it just looks funny ^[1]).
Speaking of stuff that looks strange, this isn't bad^[2].
Sundogs are weird too, but they're pretty,
though not in the same ways as art can be.
Clouds can be pretty too,
as can the sea,
though snow is even more,
but space is much,
much,
much,
much more beautiful than any of these.
Oh, and also, I like cellular automata,
and have made a few myself (and a simulator).
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!^[3]
I am a janitor^[4]^[5] since december 2024, for the better or for the worse^[7]
See this fence? If you don't know why it's here, don't touch it
(Takes too much time from proofreading)
Fractals are nice

↑ it would have been a shame if something called mantis shrimp has not been original
↑ details on that sort of stuff at w:Leg mechanism
↑ I find that phrase sort of motivating
↑ and we should really remember that it's no more than a mop to scrub the floor
↑ Also, feel free to strike that out whenever it becomes false
↑ The bit of code that does that. It however only does it for enwp. Would have liked to have this shitty hack over here too.
↑ I deleted the main page, for 30 seconds. And then forgot to reprotect it. Not the most glorious thing I did. More context, in my defence: I wanted to test API:delete, because I was closing a PD discussion that required batch deleting. So, I thought, "on which page can I practice safely without any consequences?" From the enwp village stocks, I'd kept the impression that deleting the main page had been made impossible^[6]. I wasn't sure, so I looked at the menu at the main page, saw that there was no delete button, was satisfied that you couldn't delete it, and the rest is history.

Other boxes

Awards for participation

Proofread of the Month
January 2025
The Cat

Proofread of the Month
January 2025
(second work)
Precious Stones

Proofread of the Month
February 2025
Towards a New Architecture

Proofread of the Month
April 2025
Poetry Month

Proofread of the Month
June 2025
The Saga of Billy the Kid

Wikisource snapshot
No. of pages = 4,779,746 No. of articles = 1,125,316 No. of files = 16,665 No. of edits = 15,556,696 No. of pages in Main = 658,779 No. of pages in Page: = 3,606,518 No. validated in Page: = 712,058 No. proofread in Page: = 1,499,545 No. not proofread in Page: = 1,063,072 No. problematic in Page: = 50,850 No. of validated works = 7,241 No. of proofread only works = 7,842 No. of pages in Main with transclusions = 449,845 % transcluded pages in Main = 68.28 No. of users = 3,208,269 No. of active users = 623 No. of group:autopatrolled = 510 No. in group:sysop = 18 No. in group:bureaucrat = 2 No. in group:bot = 18

[1] with an absurd quantity of footnotes for not really necessary information. I am usually more of a parentheses user, but refs clutter the text less, even though it's a bit awkward

[2] you probably do, if you landed here

[3] .g. copying in the previous/next fields names already written in the TOC

[4] t is a bit ridiculous that I am taking time that I could have spent proofreading to write on how precious time is

[5] though obscure doesn't mean bad, and the best I did were quite obscure

[6] tability also has the issue that it's when we duplicate most the work of others, as for instance PG has most famous texts, but likelily not obscure collections of poetry^[5] by authors of whom the work is the only trace

[7] ybe an unreasonable liking of running gags. Can't tell me the 161 authors were notable, or that a lot of people care for them

[8] Notably for: scripting, you're looking for bugs that don't exist anymore; anything which relies on search-based page generators, with a wide range of consequences; images

[9] ss often than it is the cause, sadly; but often useful for optimisation

[10] spite my complaining about it most of the time I don't either

[11] s sometimes a bit unclear in the distinction between subcategories

[12] .g. {{ppoem}} in Category:Experimental templates

[13] Which leads me to comment in discussions between two other people quite often, but no one's found it offending yet, and I think I've been able to bring useful information. Will stop if someone does.

[14] Which means having more than 51 000 pages on my watchlist, that I can now edit only with the raw form (else it crashes), but that's ... another question.

[15] t would have been a shame if something called mantis shrimp has not been original

[16] tails on that sort of stuff at w:Leg mechanism

[17] I find that phrase sort of motivating

[18] we should really remember that it's no more than a mop to scrub the floor

[19] Also, feel free to strike that out whenever it becomes false

[20] The bit of code that does that. It however only does it for enwp. Would have liked to have this shitty hack over here too.

[21] I deleted the main page, for 30 seconds. And then forgot to reprotect it. Not the most glorious thing I did. More context, in my defence: I wanted to test API:delete, because I was closing a PD discussion that required batch deleting. So, I thought, "on which page can I practice safely without any consequences?" From the enwp village stocks, I'd kept the impression that deleting the main page had been made impossible^[6]. I wasn't sure, so I looked at the menu at the main page, saw that there was no delete button, was satisfied that you couldn't delete it, and the rest is history.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[7]

[6]