User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakpassion

Thanks for the reply on my talk page Joe. By the way, I noticed you just closed this Vfd. I suggest you to salt it because the page has been created several times in the past. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I did see your comment and consider it, but the last creation was in 2008 and coincided with an admin lifting the previous protection, so there was nothing untoward. I will watch the article and salt if it becomes necessary. – Joe (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Fact

Hi, to replace a Fact template you must use a citation to support the dates. If no citation then the sentences are removed from the article, see Wikipedia:Citing sources IQ125 (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi IQ125. Did you read the section I linked to? The purpose of a lead section is to summarise the contents of an article. As a result, it's common practice to omit inline citations – if the reader wants to verify the summary, they can read the relevant section of the article body. In this case, about a third of Recent African origin of modern humans is devoted to Recent dispersals out of Africa, and the section is supported by 50+ citations. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you will have to move some of the citations into the paragraph without any citations. That is the rules at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. IQ125 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have any rules, IQ125, only consensus. And consensus seems to be that the state of sourcing in the lead is fine. In the interests of compromise, I have no objection to adding a few extra citations, but you will have to specify what exactly it is that you are challenging (the date for the emergence of modern humans? the number of dispersal? the dates for the dispersal events?) I would suggest doing so on Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans rather than here so other interested editors have the chance to participate in the discussion. – Joe (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion U5

I see that you declined a speedy deletion nomination because you thought the page was not an example of "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". The page contains nothing except for telling us about the YouTube account of the person who created the page, how many views it has had, and that he is "up and coming". The account has made no edits at all to any page apart from its user page. Can you tell me what you think would be "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages"? Breaking sticks (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Breaking sticks: A valid U5 candidate would be one that is an unambiguous ("blatant") misuse of userspace. That user page could have been an attempt to promote a YouTube channel (although it didn't link to it). On the other hand, it could simply be the user telling us about themselves, which is a perfectly valid use of userspace and something lots of new editors do in their first few edits. It is hard to tell from just 1-2 lines of text, and in ambiguous cases like that we should always assume good faith, especially where new accounts are concerned. – Joe (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that assuming good faith comes into it. People create WP:NOTWEBHOST infringing pages in perfectly good faith because they don't know that isn't considered acceptable, just as people create articles on unnotable subjects, promotional articles, articles where they have a COI, copyright infringing pages, and so on, in perfectly good faith, because they don't know that what they are doing is not acceptable. In fact my guess is that much more than 90% of articles that get deleted were created in good faith. The criterion is "Pages ... not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages", not "Pages ... created in bad faith not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". Breaking sticks (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Breaking sticks: I meant that we should assume good faith in not jumping to the conclusion that a user page is contrary to Wikipedia's goals. That is why the speedy deletion criteria all contain phrases such as "blatant", "unambiguous", "uncontroversial", etc.; we shouldn't be using them when it is not 100% obvious that a page violates our core content policies. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. There are several things there that I am convinced are just plain wrong, but there's probably no point in spending more time on such a minor incident. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Herbert C. Kodilinye article nomination for the deletion

Sorry, I didn't see that Herbert C. Kodilinye has passed the deletion process. Please revert my nomination if you feel like it. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbarmadillo. Don't worry – I've made that mistake plenty of times, it's not a big deal. I see Babymissfortune has beaten me to closing it. – Joe (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This article could barely be called an article, IMHO. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Useful idiot

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Useful idiot. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2018

Delivered January 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Page deletion: OSTree

Dear Joe Roe,

thanks for the note and the precautions about the copyright issue. I had assumed that the documentation to an open source projects is also open source, but you are right that it should be checked thoroughly. So I started digging and found that Introduction.md in the github project is the same as the documentation hosted at ReadTheDocs. The whole projects is licensed under GLPL, so I think that it is ok to recycle it for Wikipedia and I ask you kindly to restore the page, but you decide. -- Bernhard Treutwein —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on that, Bernhard. Unfortunately GNU licenses aren't compatible with Wikipedia. I'd suggest rewriting the article in your own words. – Joe (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried my best in creating a stub from scratch Treutwein (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Tells

Hi there, I saw you reverted my deletion of the list of tells in Tell (archaeology). This list used to be in the article before, but was deleted because the list can never be complete, and "notable" is an extremely arbitrary notion. Looking at the list as it stands now, the first one, Tell Abib, for example isn't notable in any way. In fact, it's not even a place that can be located on a map. And many others are important sites, but I can list dozens of other sites that would be just as notable. So do you have any ideas on how to define "notable" to make this list anything more than just a random listing of sites? Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zoeperkoe: Notable in the Wikipedia sense. In other words, we only include tells that have their own article. That is a standard inclusion criteria for most lists on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, that list would then have to include every tell for which an article on Wikipedia exists? For example, Category:Archaeological sites in Iraq alone includes 90+ sites, and the majority of these are tells (or consist of multiple tells). And that's only Iraq. Do you really want to list all of them in this article? Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, it can be moved to a standalone list (i.e. List of tells) if/when it gets too long. Regardless of length or completeness, I think a list will be useful to our readers. The fact that multiple editors have tried to add one over the years seems like a testament to that. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that Category:Tells was created for this reason (even though that category is also not really well-maintained); see the discussion on the talk page of the article. But I'll see if I can start the list article (although I've given up on list articles that can never be complete); at least it will keep this article concise and focused. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zoeperkoe: Well I don't think expanding Tell (archaeology) is a bad thing. It's barely more than a stub at this point. – Joe (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I agree completely that a lot more could and should be said ;) But I don't think that an endless list of tells does a lot in telling people what a tell is. What would be needed is more information about the spread of tells, about tell formation processes, about excavation and research methods, and so forth. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed! – Joe (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Making Griffin Warrior Tomb better

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your input on Griffin Tomb Warrior. I do see that I tend to add quotes. I know these are not journalism pieces, but I find myself wanting to make the articles more interesting for me to read! I think that may be a weakness of mine unless I work on that issue.

Would you recommend not having any quotable information in articles?. I have noticed some Wiki articles have quotes, but that does not mean it's a good thing.

And was that why Julie K. Stein got a "Start" class or was it the sources I used--All I could find for the most part belonged to her University.

I have contacted Jack Davis, the lead for the Griffin Tomb project. I have been in contact with him before and he was able to direct me to the archivist at the University of Cincinnati to get photos for Ida Hill and Elizabeth Blegen. I hope its ok to contact him for photos for Stocker and the Tomb article. I think the Griffin tomb would look great with lots of artifact photos or illustrations.

How can I make the Griffin Warrior Tomb better?

FYI, I am going to work on my first online Edithon this month. Participating in Women in Red's: Geofocus Britain and Ireland, so I may be able to do a few British archaeologists, but I will be trying some new professional areas for something different.

MauraWen (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@MauraWen: No not no quotes, just a little less I think. Giving Julie K. Stein a Start-class was my mistake, sorry. I mustn't have been paying attention and just accepted the automated rating given by the script I use.
I think if we could get some photos for Griffin Warrior Tomb that'd be great. I'll have a more detailed read through it soon and see if I can spot anything that needs to be improved to meet the GA criteria. In the meantime, I did notice that all the references are to press articles and websites – do you know if there have been any scholarly publications on the site yet? – Joe (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks

Hi,

In appreciation of your message on the WIP talk page re: Women in Archaeology taskforce, I have celebrated this is the only sensible way - by creating an article. So Alice Stevenson (archaeologist) created in thanks of your thanks. Zakhx150 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of OnBuy page

Hi Joe. The OnBuy page was deleted by you, but there were some verifiable and notable links relating to the growth of OnBuy. We would like to reinstate this page. Many thanks

Jefftravis36 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Jeff 03/01/2018

Hi Jefftravis36. I carried out the deletion, but it was decided by this discussion. The consensus was that the company was not notable and therefore couldn't be included in the encyclopaedia. – Joe (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I actually watched OnBuy on BBC South News yesterday throughout the day, and they are growing immensely. I created a new page today without realising the exact procedure (apologies), but even with my research MSN, local and national papers, BBC - the site is very notable. Alexa showing c. 11k site in all UK and growing. I'm going to cite the BBC piece on my Draft Page (which is marked for speedy deletion) and also, I read they are soon to be the first UK marketplace ever to partner with PayPal, which is massive for the industry - and we are monitoring them closely with much interest. I feel this page was removed a bit too hastily. UKBizMan (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) 04/01/2018
Please can we ask for this decision to be reconsidered? We are happy to submit an updated page.
On the issue of notability, OnBuy was in 20m households over Christmas through an ITV1 advertising campaign.
It is currently approx. 11,000th in terms of most popular websites in the UK – see
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/onbuy.com and https://www.similarweb.com/website/onbuy.com
It was also featured in a leading BBC report yesterday.
Any further advice you can give on what further qualifications you would need would be appreciated. Jefftravis36 (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Jeff 04/01/2018
@Jefftravis36: You keep saying "we". What do you mean by that? Do you work for the company?
@UKBizMan and Jefftravis36: It's not up to me to decide whether a company should have an article. You could simply start a new one, but this soon after the an AfD discussion closed it is likely to be simply immediately deleted again. What I can do is restore the page as a draft for you. You could then work on improving it and adding references and, when it is ready, submit it to articles for creation for review. How does that sound? – Joe (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Joe. If it could be restored as a draft please and I can improve and add references that would be great. Thanks Jefftravis36 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Jeff 04/01/2018
@Jefftravis36: Okay, I can do that. But could you please answer my question about whether you work for the company? – Joe (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. We are external advisors to OnBuy. Everything we submit will be appropriately referenced so it can be independently checked.Jefftravis36 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC) 04/01/2018
Thanks, Jefftravis36. I'm afraid that's a problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing tool. As I'm sure you can appreciate, it does not help an encyclopaedia's reputation for integrity if people are paid to edit articles on behalf of companies. Our conflict of interest policy very strongly discourages this type of editing, but if you insist on continuing you must abide by the paid editing policy. Your edits to OnBuy to date have been a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use (a legal document) as well as the community's expectations.
Most importantly, you and anyone else conducting paid edits (UKBizMan, I assume?) need to fully disclose them ASAP. You can do so by following these instructions. We would also ask that you refrain from editing OnBuy's page directly: you can prepare the draft, but you will have to ask an independent editor to review it for you. If they agree to publish the draft, you should then stop editing the page directly, and instead make suggestions on the talk page.
On your request I've restored the article at Draft:OnBuy. It can be submitted for review using the button at the top of the page. However, to reiterate, we would strongly prefer it if you didn't continue working on it. Wikipedia is a neutral, volunteer-edited encyclopaedia and should not be used for promotion or public relations. – Joe (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Thank you for the ping. No, I don't work for and am not associated with the company. I don't know the other user, Jeff. I own and operate a separate ecommerce business and came across OnBuy at some point last year, through a TV advert. I took strong interest in OnBuy as an Amazon challenger, as a rising marketplace in the UK and something that we (my company) thought was a great idea. Yesterday they made BBC news across the south of England (for the second time I believe). I browsed Wikipedia and saw the page was deleted and saw the comment that stated that the site was not notable. I felt this was incorrect, having seen them advertise everywhere in the UK from TV to Instagram. Having just seen OnBuy on the news, I decided to put the story together based on a mix on cache from Wikipedia/Google, and my own search of Google News - because it's wrong that moderators remove pages in areas they obviously don't realise are actually notable, and felt that it was either malicious or another rival company taking the action to affect the first credible British Amazon alternative that I have seen, to then be removed without just cause. I stand by my comment, because there are much smaller sites that OnBuy on Wikipedia - and the only other British marketplace out there, with similar traffic but less current exposure and retailer support, are still on Wikipedia (not naming names!). I think that the notability of any business cannot be determined by a few moderators who have only a limited experience in the area that the particular business operated. With citations form MSN, MEN, BBC, how can this not be notable - it doesn't make sense. My own business is not on Wikipedia, despite being a relatively large firm, but a national marketplace with major investment, major advertising, good and growing traffic, and support from major TV outsets and news from BBC and the like, is a completely different story and I truly hope that you reconsider your position on this, as it seems a bit strange that they have been removed despite such amazing industry recognition. I've had my say, but the ball is not in my court - obviously. Is there a way to appeal a deletion? UKBizMan (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC) 04/01/2018
Thanks for clearing that up, UKBizMan. I only asked because Jeff keeps saying "we".
I do think that you have a number of misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, there are no moderators. I'm an administrator, but all that means is that I have access to some extra maintenance tools, it doesn't give me any special decision-making or reviewing powers. Editorial decisions here are made through discussion and the principle of consensus. Anyone is welcome to participate in that decision-making process on an equal footing – yourself included. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnBuy had less participation than usual but nevertheless it was a consensus of editors that the article should be deleted. If that consensus changes we can restore the article, simple as.
Second, our criteria for inclusion have nothing to do with the size of a business, its investors, advertising budget, traffic or customer base, the existence of articles on other companies, or specialist knowledge. It almost always comes down to notability, which as far as we're concerned means "is there significant coverage in independent, reliable sources?" Anybody with decent research skills can look for sources and gauge notability – you don't have to have industry experience. The participants in the AfD did not find enough coverage, but if you can prove them wrong then that decision can easily be reversed.
Third, I can assure you that neither of the participants in the AfD were acting maliciously in arguing for deletion — they have both been dedicated contributors to Wikipedia for many years. And whilst I can't speak for them, I highly doubt they have any association with OnBuy's competitors.
Finally, maybe you missed it, but I have already undeleted the article as Draft:OnBuy, so no "appeal" is necessary. You are free to work on it and submit it for review, or publish it yourself. I would suggest focusing on adding the media references you mentioned, because that is going to be what other editors look for in deciding whether it should stay or not. If there's one thing I've learned about Wikipedia, it's that you win a lot more arguments by rolling up your sleeves and writing encyclopaedia articles than you do by debating on talk pages. – Joe (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you disagree with the deletion, I would suggest you post a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where this can be reviewed by the community as a whole. Since this was a deletion at AfD, it will require this review to have the page restored. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Lucie Tarpent

Hi Joe Roe, may I ask what is your rationale behind the reversion? After your revert I went through another check on all the votes and their reasons, and while I noticed !keep voters attempting to argue their case through on the application of WP:PROF on the contrary of the !delete voters, I was not sure if the present state of discourse constitutes consensus. Still I have decided not to re-revert, and I would like to ask for your views, please. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just left a message on your talk page. In short, we don't relist discussions just because there is no consensus. – Joe (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I have replied to your message that was on my talk page. I am still looking for clarification for the details I wrote in the start of this message. Regards, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Joe replied quite well.We don't ought to have a consensus at every AfD.There exists a result phrased No Concensus which is very appropriate in the case.Relisting is often used by XFD patrollers to search for an elusive consensus but it shall be used only when both the criterion of (1)the participation-count is quite low but not zero (nil participation qualifies for a SOFTDELETE) and (2) there is no clear result; are met.Winged BladesGodric 16:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Biases in PROF

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, there is no desire to change the guideline to reflect biases. I have pointed this information out numerous times to "those who wrote" (or at least take credit for writing) the guideline and they have not made any attempt to change or alter the data. Like all guideline/policy discussions on WP there is much talk and little movement. I neither have the patience nor will to get into a wall of text discussion on the problems with the guideline, but will continue to maintain (with data to back up my position) that the guideline perpetrates biases and is flawed. SusunW (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Name and shame

It should be nearly trivial to to what you said by turning new UPE tags into a twitter feed. In fact, there is an IFTTT action "Tweet about new Wikipedia articles in a category" and a category Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content ☆ Bri (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bri:. That's a great idea. I was thinking of doing something more elaborate, but that would be a good starting point. Hmm. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about Griffin Warrior Tomb Article

Hi Joe,

I noticed that additional information was added to the Griffin Warrior Tomb article. The information added was about the gold rings found in the excavation. I think the new content has problems. I know this is a collaborative environment, so I hesitate to change or remove someone else's work. I would appreciate your advice on this. Thanks MauraWen (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maura. As you say, this is a collaborative project. You should feel free to make any changes that you think will improve the article (including removing material). You could also start a discussion on the article's talk page before you make the changes – although I usually find that seeking forgiveness rather than permission works best around here. At first glance I do agree that the stuff added about the gold rings seems a bit sensational, and isn't supported by a very good source. – Joe (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Joe. that really helps.
I will start a discussion on the article's talk page on the new content and the changes I am proposing to make, and will wait a few weeks before making the changes. MauraWen (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yahwism

was mostly copied and pasted from our excellent Yahweh article within the last month or so, that's why it's so well-sourced and all of the complaints on the talk page are from a decade ago. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

See my reply to Katolophyromai at Talk:Yahwism#Samaritans. – Joe (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Feburary 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons.

New: "Black women"

New: "Mathematicians and statisticians"

New: "Geofocus: Island women"

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

Thank You
Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Beijing Mandarin

Hi. I noticed you removed my edits in Beijing Mandarin.I wonder why you think that Beijing Mandarin and Beijing dialect are duplicates. Thanks! Dokurrat (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Aren't they? – Joe (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you like to review my draft at User:Dokurrat/Beijing Mandarin? Thanks. Dokurrat (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I still don't see what differentiates it from Beijing dialect. You even reused some of the text from that article in your draft. However, I'm not an expert in this area. The best place to discuss this would be Talk:Beijing dialect. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2018

Delivered February 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

17:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reassessment request

Hi! I noticed you listed on WikiProject Biography / Science and academia under interest in archaeologists. Would you mind giving the recently created article Anna Marguerite McCann a reassessment? I think it meets the B-class criteria… but would rather have someone else grade it! Rhinopias (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: I'd be happy to. I agree that it's at least a B class – thank you for working on it. – Joe (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I was pretty surprised we didn't have a biography of her yet. Rhinopias (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Location map of Java

Hi Joe. I've seen your edit from March 2017 on Template:Location map Indonesia Java. You said in your edit summary that you are waiting until we have an appropriate relief map of Java. Now we have it, see File:Java Relief Map.svg. I would like to add it to the location map template as a relief option but I am not sure about the latitudes / longtitudes. Would you be able to help, please? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Darwinek. The problem is the extent of the relief map has to exactly match the base map for the location map template to function. Unfortunately, Goran_tek-en's new map isn't any better than the old one in that regard. I've un-archived the graphics lab thread; maybe he can fix it. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
DarwinekJoe Roe What I can see in the code of that template is that you change the map-name to the new one and I will put the coordinates in the description of that file and you change those in the template also to the new ones and add the new code to the page. Is that not how it works? I have never used this it's just what I can see and think how it should be. Check other pages that have maps like that. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
DarwinekJoe Roe Here Template:Location_map_UK_England are some more info, and I have added coordinates now. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Each location map template has up to two base maps: a blank location map and a topographic relief map. It uses the same coordinate system for both, so the extents and projection must match. For example, File:England location map.svg exactly matches File:England relief location map.jpg. You can't simply change the extent coordinates in the template to those of your new relief map, because that would break the existing location map. – Joe (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Joe Roe Why can't you have a template with just one map, you don't use both of them at the same time. You can create a new template for/using the map I created.
The other option is that I change the relief map to hold approximately the same coordinates as the other map. You tell me what you want, just ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: You could try, but it would then work differently to every other location map template, which would be rather confusing for everyone. I think the easier solution would be to adjust the extents of your map, since you just made it. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Joe Roe Is  Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe:, @Goran tek-en:. Sorry for showing up late, been outside of Wikipedia for couple of days. Thank you both for resolving the issue. I have added the topographic map to the location map template. - Darwinek (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Darwinek: Sure thing. The maps still don't quite match up, so there may be issues with the placement of markers on the relief map, but hopefully the discrepancy won't be noticeable. – Joe (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darwinek:Joe Roe If you want them to match exactly you have to do them at the same time and from the same base map. If you want me to adjust anything just ping me. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Joe Roe/Archives, 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)

Recommendations for your WikiProject Archaeology will be delivered soon

Hi Joe Roe,

Thank you for your interest in using our tool. Sorry about the wait. We've been working on improving our tool in the past several weeks, and we will send recommendations to you very soon. Stay tuned. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

COI on Strathberry

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/fionahunterwood is interesting reading! PamD 13:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: Yup, I noticed. Seems Douglas didn't pass on the message! – Joe (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to your WP Archaeology

Hi Joe,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.

Username Why we recommend this editor First Edit Date Total Edits in ENWP Editor Status Invite Survey
Marcs Wiki (talk · contribs) Marcs Wiki edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Marcs Wiki and your project member Moxy (talk · contribs) edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2009-12-22 64 Newcomer invite survey
Gavin Hodgkinson (talk · contribs) Gavin Hodgkinson's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category History and Arts, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2016-5-13 58 Newcomer invite survey
Gc14163 (talk · contribs) Gc14163's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Geography and History, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2018-1-8 26 Newcomer invite survey
PELLL (talk · contribs) PELLL made 52 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2016-12-8 55 Newcomer invite survey
Sphenisciform (talk · contribs) Sphenisciform made 26 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2010-6-6 41 Newcomer invite survey
Rsmb (talk · contribs) Rsmb edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Rsmb and your project member Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs) edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2014-7-9 126 Experienced Editor invite survey
Ontyx (talk · contribs) Ontyx edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Ontyx and your project member Hellknowz (talk · contribs) edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2010-8-2 137 Experienced Editor invite survey
Ikemy (talk · contribs) Ikemy's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Geography, and most of your project's articles also fall under this category. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2017-3-30 24 Experienced Editor invite survey
Bulgaria1999 (talk · contribs) Bulgaria1999's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category History and Geography, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2015-7-17 25 Experienced Editor invite survey
PELLL (talk · contribs) PELLL made 52 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2016-12-8 55 Experienced Editor invite survey
Mpn26 (talk · contribs) Mpn26 made 42 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2017-9-14 44 Experienced Editor invite survey

Please let me know below if you have any general feedback about our recommendations. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

~Hi Joe Roe, Just wonder if you had a chance to look at the recommendations I sent? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Bobo.03:. Thank you for the recommendations. I'll take a look and fill in the survey.
One minor niggle: it's of course not my WikiProject, but a community of editors. Is it possible to have the recommendations posted on the WikiProject's talk page? – Joe (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about the wording. Yes, I understand it's a community. I am definitely fine with posting it or report it to the project page after you look at it. The main reason I do not want to post it to public first is that I am afraid to lose track of the measurement of our recommendations. For instance, it's hard for me to track who post it at what time if potentially many project members could do it. Hope you'd understand it:)
Also, I notice I've fixed some bugs in our tool. It should be able to recommend better candidates next time! Bobo.03 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Vincent Gaffney

We think you should reverse the exclusion of research within the RCUK top 100 list for Vincent Gaffney- this is notable - the list represents the best research taking place in UK higher education and what it will mean for us in 20 years time. It features research from all fields including science, engineering, social sciences, medicine and the arts and humanities - no other archaeology research made this list Digistuffuk3 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Digistuffuk3. As far as I can tell it's a one-off promotional brochure, so we have no way of independently verifying its significance as an 'honour'. It also only includes a paragraph on the Doggerland project and doesn't mention Gaffney by name. That isn't the sort of thing we usually include in academic biographies, and I really don't think it does anything except promote the subject. We don't need to tell our readers that Gaffney's work is exciting; it should (and does) speak for itself.
P.S. I'm going to copy this conversation to Talk:Vincent Gaffney#RCUK so that others can see it too. If you reply please do so there, not here. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Digistuffuk3: Also who is "we"? Please be aware that Wikipedia accounts should only be used by one person. – Joe (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Belarus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Belarus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons.


Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Anne. Churchland entry

Hi I saw you deleted my entry for Anne Churchland on the basis of copyright infringement. I'm not sure Allen institute own copyright to that page you mention but I'm happy to edit it so there's more information and it is less similar to the page on that website. But can you please undelete so I do not have to start from scratch? I now see that Wikipedia policy towards possible infringement is immediate deletion but can the article be placed in a sandbox from which I can do further work? I had added more material and starting from scratch would be a lot of work. Thanks. Voltdye (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Voltdye. The text you added was copied almost entirely from this page, which contains a clear assertion of copyright at the bottom ("Copyright ©2017 Allen Institute. All Rights Reserved.") We have to take copyright violations seriously because they leave Wikipedia open to legal issues. That is why blatant copyright infringements are deleted immediately. And I'm afraid I can't undelete it for the same reason. You will need to start from scratch and write in your own words. – Joe (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No Voltdye, I can't restore copyrighted text anywhere on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I have now made a new one (Anne Churchland), using no copyrighted material, and citing a number of sources such as newspaper articles, etc. I hope it's okay now. Clearly it can be improved, but it is a decent starting point I'd think. Voltdye (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Voltdye: I think that's a much better start overall, thanks for understanding. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed a few more things now. Most citations are no longer bare URLs (Maybe sufficient for banner to go now?) There are two that I don't know how to fix: (1) a bare URL that seems useful but I don't know how to convert to something more permanenent; (2) evidence re brother Mark is actually given in Wikipedia page Patricia Churchland but is it okay to cite a Wikipedia page as a reference (I am not sure). Voltdye (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Voltdye: No we'd need an external reliable source, but it's not a big deal. I fixed the last bare URL and removed the tag. Thanks for addressing that. – Joe (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

OSTree restore ?

Hi Joe,

hopefully you remember that you deleted my attempt to create a page about OSTree some weeks ago. If not, there is a reminder on my talk page: Copyright violation at OSTree. In the meantime the project changed their documentation license, so it should be possible to re-instantiate the former contents. See also: OSTree Changed License

Treutwein (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC) (missing heading added: Treutwein (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC))

@Treutwein: Yep, I think it would be fine to re-add that content now. – Joe (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: I have no idea how to access the deleted content, but I saved the current state to my sandbox. So I would not mind if the current content will be overwritten. –  Treutwein (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Treutwein: I can't overwrite the current article, but here is the text from the (first) deleted version:
OSTree is an upgrade system for Linux-based operating systems that performs atomic upgrades of complete filesystem trees. It is not a package system; rather, it is intended to complement them. A primary model is composing packages on a server, and then replicating them to clients.
The underlying architecture might be summarized as "git for operating system binaries". It operates in userspace, and it works on top of any Linux filesystem. At its core is a git-like content-addressed object store, and layered on top of that is the bootloader configuration, the management of /etc, and other functions to perform an upgrade beyond just replicating files.
You will have to re-add it with a proper reference to its source, because CC BY* requires attribution. – Joe (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: thanks – Treutwein (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (London Spitfire) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating London Spitfire, Joe Roe!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please put references at the end of the information provided and not in the section heading. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

@Cwmhiraeth: I only created the original redirect. The page now has a substantial history so I imagine this note was meant for someone else. – Joe (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. I was using the page curation tool and did not know where the message would end up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Banderites

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Banderites. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Archaeology

Hi Joe Roe,

Here is a new list of recommendations for project Archaeology. Sorry that I introduced some bugs in the previous version as I mentioned, but everything has been fixed. I might be sending one or two more new lists to you in the coming Mondays, and hope you'll find great new members!

Username Why we recommend this editor First Edit Date Total Edits in ENWP Editor Status Invite Survey
Jrsimple (talk · contribs) Jrsimple's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Geography and History, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2017-11-26 23 Newcomer invite survey
Greifaq (talk · contribs) Greifaq's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Geography and History, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2017-4-7 24 Newcomer invite survey
Thrif (talk · contribs) Thrif edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Thrif and your project member Pjamescowie (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2018-1-6 87 Newcomer invite survey
Bookbandit (talk · contribs) Bookbandit edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Bookbandit and your project member Lactasamir (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2018-2-1 31 Newcomer invite survey
Mpn26 (talk · contribs) Mpn26 made 42 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2017-9-14 44 Newcomer invite survey
Sesxb7 (talk · contribs) Sesxb7 made 13 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2017-9-14 53 Newcomer invite survey
Laupeck (talk · contribs) Laupeck's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Geography, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2011-10-20 117 Experienced Editor invite survey
Mephiboshethsmaid (talk · contribs) Mephiboshethsmaid's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category History and Geography, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2017-4-4 227 Experienced Editor invite survey
Larsobrien (talk · contribs) Larsobrien made 9 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2005-7-18 346 Experienced Editor invite survey
CEpley (talk · contribs) CEpley made 43 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2017-10-20 122 Experienced Editor invite survey
Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) Highpeaks35 edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Highpeaks35 and your project member Moxy (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2017-12-18 276 Experienced Editor invite survey
Oaktabby (talk · contribs) Oaktabby edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Oaktabby and your project member Claire 75 (talk · contribs) edited 4 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2014-9-20 158 Experienced Editor invite survey

Bobo.03 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joe Roe, please take a look at those recommendations if you have a chance, and let me know what do you think. Thank you! I would also help invite some new members, but they are not the ones on this list. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2018

Delivered March 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)

When I counted the votes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture), I saw three people that wanted to keep the article and seven people that wanted something other than keeping (delete, merge, or redirect). These seven thought the article should not have been kept as an independent article due to a lack of notability of the artwork, so I was surprised to see that you closed the AfD as keep. Based on the votes and discussion, I believe the AfD should have been closed as merge, possibly merging part of the article and deleting the rest. — Editør (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Editør: As I explained in my close, I closed it as keep because there was a clear consensus against deletion, and therefore no reason for the AfD to continue. In my judgement there wasn't a consensus to merge—it was roughly evenly split between outright keeps and merge/redirect—and that is not something that needs to be decided by AfD. You're welcome to continue the discussion on merging using the normal processes. – Joe (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Counting Prince of Thieves as merge (which he stated explicitly, but not mark in boldface), there were 3 people for keep and 5 people for merge/redirect. – Editør (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
When closing AfDs admins don't count !votes, we weigh the strength of arguments. I am confident that there is not a consensus to merge in that discussion. You can take it to DRV if you want but it seems rather pointless; the distinction is semantic as far as the outcome of the AfD is concerned and there is nothing stopping you from continuing to seek a merge now. – Joe (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Cynthia Charlotte "Lottie" Moon Clark

Hi. The log says you had deleted it. It is back. I was wondering if it should be renamed. Or does an article already exist under different name? —usernamekiran(talk) 08:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi kiran. The first version was a copy and paste move from Draft:Cynthia Charlotte "Lottie" Moon, see User talk:Bcmurch#Block for the background on that.
Looks like this one's also a copy and paste, but at least it was by the draft's author, so I'll just histmerge it. It looks like a decent article, but yeah, should probably be renamed to be less of a mouthful. – Joe (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I would have said the WP:COMMONNAME was Lottie Moon, but surprisingly that title is already taken. Any ideas? – Joe (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I just logged in. The page is now at Cynthia Charlotte Moon. Thanks for your input. See you around Joe :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Appeasement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appeasement. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ymyyakhtakh culture

Hi, Joe,

In regard to Ymyyakhtakh culture, its appearance in Scandinavia is mentioned in English in many sources of varying reliability.

I wonder if this is reliable?

"Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [Karelian Republic] belongs, surprisingly, to very wide spread NORTH SIBERIAN cultural horizon known as Ymyakhtakh (also in literature: Ymyyakhtakhk and Ymyiakhtakh)."

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/archive/index.php/t-38789.html

But I found a reliable source is Russian that I translated. What do you think? Y-barton (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That forum is super dubious, but the Kozlov source seems reliable. I've added a page reference since it's quite long. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yule

Thanks very much for your intervention. I wish I'd discovered this earlier. I hope it's not too late for us to keep this valuable editor. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that was an unfortunate situation. I see he's just replied to you on his talk page, though, so hopefully he's not been put off too badly. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Archaeology

Hi Joe Roe,

Here is a new list of recommendations for WikiProject Archaeology. Please take a look when you get a chance. Thank you!

Username Why we recommend this editor First Edit Date Total Edits in ENWP Editor Status Invite Survey
AnaSoc (talk · contribs) AnaSoc made 7 out of their most recent 40 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2018-1-6 40 Newcomer invite survey
Clio987 (talk · contribs) Clio987 made 7 out of their most recent 78 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2016-6-4 78 Newcomer invite survey
Bookbandit (talk · contribs) Bookbandit edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Bookbandit and your project member Lactasamir (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 31 edits. 2018-2-1 31 Newcomer invite survey
Kent G. Budge (talk · contribs) Kent G. Budge edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Kent G. Budge and your project member Mikenorton (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 71 edits. 2013-12-24 71 Newcomer invite survey
Greifaq (talk · contribs) Greifaq's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Geography and History, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2017-4-7 24 Newcomer invite survey
Pigginator1 (talk · contribs) Pigginator1's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Geography and Arts, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2018-1-12 58 Newcomer invite survey
Mr.Publius (talk · contribs) Mr.Publius made 8 out of their most recent 143 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2015-1-23 143 Experienced Editor invite survey
Masanalv (talk · contribs) Masanalv made 9 out of their most recent 119 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2009-5-25 119 Experienced Editor invite survey
Dutchy45 (talk · contribs) Dutchy45's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Geography, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2017-7-2 107 Experienced Editor invite survey
Jdx (talk · contribs) Jdx's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Geography and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2014-2-7 315 Experienced Editor invite survey
Doncurzio (talk · contribs) Doncurzio edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Doncurzio and your project member Stone (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 134 edits. 2016-3-27 134 Experienced Editor invite survey
JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) JosephusOfJerusalem edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, JosephusOfJerusalem and your project member Hkp-avniel (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 434 edits. 2017-10-18 434 Experienced Editor invite survey

Bobo.03 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Bharat Bhushan (academic) content removal

Thank you for your time and efforts to edit the article. I am not sure about the reason you chose to remove the content. Similar to many academic personalities pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Barthlott ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_J._Buehler), this page had important details for a professor. The professor is a well-respected person in the field of academia with more than 60k citations to his name (https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=dtvtjgsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate). I will request you to undo the content and help up shorten it, rather than removing it altogether. It is highly disrespectful. If you see closely, in past, other Wikipedia content editors had asked to include/remove the info that was out there.Devgurera (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Devgurera. Thank you for opening a discussion. This is probably best discussed on the article's talk page, where others can contribute. I've copied your message to Talk:Bharat Bhushan (academic)#Stubbed and replied there. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xabasha Wacle

Your close as keep was somewhat surprising to me. Could you take another look? It would also be helpful if you could expand your closing statement to include some detail of how you weighed the various arguments. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I could change it to no consensus if you insist, but you were the only person with a valid argument for deletion, there was no question of closing it as delete. In addition to the discussion itself, I was also mindful of WP:GEOLAND, WP:PRESERVE, and these two other AfDs that failed to reach a consensus for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daharro, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uunsi. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mangoe and Prince of Thieves: both gave solid reasons for deletion. @Hydronium Hydroxide: gave the best keep argument of the bunch, but even that is based on guesses of how the name might have been transliterated, and @92.9.152.17 and Deathlibrarian: didn't provide any sources or policy based arguments at all. I just don't see how this adds up to anything other than delete. The bottom line is facts must meet WP:V. Here we're asserting that a place exists, with zero WP:RS to back that up. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Mangoe's nomination was based on the fact that he couldn't find any sources, but that was rebutted by the keep !voters, and they did not follow up. Prince of Thieves didn't offer an opinion either way. I interpreted 92.9.152.17's and Deathlibrarian's comments as arguing that the subject is a recognised place for which sources are likely available in Somali, which is a valid policy-based argument. Hydronium Hydroxide's is indeed the best of the bunch, providing several sources that potentially verify the village's existence (the name variants seem self-evident). Personally I do agree with you that this is weak sourcing even for a stub, but there is no way that your argument alone is a consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I haven't gone back and checked these sources. If there's actual narrative mention of the place, as a rule I take that as verifying. Dots on UN relief maps are very problematic: we don't know where their mapping info is coming from, and a lot of these dots aren't reflected in aerials. The transliteration of the names has been a constant issue, with our article names rather frequently running everything together and with their being no hard-and-fast system of Anglicizing the Somali. I cannot check things right now, but I will try to take a look tonight. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I did not find any sources which meet WP:V, the only item I came across was a social media mention featuring an unattributed photograph of some random huts. I don't think anyone in that discussion concluded its existence as a certainty, only that it is probable the settlement exists based on a collection of mentions and indicators. It is highly arguable if this kind of original research should equate to a weak keep, but that is what was put forward. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Joe, I appreciate the time you've taken to discuss this, but I think you've made a mistake here. You said, Prince of Thieves didn't offer an opinion either way. Well, it's true that he didn't put a bolded bulleted !vote up front, but the only (non) source he provided was an instagram post, which surely isn't a WP:RS. He even pointed out that either name in the post was unverifiable and suggested that it was probably a circular reference to us. I'm willing to be somewhat flexible on WP:N, but we really need to hold the line on WP:V. I hope you don't mind if I take this to WP:DRV for more sets of eyes. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair on Joe Roe I think he did correctly assess the consensus, however that consensus quite weak, and was probably wrong because it didn't reflect a core policy (WP:V). I for one would happily make a stronger delete vote if the discussion was reopened after hearing the points made by RoySmith. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I've read Prince's comment over and over and can't figure out how you have interpreted it as being in favour of deletion. He merely noted the existence of an instagram post with some variant spellings. I will admit that this was a close call between keep and no consensus, but I cannot see how I could have closed it as delete without casting a supervote. Take it to DRV if you must. It seems like a lot of bytes to spill over an 11 word stub.
(edit conflict) And indeed, a "wrong" consensus is still a consensus we have to abide by. – Joe (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Since both Mangoe and RoySmith have offered to re-evaluate their positions, how about I just reopen and relist it one last time? – Joe (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm OK with that, thanks. I'll argue my case stronger there, and go with whatever new result we end up with. I appreciate your time discussing this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello Joe Roe/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Winter War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winter War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Added new reference to Bharat Bhushan (academic)

We added a new relevant reference in place of previous 3, 4 references. It is not understandable why those references were added back.Devgurera (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Devgurera: Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts can only belong to one person.
Please use the article talk page for discussing the article's content, as I asked before. There is already a discussion there. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! there is an kitten

Yes! an kitten

Oniichantoimouto (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buckingham Palace

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buckingham Palace. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons.


Focus on: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Joe Roe/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

E C L During Caspers

I just tagged this for notability without realising you'd started it. Can you give us some more information as to what she did? I'd hate to see a female archaeologist deleted. Deb (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A little quick off the mark, maybe – I only created it a minute ago! :)
She's definitely notable, see the two biographies cited in the article. I started it as a minimal stub because she has a mouthful of a name and I wanted to get the redirects sorted out first. Will be expanding it today. – Joe (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. I saw that she'd written a book but couldn't find anything else when I googled. Deb (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Reviewer Barnstar
This is for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU (Talk) 05:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Path slopu. – Joe (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2018

Delivered April 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

23:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Everything Wrong With... episodes

Repost the everything is wrong with episodes back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.58.78.156 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't do that. There was a unanimous consensus to delete it in this discussion. – Joe (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well then sooner or later someone else will post it back regardless of wikipedia’s rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.58.78.156 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

and then when the sign of deletion comes well then that someone might just leave it alone instead of deleting the post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:b06f:f0f8:6dcc:4ef6:b978:2669 (talk)

This is a collaborative project; we make editorial decisions through discussion and consensus. As long as the consensus is that we should not have an article on a topic, we will keep deleting that article. Repeatedly recreating it won't achieve anything except getting you blocked for disruptive editing. – Joe (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of English monarchs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of English monarchs. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

School of Archaeology

As per WP:MERGEINIT, discussing a merger first is up to the discretion of the editor. To quote "If the need for a merge is obvious, individual editors can be bold and simply do it." The obvious need for a merge is justified as follows: the official page of the University of Oxford currently lists the department as School of Archaeology link and the School page notes that it is formed from the Institute and RLAHA link, which makes the existence of two separate pages for these entities, which are not separate departments, pointless. The existing RLAHA article is also a stub.

According to wiki guidelines, therefore, it's insubstantial to call a merge controversial simply because there was no discussion.Amys eye (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well, everything is discretionary at the end of the day, I was merely suggesting that with merges it's a lot easier to quickly stick a {{merge}} on the page beforehand than it is to undo after the fact. I didn't object for the sake of it; I don't think they should be merged. Please open a discussion on one of the talk pages if you want to go ahead. – Joe (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, done: Talk:Institute of Archaeology (Oxford).Amys eye (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neo-Nazism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neo-Nazism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

New policy

ACTRIAL → ACREQ: Please see T192455 • Tthe ticket. This risks becoming the same fiasco as Bugzilla 2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons.
File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg



New: "Women of the Sea"

New: "Villains"

New: "Women in Sports"

New: "Central Eastern European women"


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2018

Delivered May 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

23:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food

Curd Rice
Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jacques Goulet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jacques Goulet. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ralph de Warenne and deletion

Hello,

My name is William Fitts, I created the original Ralph de Warenne page and you improved it to a point that Wikipedia didn't delete it the first time and I thank you. This page is a work in progress and unfortunately I do not know how to navigate he various tools required by Wiki that will appease them. I am a researcher and not a tech type. I have recently cleared the negativity wrought by Sir Charles T. Clay, via Early Yorkshire Charters, Vol. 8. Clay drew a great line in the sand historically with his statement that Ranulf and Radulf were distinct and could not represent one in the same man? Here is my latest advance in disproving Clay's statement. The following is an email exchange between Dr. Peter McClure and myself which is about the Radulf?Ran(d)ulf problem, also his Biography is included:


Peter McClure <peter@mcclure.karoo.co.uk> Apr 5 to me Dear Bill Luckily I’ve made up time on my other commitments this morning so I can respond to you now instead of waiting till next week. Many thanks for all the images. You have done your research meticulously and that is a great help. I agree with you that there are some Anglo-Norman men named as Ran(d)ulfus and Radulfus and I remember having come across this problem myself when working with 12th-century and early 13th-century records. I thought then, and I still do, that it is likely that medieval clerks sometimes confused the two names in their Latin forms. However, I doubt if it represents an equivalence of the vernacular forms. The vernacular form latinised as Radulfus was Raulf, Rauf or Raoul. The vernacular form latinised as Ran(d)ulfus was Randolf. It is theoretically conceivable that Randolf could have been reduced to Ralf in some pronunciations but, as there seem to be no parallels in Anglo-Norman French or in Middle English for loss of /n/ or /nd/ between vowels in a stressed syllable, this seems fairly unlikely. The vernacular surnames Randolf/Randal and Ralph are common in medieval records but never seem to be interchangeable. So I suspect that the confusion or interchange of Ran(d)ulfus and Radulfus probably occurred only in the written latinised forms and is a scribal rather than a spoken phenomenon. All the same, because the latinisation of personal names was a regular practice, it can create difficulty for anyone trying to establish whether a man who is named Ran(d)ulfus and a man named Radulfus are two different men or the same man. So, yes, you’ve convinced me that it is possible Ranulfus and Radulfus de Warenne could refer to a single individual.

Thank you again. You’ve reminded me of significant issue, which I’ve not given enough attention to in the past.

Best wishes Peter From: William Fitts Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:52 AM To: Peter McClure Subject: Hello Dr McClure Rad Rand Attachments


Peter McClure <peter@mcclure.karoo.co.uk> Apr 5 to me Dear Bill, I did think of referring you to the Winton Domesday edition but I didn’t need to, did I! Yes, I said much the same thing in the Durham Liber Vitae edition but I didn’t cite the examples you have drawn my attention to. I am grateful for them, since if I ever need to comment on the Radulfus/Ranulfus problem again I can quote them, with acknowledgment to you for having pointed them out to me. You are welcome to cite my comments in anything you publish and to contact me again in the future.

Best wishes Peter

From: William Fitts Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:46 PM To: Peter McClure Subject: Re: Hello Dr McClure Rad Rand Attachments

Peter McClure, Honorary Professor (Name-Studies), Faculty of Arts Contact: University of Nottingham, School of English, Room A64 Trent Building, University Park,Nottingham, NG7 2RD,UK Telephone: 01482 845734 Email: peter@mcclure.karoo.co.uk Biography: I was educated at the University of Nottingham (BA English Language and Literature), where I also conducted postgraduate research on 'The surnames of medieval Nottinghamshire'. I then spent twenty-five years lecturing in the Department of English Language and Literature at the University of Hull, where I also received my PhD by published work: 'Studies in the interpretation of Middle English personal names and surnames'. In 1977 I founded Nomina, the Journal of the Council (now the Society) for Name Studies in Britain and Ireland and remained its editor until 1985. I am former President and currently Vice-President of that Society and I am Vice-President of the English Place-Name Society. Since 2007 I have been acting as a consultant to the Oxford English Dictionary on English personal names and surnames. In 2016 I joined the Institute for Name-Studies at Nottingham as an Honorary Professor. Current Research Summary: This is mainly focused on the etymologies and linguistic development of modern family names, as part of my editorial work for the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland (2016). A second, revised and expanded edition is in preparation. Since modern surnames are often opaque or are only deceptively intelligible, I am also gathering data that reveals the phonological and morphological patterns by which Middle English surnames became misleadingly transformed in early Modern English. I have a long-term interest in medieval personal names and surnames as a source of information about the people who bore them, their origins, language, occupations and behaviour. I am currently writing a chapter on ‘Personal names as evidence for migrants in medieval England’ in a forthcoming book Migrants in Medieval England c.500–1500 edited by Joanna Story, Mark Ormrod and Elizabeth Tyler, to be published by the British Academy. Past Research: Most of my previous publications relate to the late medieval period, with a particular emphasis on the methodology by which people's names can be reliably exploited as evidence for social and economic history and for historical linguistics. Appointment of Peter McClure as Honorary Professor of Name-Studies: 1 August 2016 The INS is delighted to announce the forthcoming appointment of Dr. Peter McClure as Honorary Professor within the Institute for Name-Studies. Peter is an internationally-recognized pioneer of rigorous onomastic methodology, and the foremost British scholar working on medieval personal names. He is Honorary Vice-President of the English Place-Name Society and president of the Society for Name Studies in Britain and Ireland. His association with Nottingham is long-standing – he was both undergraduate and postgraduate at the University, as a student of the late Professor Kenneth Cameron, head of the Department of English and eminent place-name scholar.

I am curently working with Englis authorities to try to prove that Ralph de Warenne died with his brother while on the Second Crusade. I have already proved that Ralph de Warenne's son William fitz Ranulf was a participate in the Third Crusade.

Thanks for trying to help in saving the Wikipedia article and I hope that with your navigating skills that you can apply my thoughts in preserving the cite.

Bill Fitts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fittstaber (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bill and apologies for the late response. I've been away doing fieldwork the last month, so unfortunately I wasn't able to participate in the AfD very much. The article has now been merged with De Warenne family. I don't think that was the right call, but at least most of the content has been saved, and I don't want to spend any more energy fighting it.
You seem very knowledgeable on the subject, so perhaps the best thing you can do is to publish some of the above information outside of Wikipedia. We can then look at incorporating it into a revived article on Ralph de Warenne. Ultimately all we do on Wikipedia is follow what experts like yourself have already said in reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

hi its me kareenza who you helped so much re dad terence hogan

Hi Joe

You probably wont remember me but you were amazing with my dads article and you helped me so very much. I am back as a tv company is interested in his story. I tried to remove the athens pic but couldnt. I added new pics, one french woman said one was blurry, I sent in a clearer one as she removed the other. Then I got a message in French which I dont understand. Then i added comments to a pic and it has duplicated. What an idiot I am and you are away so I dont know what to do but if you come back and could help in tidying it with me I would be eternally grateful, there is someone else altering things and I am not very confident as he seems to be very argumentative with others, I dont know, wish you were here!!! kareenzaKareenza (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC) terence hogan

its kareenza again someone took down my dads pics and blocked me and then sited me for vandalism
I am so dreadfully upset re this I have not been on wiki for years why would someone do this could you help me kareenzKareenza (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kareenza, good to hear from you again. I do in fact remember you and the article on your father very well; it was an interesting read. It looks like you've managed to resolve the issues with photos you uploaded to Commons. They can be pretty pedantic about copyright restrictions over there, but rest assured they're just trying to make sure we comply with the law, it's nothing personal.
I'll keep an eye on the page on your father. I see there are several other editors now working on it, so hopefully the result will be a better article overall. Sorry that you had such a a frosty response initially. – Joe (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It is lovely to hear from and hope you are well? Yes I think I am still getting support, its gone a bit quiet!! I have just had an email from a wiki editor asking me what I want from the article? I am hoping I might get some help with pics. Will the user mainly helping let me know when finished as frightened he might go without finishing. I was told to post on someones tc page but what does that mean Joe?...still a dinosaur as ever!!! the photos got pulled and dont know whether will go back up. It would be amazing if you would keep an eye on it. There is talk of a documenary regarding the perils of crime so I was trying to make it look good. You were sorely missed!!! You wre fantastic, king and a brain box:)kareenzaKareenza (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


I am not sure if it ok to post a chat to you on here but hope ok. I got this message Hello Kareenza. No worries, and no need to apologize. Lets take this calmly. A few questions: You said you took some of the pictures? Those should be fine if it is not used anywhere else. If they are used elsewhere, did they clearly credit you? If not, why not? For the pictures you didn't take, but wish to be uploaded; that may be tricky. It mostly depends on the year of publication, the current copyright holder (if copyright is not expired), and also if the copyright holder is willing to release it under a more relaxed license. As you said, you're not sure who took them. Are these photos published anywhere (internet or offline)? I answered best I could some are mine, some are step mothers, all taken before 1978. I can ask step mum to sign off, but what and where is the form. Some pics are from the daily mail article but the DM pics editor says the pics are my copyright. So things are very complex and I am not sure anyone would take this on ie in uploading pics, what should I do, shud I just leave it with people editing, can u help? People seem to be coming in and out which I appreciate but the pics is a real worry as Im worried if I upload anything I would start a war again :) kareenza–––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareenza (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Joe Roe/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. 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.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Edited article you spotlighted

Hi Joe. I edited an entry you listed as needing cleanup from translation. The page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_raid_on_Istanbul_(1620). I believe I made the article clearer and easier to understand. Feel free to check the newly edited page and offer feedback. I didn't 100% edit the article, but it needed a lot of cleanup. TobusRex (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TobusRex. It reads much better. – Joe (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks!

TobusRex (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June Editathons

Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.



New: WiR Loves Pride

New: Singers and Songwriters

New: Women in GLAM

New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Redirects

Joe, you've just redirected to the glossary two articles that were, rightly or wrongly, classed as "top importance" for the archaeology Wikiproject (Context and association), plus the mid-importance flotation. You should at the least put your hit-list on project talk for reactions. If you are going to redirect you probably want to remove the project stuff on talk too. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. Flotation was a stub I created myself last year, so I doubt anybody will object to that.
Do people usually remove WP templates from redirects? (I don't.) – Joe (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Terminology articles. – Joe (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Request for PERM

Hello Joe,

I'm sorry it seems i may have skipped the moving pages part of guidelines for granting rights. I am well conversant with moving pages including most common reasons that lead to moving pages like the naming conventions, misspelled name or no capitalization and also draft article that are ready to be moved into mainspace. I don't know if i can resubmit my application or i should wait for a while, please advise. Already if you can check you'd see i've been tagging pages and also helping out for a while now. Best regards Edidiong (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mredidiongekong. It's not just the moving: you didn't offer any evidence that you meet the criteria, or even that you'd read them. It's not our responsibility to hunt down evidence for you.
You're welcome to make a new request as soon as you're ready. PratyushSinha101's, currently at the bottom of WP:PERM/NPR, is a good example of a well-formatted request. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Joe Roe I'll just go ahead and rewrite an application now. I'm sorry for any inconvenience, It's my 2nd time after my request for autopatrolled i just thought it'd be the same thing. Edidiong (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I have reapplied in the same format as you advised, thanks again. Edidiong (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2018

Delivered June 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thanks Joe... Farid999111 (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article Criticisms of medicine

At some point I'd like to have the deleted article in my sandbox, along with its history so that I could choose an earlier version to work on. But first I must ask two questions: (1) I was just topic-banned from medicine-related articles for 6 months (recently closed on AN/I). Does this mean that I'm not allowed to work on such an article in my sandbox during this period, and need to ask you again in December after the ban expires? (2) In either case, when in the sandbox, how can I change the title (perhaps to "Criticism of mainstream medical practice") while preserving attribution? I've had trouble understanding attribution and made two mistakes recently (making a copy for my sandbox, and blanking it rather than deleting the sandbox when I was informed that the copy was against policy). Thank you.NightHeron (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@NightHeron: No I don't think it's a good idea to userfy it while you are topic banned. Don't worry, it's not going anywhere.
Attribution is straightforward: just don't copy and paste text. We use the move tool to rename articles, change their namespace, etc. That way the history of the page, and therefore the required copyright attribution, remains intact. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
from a newbie here ,, its always good to learn ,thanks for teaching me ..hopefully i can be a beneficial contributor to Wikipedia in the future Farid999111 (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. You have closed my AfD (no consensus). 4 deletes vs. 3 keeps and one weak keep. One user just registered for this AfD[1] and voted for keep. See his edits. Is his vote legit? --Wario-Man (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Everybody is entitled to participate in an AfD, regardless of how hold their account is or their other editing activity. When closing them, we weigh the strength of arguments rather than counting the number of !votes. In this case, there was clearly no consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kazakhstan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kazakhstan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Christine Warinner occupation question

Hi Joe,

I am working on Christine Warriner's draft. In sources, she is listed as archaeogeneticist, molecular anthropologist, molecular biologist. I am not a science person, so I am not sure whether to describe her as as one of the labels above, all of them, something else? How would you describe her? Thanks MauraWen (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@MauraWen: It looks like she does a lot of cutting-edge stuff that doesn't have a settled terminology yet. I'd go with something generic in the lead—maybe just "anthropologist" since she's American—and explain the rest in the text. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Joe Roe/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add a new category: African-American archaeologists

Hi Joe,

I have been creating a number of articles on African American archaeologists. I would like to add a category for this group. I am not sure exactly how to do that--this sounds different than creating an article. If you think its a good idea, would you be able to create the category (or sub category) for me?

I was also wondering what you thought of the idea of creating an article for the Society of Black Archaeologists? They are fairly new, but it also sounds like they are not quite a formal organization at this point. I learned about their organization thru my research on Alexandra Jones (archaeologist)

Please advise on both issues. Thanks MauraWen (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maura. Sounds look a good idea. Creating categories is more or less the same as creating articles. You type in or click on a red link, i.e. Category:African-American archaeologists, and then create it. Usually, the only content of a category page is the parent categories it belongs to. So in this case you would probably just add [[Category:American archaeologists]] and [[Category:African-American scientists]]. I don't mind doing it, of course – but if you want to see for yourself how it's done!
I think there's enough GScholar and GBooks hits for an article on the Society of Black Archaeologists. Maybe something more general like African-Americans in archaeology too.
One of these days we should write Women in archaeology as well. – Joe (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Thanks Joe! I posted a comment this week on SusunW's talk page concerning an article she wrote on the Wikimedia blog "Why I write about women on Wikipedia". In the article she states, "While we focus on biographies of notable women, a critical part is adding links of those women to the world in which they participated. For example, during an event to create Wikipedia articles on women in the food and drink industry, Sue Barnum and I worked on an anchor article about the history of women in brewing. It allowed us to use it as an article to link to articles of notable women working in the field, as well as to add links to the general article on brewing, which at the time had no information about women’s influence on brewing in emerging nations and prior to European and American industrialization."
I mentioned to her in my response that I would like to learn more about writing anchor articles, and Women in Archaeology was the first anchor article that I thought about. An anchor article on Women in Archaeology is a great idea and a good way to resolve my orphan biographies. If you decide you want to work on that, I would be happy to help and it sounds like Susan might be interested in collaborating also. MauraWen (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I really enjoy working on archaeologists, so I am definitely game (after I finish this mammoth task on Women's Liberation Movements). We'll need to gather sourcing but it would definitely be a great anchor article. SusunW (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Great. I think there should definitely be enough sources. – Joe (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@MauraWen and SusunW: Okay, I've started a draft at Draft:Women in archaeology. There isn't much to it but I've compiled a list of sources on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Very cool Joe. I'll pop in a bit later and take a look ;) SusunW (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe and SusunW:. I checked out the draft. Thanks for setting that up Joe, and thank you SusunW for your interest and future collaboration! I am going to begin by reading existing anchor articles to get a feel for how they are written. How would I get access to the PDFs that you mentioned on the draft talk page, Joe? MauraWen (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@MauraWen: If you email me (click "email this user" on the left hand side of this page) with the titles I can reply with the PDFs. – Joe (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
MauraWen I've made a start. Will circle back a bit later. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Senheng Electric

You tagged Senheng Electric for speedy deletion as advertising. I tried to clean it up by deleting a lot of promotional text, and I think the current version of the article should be okay. I didn't create the article, but I noticed it at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you've probably done somebody's work for free, but it's indeed out of db-spam territory. Do you think the company is notable? – Joe (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Eastmain:. – Joe (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see my last few edits

i need to get to sleep now but I wanted to alert you to this new account, seems well meaning but I'm concerned. Doug Weller talk 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

checkY Will take a look. – Joe (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 14:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm....

I think we have to disagree as to the closure at this AfD.It was a low-participation Afd but there was nil rebuttal and whilst Nosebagbear didn't explicitly !vote, the ridicule of Randy's arguments can't be missed.Hoverfish, (sort of) admitted to the dearth of sourcing.∯WBGconverse 09:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I'm not willing to guess at the opinions of people who chose not to express them explicitly, so essentially it came down to your delete/redirect vs. Randy's keep. And you can't have a consensus of one. Note that Sandstein looked at the same discussion a week before me and didn't see a consensus either. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Fine....We agree to disagree:) ∯WBGconverse 10:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Coggalbeg hoard

Thank you *very* much for approving the article. Although it reads now as a penny dreadful, if you bear with me I may get a few usable pictures as well as more a few more scholarly sources. St. Caurgula (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@St. Caurgula: No problem. It might still be a couple of days before your account is autoconfirmed and you can create them in mainspace directly, so in the meantime you can ping me if you have any other drafts you want moved.
I had a quick look for appropriately licensed photos on the National Museum's website but no luck. Probably the best way is for someone to go to the museum and take a few. – Joe (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
You are not supposed to take photos there. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Joe, you were the only friendly voice to this new account, with Johnbod taking interest in the hoard article. To explain, this was meant as a clean start for my main account User:Ceoil which I want to abandon due to accumulated baggage that self perpetuates and cannot be escaped. I was obviously check usered last week (boo), so have fessed up, and sorry if that makes you feel deceived. However, I agree with everything you said in defense; I was carpet bombed with warnings and missed some, and it seems there was unwarranted hostility that serves as a bleak reminder why attrition runs ahead of recruitment. My wife is an archaeologist and I have a deep interest as well as respect for the wiki project members. I intend to continue working in the area with this account, mostly on Irish megaliths. I hope we can happily coexist. St. Caurgula (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@St. Caurgula: That's quite alright, I totally understand wanting a fresh start. I think your edits were sensible and they probably wouldn't have attracted much attention if they were from your main account, but obviously there a good reasons why new accounts attract more scrutiny. I hope you will carry on working on archaeology articles. There's certainly a lot to do, especially on the bigger ones. – Joe (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: "The Viper" sourcing

1. Here's a Vice article that directly mentions Orjan Larsen and includes an interview with him in person. Note that while Vice Waypoint is not under the print magazine, it's a professionally edited publication a la Vox.com. There are more articles referencing Orjan Larsen from mainstream Norwegian periodicals.

2. Context matters. While articles by Vice magazine may be unreliable for biographies of a politician or academic, they can be both reliable and significant as a source for online entertainment; in fact, oftentimes online periodicals are the *only* reliable publication available for online entertainment. For example, check the bibliography section of PewDiePie in which the vast majority of references come from Tubefilter and Game N Guide. That's a GA-class article across six different projects; the inclusion of those sources reflects the consensus of the closest WikiProject about what constitute reliable sources for online entertainment BLPs - i.e. high-traffic online publications generally pass the reliability guideline. Vice, which covered Orjan Larsen, is far more mainstream and prominent than either Tubefilter or Game N Guide.

3. Career earnings are an often used criterion for notability for professional e-gamers. For example, see the lede of Lim Yo-hwan, or the infobox for eSports players. I don't believe there's a WP MOS page for e-gamers, but IMO using career earnings as a metric for professional e-gamers falls under common sense.

4. Back when I was a regular editor in Wikipedia, using anti-vandalism tools to revert good-faith edits - including disputes about notability - was considered poor etiquette. I don't know if that's still true, but I'm puzzled at why someone whose expertise doesn't lie in this project area couldn't bother to have a discussion about notability before a second revert. The original writer of that article (i.e. this IP) clearly had a basic grasp of Wikipedia MOS and notability guidelines, and so do I. 143.89.90.207 (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. My responses:
  1. Yes I found that article. Vice is an RS but it is only one source and it only contains passing mentions of Larsen.
  2. Even if less-than-ideal sources are used to verify parts of an article, a decent body of reliable sources must exist on a subject to satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV.
  3. It wouldn't matter even if there was an SNG for pro gamers. If they're are no sources, we can't have an article.
  4. I didn't use any anti-vandalism tools. I did a standard revert using Twinkle. Discussion happens after an edit is contested – see WP:BRD.
Don't misunderstand me – I'd like to have an article on TheViper. I spent quite some time looking for sources but only found the Vice article. If there are more in Norwegian, maybe we can do something. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

OR and subtables

This is your statutory notification about Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Arabic-Russian transcription table. – Uanfala (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 at Women in Red

Hello again from Women in Red!


July 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock
Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed!


Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 June Backlog Drive, please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol and keep up the good work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2018

Delivered July 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.


08:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrol broken

Please be aware that the autopatrol userright is broken, so new articles by editors such as myself are showing up in recent changes when they shouldn't. Abductive (reasoning) 10:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Abductive. I was aware of that. That's why I'm patrolling them. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, please stop patrolling me. It wastes everyone's time. My articles are never going to be a problem. Confine your efforts to something else until they fix the problem on Monday. Abductive (reasoning) 10:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive: We have no idea whether the fix on Monday will retrospectively patrol these articles. In the mean time, they are clogging up the new pages queue just as we were about to finally finish a two-year effort to clear the backlog. Fortunately, as they are all created by trusted editors, it uses very little of my time to patrol them, so it's no trouble.
I am puzzled that the thought of another editor checking your work provokes such hostility. Autopatrolled is there to make things easier for NPPers; it isn't any sort of privilege. One thing that this bug has brought out is that some of the editors with it have become a little sloppy and are creating problems. The unsourced stub that you just created, for example: I hope that was an oversight rather than something you make a habit of? – Joe (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not hostile, I'm just letting you know how I feel. As you are aware, species are automatically notable, so they need no sources. But if you look in the template, you'll find 10 sources. Abductive (reasoning) 10:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Abductive, is there any chance that you might find it annoying that others are patrolling your work because you receive notifications about that? I certainly used to find that annoying before I turned them off from the preferences (It's the "Page review" option in the "Notifications" tab. – Uanfala (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
What a strange thing to be annoyed about. I used to like them, it was nice to know that at least one person read my articles! – Joe (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive: Notability aside, all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable so yes there should be sources. {{Taxonbar}} is a collection of external links, not references. Also, none of those links seem to support these two statements: "Previously it was considered a subspecies of Alhagi maurorum. Highly drought-tolerant, it is found in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East."? – Joe (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
So, external links in the taxonbar aren't sources? You better go talk to the people in charge of that template about how their links don't look like the sources you're used to. Abductive (reasoning) 11:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of what they are, I checked all of the links at the bottom of Alhagi graecorum and as far as I can tell none of them support the two statements above. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
There are tabs within many of those links that show rangemaps, and mention the subspecies designation. I should not have characterized it as highly drought tolerant. Abductive (reasoning) 12:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

In light of this conversation, the removal of this user right pretty clearly runs afoul of WP:INVOLVED. I have therefore restored it. Please be more careful in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I agree with that, Beeblebrox, but I see there is already a discussion about it at WP:PERM/A. – Joe (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

removing tidyverse from R programming

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R_(programming_language)&oldid=prev&diff=847757425&diffmode=source

Hi Joe,

I went through the R programming page. The "tidyverse" is not mentioned once, so I don't see the need to link to one (paid) author's collection of packages. Especially since the "tibble" package, changes the way R handles data.frames, which in my opinion is confusing to new users. To be clear, I personally really like RStudio and some of Hadley Wickham's packages, but I don't think the link is appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bquast (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bquast: Apologies for overlooking this message. I don't think the external links section should be seen as any sort of endorsement. The tidyverse/hadleyverse is a significant and widely-discussed part of the R ecosystem, so it's something that readers may well want to read more about. But this would probably be better raised at Talk:R (programming language), where other editors can see it. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Cyrillization of Arabic

Moved to Talk:Cyrillization of Arabic#Sources. – Joe (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Hill

What's the evidence that Andrew Hill (jazz musician) is "Not the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC", as you wrote? Before you created Andrew Hill (anthropologist), the only other one was Andrew Hill (footballer), who played one significant match. The anthropologist got through two years of death without an article and there's nothing sourced to suggest that his profile is rising. EddieHugh (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also Andrew P. Hill, and the seven Andy Hills and Drew Hills listed at Andrew Hill. Remember that the primary topic isn't just the most famous thing with a name, it's one that is "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be what the reader is looking for. Personally I think that criterion is almost never satisfied with respect to biographies. Certainly I see no evidence that Andrew Hill (jazz musician) has such widespread and enduring significance. The lead even says, "his status remained largely inside knowledge in the jazz world for most of his career". – Joe (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Do the other variants matter, if they're not known as 'Andrew Hill' or their articles are not entitled 'Andrew Hill'? I'm not sure of policy on that detail, but I know there's no need to add anything in brackets to the article title if it's at all different from others. Of the 3 'Andrew Hill's, is the pianist "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be what the reader is looking for? The footballer averaged 1 hit a day for the last 3 months... no one bothered with the anthropologist until 2 years after obituaries of him appeared... so the pianist looks like he's safely outnumbering his exact (article) namesakes combined. Have a look at what links to Andrew Hill: 500 pages and the great majority of them are about the pianist. Has his article been moved since it was created in 2003? If not, that's a lot of stability: WP:TITLECHANGES ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed"; a new article with the same subject name is a good reason, but primacy is then the question). If we can clear up the naming/disambig policy thing that I'm not sure about, then we'll know better how to proceed. EddieHugh (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say they "count" because although their titles are naturally disambiguated, they're mostly (entirely?) about people with the same name (Andrew Hill).
I don't metrics are very useful when these are all relatively low-traffic articles. I have no doubt that Hill was a significant figure in jazz music, but Prof Hill was a significant figure in anthropology, and probably several of the other Hills are/were significant figures in their field too. I'd say the key point is that none of them are particularly well known outside of their respective fields, and thus we have no reason to expect that the general reader will be overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for one or the other when they search for "Andrew Hill". Jazz-Hill has probably been stable so long simply because his article happened to be created first, and people tend to avoid these tedious disambig moves. – Joe (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough – it's not worth bothering about. It would be good to know what the policy is / if there is one... there probably isn't. EddieHugh (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

i hope you didnt mind

I hope you didnt mind this. Now that i think about it, it feels stupid lol. Sorry about it. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, I chuckled! – Joe (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

OWL logos

Thanks for the undo and the pointer to the discussion. I don't follow the main page, and the discussion wasn't pointed to in the original edit summary, so I wasn't aware. Thnx. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


Help. Deletion of an article I created a bio about a fund:hedge fund manager

I am seeking our advice. I came back to you very on the topic. I am extremely surprised to see that the article I created Bruno Crates has been deleted. Bruno Crastes is one of the most famous fund managers in Europe. I can see 17000 entries in Google. If we delete his page, why not deleting the article re Ray Dalio? The article has been in existence for more than 2 years as far as I remember. Unfortunately, I was busy with my work and did not have a look on my Wikipedia. To be true, I did not expect an article well sourced, documented with references to be deleted after 2 years. Someone stated "Singificant RS coverage not found". I am not sure what RS means. What does it mean?. Last but least, I would like to comment on the last sentence "Created by Special:Contributions/Gentle_rififi with few other contributions outside this topic." I am extremely surprised by this sentence. I have been contributing for 10 years. I have between 1 to 2 thousand contributions on Wikipedia mostly on the French Wikipedia.I also created several articles in the French Wikipedia and even one in Spanish. One of the key arguments saying that basically I had little experience is wrong. I understand that this speedy deletion has been trigered by the article H2O Asset Management. It is true that I created this article based on the template of Calamos Asset Management among others. The artcle was far for perfect. I wanted to improve it but was stuck with an urgennt projects at my office. How could I recreate the article without facing the risk of another deletion? Thanks in advance for your help and advice. Gentle Rififi 30 July 2018

Please comment on Talk:Mumbai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mumbai. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stateless nation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stateless nation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in Red

An exciting new month for Women in Red!


August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10
Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
Notable women, broadly-construed!


For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Can you please help me

Hello Sir, Can you please remove the speedy deletion notice from my creation Arrivedo? Or let me know where the promotional texts are. I will remove and make it with wiki criteria. Thanks in advance. RegardsSbshuvo (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sbshuvo: It has already been deleted. The entire article was clearly created in order to promote the company, which is in any case not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. Most of your recent creations are similar. Are you being paid to write them? – Joe (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Thanks a lot for saving me. I am not paid. Regards Sbshuvo (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

George Cheyne (physician)

Dear Joe Roe, you helped me with my Wikipedia article on C.C. Huijsmans, which was great. Today I was adding to and correcting a Wikipedia article on George Cheyne (Physician). However, all my additions were suddenly removed by an undoubtedly well meaning S. Philbrick, because of a supposed copyright issue. Therefore I would like to ask for your help as I am slightly confused now. I referred to a book The Spiritual Side of Samuel Richardson, which I wrote for my Ph.D. degree at the University of Leiden. I perhaps wrongly thought that I could refer to this book, and several pages if necessary. I am not really using parts of my book or reproducing it in the George Cheyne article. I am merely giving the source so as to make verification possible for third parties, just as I am mentioning other books such as the one by Anita Guerrini. S. Philbrick suggests that I can solve this copyright problem by handing over to Wikipedia the copyright of my book, which means that anyone can use or change the content of the book. Now that I really do not like. Please help! Best regards,Hanengerda (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I just received an answer from S. Philbrick which seems to clarify the problem. I will now make the necessary changes and try again, haha. Best regards, Hanengerda (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Jours de famine et de détresse

I've re-added the categories such as Category:1911 novels. Not sure whether this is standard practice or not. Either (a) It helps the reader who is looking for novels of that category, or (b) it hinders them as this novel has been declared not notable enough for its own article. Might ask at the Books Wikiproject whether there's a view, or a guideline, on this. PamD 16:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: I've not come across categories on redirects before, which is why I wondered if you meant something different. But hey, it doesn't hurt to try. If it's haram I'm sure some gnomish type will come along and remove them. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Well I've asked the experts. And in the meantime I've learned a new word! Thanks. PamD 16:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice to meet an archaeologist (having had a quick look at your user page). We visited both Sutton Hoo and West Stow Anglo-Saxon Village on a recent trip to Suffolk, both amazing places. PamD 16:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Embarrassingly I've been to neither, even though I used to live an hour away. I do all my looking-at-old-things in warmier, sandier places (hence the vocabulary), then find I've no energy left for it when I get home! There is lots of stunning archaeology in the UK, though: Castlerigg, Vindolanda, and Beamish in your neck of the woods, for example. – Joe (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Silicic acid

With respect, I have not misunderstood the criteria for deletion. It is the other editors who, in voting for keep have not appreciated the situation. What has happened it this: up to the year 2017 there was no ambiguity regarding the term "silicic acid". Then, with the publication of the paper by Igarashi and others, the article title became ambiguous as it can now refer to two distinct chemical compounds with chemical formulae SiO2 and Si(OH)4,repectively. The existence of the paper was first revealed to me in the body of the talk page by user:XOR'easter.

My proposal, at the bottom of the talk page was, effectively, to replace the article by a new one with a distinct title. There a draft of the new article at User:Petergans/sandbox.

The situation is complicated by the fact that compounds with the chemical formulae SiO2,xH2O are commonly called "Silicic acid", which is contrary the IUPAC rules on chemical nomenclature. Silicon dioxide may be referred to by the archaic name silicic acid anhydride.

I have since found a second article, Orthosilicic acid, whose title does not reflect its contents, which refer exclusively to silicon dioxide. I will, in future, transfer the relevant material to silicon dioxide and then call for it to be deleted. Petergans (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Petergans: As I said, you can replace the article with your draft without deleting it. You can also rename or split it without deleting. Similarly, you can merge orthosilicic acid into silicon dioxide without deleting. In fact, in that case, the original page must be retained to preserve the page history of the merged content. Deletion is a last resort when none of the content can be salvaged and the title has no encyclopaedic value. Article titles do not have to follow the naming conventions of external bodies, and redirects from common misnomers to the proper term are very useful (see the second point of WP:R#KEEP). – Joe (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(no indent)This response is unsatisfactory. Much of the current article silicic acid is drivel. For example, the suggested structures for

Formula Name Computed Structure
H
2SiO
3 or SiO(OH)
2		 metasilicic acid
H
2Si
2O
5 or Si
2O
3(OH)
2		 disilicic acid

are pure nonsense as no 3-coordinate silicate structures are known. Statement like

"The silicon-oxygen double bond of metasilicic acid, implied by the formula H
2SiO
3, is hypothetical or highly unstable. Such double bonds can be hydrated to a pair of hydroxyl (OH) groups.<ref name=gye/>

=Si=O + H
2O ↔ =Si(–OH)
2"

are equally nonsensical as the structure =Si=O is not present in any known silicate. The reference to Gye is bogus. In fact all the references except to Iler are bogus or irrelevant.

If I thought that there was anything worth saving in the current article, I would, of course not suggest deletion. On the issue of links, I can make sure that any essential link will be re-directed.

The article I'm preparing in my sandbox should be entitled "Silicic acids". Surely a clash with "Silicic acid" is to be avoided? The answer is simple: anything relevant to silicon dioxide and its hydrates should be moved to the article silicon dioxide; there is no need to have separate article such as silicic acid and silicon dioxide when they deal, in the same way. with the same group of chemical compounds.

I am appalled by your suggestion that IUPAC rules should be ignored when naming chemical compounds. The correct procedure is to use the IUPAC name, followed, if necessary, by aka... . I have modified the lead for silicon dioxide to conform to this convention. Petergans (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious that I have zero knowledge of chemistry and therefore no opinion on the contents of the article. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. Do you have a problem the way I closed the AfD? If so, you can bring it to WP:DRV, but the consensus really was crystal-clear.
There is no reason for the two to clash, though of course we shouldn't have both. You could move silicic acid to silicic acids and replace the contents with your draft. Or (probably cleaner), you can move your draft to silicic acids and then redirect silicic acid there. Either way, please don't waste time by nominating the valid redirects left behind for deletion. We don't delete old versions of articles simply because they are outdated or wrong. I don't understand why you didn't just rewrite silicic acid in the first place, instead of nominating it for deletion and writing a fork in your userspace.
You and other editors interested in chemistry are free to determine what these articles should be called. I never suggested otherwise. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Joe Roe/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Tabenkin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Tabenkin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Education Not for Sale

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Education Not for Sale. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. Didn't realize there was another one going on.... there was no template ANYWHERE... Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 29 --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Improper closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale

I believe that with just 1 keep vote, that AFD should not have been closed as keep. It should have been re listed. Therefore, please re open that AFD and re list it to get a clearer consensus. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: AfDs are closed by comparing the weight of arguments. The nomination said that it was "impossible to determine" whether the subject was notable because of a lack of cited sources. This is a considerably weaker argument for deletion than arguing that a subject is not notable, and is bordering on invalid; the general consensus is that AfDs are expected to be based on a prior examination of the available sources by the nominator. So we have a weak nomination that was then specifically refuted by the other participant on two grounds: that the article does in fact have sources (easily verified), and that there are reasonable WP:ATDs that weren't considered. Therefore we are left with no valid argument for deletion and one good, policy-based argument for keeping.
Bear in mind that, while I tried to consider each AfD individually, by the end of the day I was more reluctant than usual to relist Shadowowl's nominations because of the sheer volume and their evidently indiscriminate nature.
Besides, I can't reopen the AfD because you have already started another one. In future, if you disagree with an AfD close, please follow the accepted procedure and common courtesy by discussing it with the closer first. Rather than creating hasty renominations accusing me of an improper close without even informing me. – Joe (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I had closed my deletion and requested the first one to be re-opened --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I re-nominated because I was under the impression that a second AFD can be re-opened if there are reasonable doubts by a third party and concerns over the closure of the AFD. I thought that was reason for a renomination (based on the comment by Hiriji88) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_breakfast_drinks_%282nd_nomination%29&type=revision&diff=851878082&oldid=851851287

If I was out of procedure, I apologize.

But I still think that with 1 vote, I think there should be another discussion of the article. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There are very few restrictions on renominations, but they should never be used to dispute a close. That is what WP:DRV is for. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
OK fair enough. Lesson learned. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2018

Delivered August 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

11:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of the article on Bruno Crastes

I am coming back to you very lately. My job have been driving me away from Wikipedia for weeks if not months. An article I wrote "Bruno Crates" was deleted 2 months ago. I just realized it being back to Wikipedia earlier this week. As suggested on the Talk page of the deleted article, I am contacting you as I would like to recreate the page. Here are my arguments for that. Basically they are twofold. First about Bruno Crastes, secondly about me. To be make a long story short, I created the article as Bruno Crastes is a very famous figure in the European fund industry know for his track record and for being entrepreneur. He runs one of the largest boutique fund houses in Europe. Before creating the article, I carefully checked that his biography was meeting the requirements to be eligible on Wikipedia. The guidelines re biographies were also strictly followed (early life and education, career and quotes). The article was well documented and well sourced with identified references. The article has been in existence for more than 2 years (as far as I remember) and gradually improved by me and other contributors. There are thousands of entries on him in Google. If we delete his page, why not deleting Ray Dalio, Jean-Marie Eveillard, Howard or hundred of biographies on fund managers? I think that European fund managers are under-represented in Wikipedia compared with US peers and the creation of this page and contributions on other articles.

Some words about me now. it was stated that "Created by Special:Contributions/Gentle_rififi with few other contributions outside this topic." I do not think the comment is fair or accurate. I am an experienced Wikipedian. I have been contributing for more than 10 years. I have around 1'400 contributions on 6 different Wiki projects. I also created several articles in the French Wikipedia and even one in Spanish. See the link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Gentle+rififi I am confident you will understand my explanations. Wish you a great summer. (talk), 1 August 2018

Hi Gentle rififi. This is an unusual case. It looks like Bruno Crastes was deleted as a side-effect of this discussion about H2O Asset Management, because at the time that the latter article was deleted, your article had been turned into a redirect to it. As such, I don't think the participants in the discussion were aware of the former article at Bruno Crastes, and they did not discuss its suitability. I'll undelete it on that basis, but please be aware that that doesn't stop anyone from nominating it for deletion again.
I didn't say that you had "few other contributions outside this topic", K.e.coffman did, so you will have to take that up with him. It wasn't a factor in why the article was deleted. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joe, thank you very much for your prompt answer. I took note of your comments and observations. If I take a broader view, I would say that the general procedure of speedy deletion should be amended. Time to allow discussions should be lengthened as some contributors like me may not log on every day. Kind regards Gentle Rififi 1 August 2018

@Gentle Rififi: To clarify, this article was not speedy deleted. It was deleted as a result of a discussion at articles for deletion, which ran for a full seven days. Usually, as the creator of the article, you would have been notified of the discussion via your talk page (and therefore an email if you have that configured). However, as I explained above, a rather unlikely set of circumstances led to that not happening in this case. – Joe (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die blassen Herren mit den Mokkatassen (2nd nomination)

Why was this closed as keep? Two of the votes were for redirect. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Should I gone ahead and redirect it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tyw7: Again, strength of arguments. There was no question of deleting it, and amongst the other !votes, James500 cited solid policy, Shadowowl basically WP:IDONTLIKE, and Kusma a statement that didn't make sense ("until article is written"). The result does not stop you doing a bold blank and redirect but I don't see why you would, it's a perfectly good stub. – Joe (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok fair enough. I think I might just leave it as there are some references there should someone be inclined to expand. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gizzle

Hello! Your submission of Gizzle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsuch Parkrun

Hi, I noticed you were the deleting administrator of the Nonsuch Parkrun page. I am a runner in the area and am keen to help improve running pages on Wikipedia. I used to read the Nonsuch Parkrun Wikipedia page for information. Scrolling through the relevant AfD, I accept why the page was deleted even though I personally disagreed. I would like to view a copy of it as a draft: articles for creation so I can improve the article and use as a template for creating other articles if I believe notability has been achieved. In the request for undeltion page, I was sent here by anothee user after I wrote a similar message. Thanks Nonsuchpark (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Nonsuchpark. I have restored it to Draft:Nonsuch Parkrun. Please be aware that drafts are automatically deleted if they're not edited for six months.
I'm afraid there is a small problem with your username and you will need to create a new account to continue editing. I'll leave a note about that on your talk page now. – Joe (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

A request

Hello. Some time ago you closed the AfD for the book Hijo de ladrón by Manuel Rojas as WP:SOFTDELETE because there was WP:NOQUORUM (and no !votes of any kind). I would like you to WP:REFUND the article because the book satisfies GNG by a very wide margin, with entire books of commentary and many book reviews amongst other sources. Sources will be added once the article is restored. Thank you in advance.

To be honest, I suspect it will be found that the other nine articles deleted also satisfy GNG because the editor who created them was clearly working to a plan of some kind, possibly by using the Spanish language Wikipedia to identify notable books written in Spanish. James500 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem: Hijo de ladrón. Let me know if you want any of the other articles restored. – Joe (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Albert Cashier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Albert Cashier. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Chiyo Miyako.

Hi, your close of the above was to change the deletion to "no consensus", but in your comments you said "The article has since been restored, merged and redirected to list of Japanese supercentenarians anyway, which is not inconsistent with either close, so in the end it is something of a moot point." which seems to imply that the result should be "merge and redirect". Does that mean that the redirect and merge is/was actually the appropriate course of action or that the article should be restored (as has in fact happened)? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the result of the AfD+DRV was no consensus – the community did not decide on any course of action. If the article had still been deleted when I closed the DRV I would have restored it, but "no consensus" does not mean it has to remain the status quo. – Joe (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, a better close of that DRV (given offsite canvassing and "endorse" !votes by quite a few experienced editors) would have been "no consensus to overturn". Same 4 words, different word order... --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, and of course you were rather WP:INVOLVED in both discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Obviously and yep, I was. And it was easy to foresee that things weren't "moot" because the fanbase would not waste any time restoring this collection of trivia article, as a reward for theor mobbing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Randykitty: I restored the page. Calling me a member of a fanbase is baseless. And referring to me without tagging me is also not cool. Dismissing !votes that disagree with you as a conspiracy seems very mistrustful and WP:AGF. Several experienced editors including some respected admins have argued to keep. You have responded with WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If you have something further to say about me come to my talk page or go to Chiyo Miyako. Do not air your laundry on someone else's page.
Apologies to Joe Roe for using your talk like this. Please feel free to delete this comment. I am sure Randykitty knows how to use the history. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
What nonsense is this? I didn't mention anybody by name, so I don't see why I should have pinged you. And if you hadn't restored the collection of trivia article, somebody else would have, it was just a maytter of time. Should I have pinged every participant in the DRV? That's ridiculous. And you know just as well as I do that there was offsite canvassing. The links are in the DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Gizzle

On 17 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gizzle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American rapper Gizzle worked as a ghostwriter for other hip hop artists before releasing her debut mixtape in 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gizzle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gizzle), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 14:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of the founders of religious traditions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of the founders of religious traditions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the founders of religious traditions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —PaleoNeonate – 21:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Highway 2 (Israel)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Highway 2 (Israel). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in Red

September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons!



New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Clara W. McMaster

The article Clara W. McMaster was nominated for deletion and deleted while I had pneumonia and I was not able to weigh in. The article was years old so I can't remember exactly what state it was in. Would you be so kind to restore it as a Draft: so I can revisit it? Much thanks. Thmazing (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thmazing: Sure – Draft:Clara W. McMaster. Hope you're feeling better! – Joe (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Thmazing (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Kiev

Hi there. Per WP:P-NUK, the correct spelling on the English Wikipedia for the Ukrainian capital is Kiev, and not Kyiv. AusLondonder (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: WP:P-NUK, as specifically noted at the top of the page, is neither a policy nor a guideline. It was written largely by a single user in 2015 and as far as I can tell there has been no community-wide consensus to enforce it. It has rarely been cited by other editors. In the absence of an actual guideline, MOS:VAR takes precedence, and says that when there is more than one accepted variety (e.g. Kyiv and Kiev), we should retain the original one.
I don't want to edit war across twenty pages, so I'm not going to revert your revert, but in future can I suggest following WP:BRD and discussing reverted changes before you undo them, especially when it involves multiple pages, and especially when the original revert was months ago? – Joe (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The note at the top of WP:P-NUK also states that "It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of the Wikipedia general conventions on place names." See Talk:Kiev/naming for extremely lengthy discussions as to why the Kiev spelling is established practice across English Wikipedia. The most recent request to move to Kyiv, held last year was snow closed with a 12-1 margin in favour of Kiev. Policies cited by a number of experienced editors included WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. I fail to see how you could not regard this as community-wide consensus. MOS:VAR is not applicable here at all; it relates to situations where "the MoS provides more than one acceptable style, or gives no specific guidance". Regarding WP:BRD, the onus is on you. You sought to mass-revert to Kyiv without seeking any form of consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: You have quoted very selectively there. The very next sentence is "it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Anybody can write an information page and put that template on top of it. It does not automatically indicate consensus or carry any weight. The discussions at Talk:Kiev have been about the title of that article, they're not a proscription of the use of Kyiv across Wikipedia. MOS:VAR therefore does apply because, as you have just quoted, the MoS "gives no specific guidance".
You have also misunderstood WP:BRD. AndreyKva boldly changed Kyiv to Kiev in many articles, I reverted and opened a discussion on his talk page, the onus is then on you to discuss and gain a consensus before making further changes. I'm going to restore the stable version and I'd encourage you to open a discussion in a relevant forum if you seek to change it. – Joe (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, regarding this borderline personal attack on Andrey's talk page: I reverted a series of undiscussed and unexplained changes in a contentious area to versions that had been stable for years. I fail to see how that is "damage". – Joe (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)

The paragraph you deleted here is a Wikipedia naming conventions guideline, and is consensus by default as it has stood unchallenged for years. If you wish to challenge consensus, do so on the guideline's talk page per WP:BRD, not by simply deleting it claiming that you see no consensus for it.

The only problem I see with the paragraph is stating that it was originally transliterated from Russian (which is WP:OFFTOPIC in context). I'm starting a new thread on the corresponding talk page. Thanks for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page but I have to remark on the stunning circular reasoning here. An obscure project page is consensus because it hasn't been challenged... therefore I can't challenge it without consensus? How does that work?
The "B" part of BRD is what I just did. – Joe (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2018

Delivered September 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

09:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12

Newsletter • August 2018

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States Senate elections, 2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States Senate elections, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hardy

Hi Joe. I note you removed my proposal to ban him from the Admin noticeboard. Where are the four other proposals you mentioned in your edsum? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  1. WP:AN#Just FYI
  2. WP:AN#Site Ban Proposal: Michael Hardy
  3. WP:AN#Page blanked despite unanimous consensus against blanking
  4. WP:AN#Mathematician gone rogue, Please help ...
In the second, there's a clear consensus that if this is going to escalate any further it will need to go through ArbCom. And when Boing! said Zebedee closed your almost identically-worded proposal yesterday, they politely asked you not to create any more discussions. I agree with you on this subject but nothing productive is going to come of further discussions at WP:AN now. – Joe (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand all that, and note that only one of them, my own, was actually a proposal to ban him, and the only open thread remaining is not a ban proposal. Curiously, a number of admins appear to be trying to stifle discussion, and much more stifling will reflect badly on the admin corps generally. please reconsider, and at least give the community an opportunity to consider this . Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to restore your latest section I won't revert it again, but please consider what you actually what to achieve and whether this will help or hinder it.
(I'm sorry if you feel stifled, but WP:AN is of course the administrators' noticeboard so it should not be surprising to find admins moderating the discussion there.) – Joe (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Ha, I nearly restored it anyway a few moments ago, but my personal policy of really thinking about it first prevented me !! More seriously, I find myself very strongly motivated to right this wrong that continues, but the sun is shining here, just a tiny tad north of Yorkshire. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Contested AfD close

Greetings Joe. You closed a bunch of heat wave/cold wave AfDs today and I agree with your conclusions for most of them. However, I would like you to reconsider this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave. There is only one person asking to keep the article, and the book they cite does not address this "1995 heat wave" specifically: it just includes a summary list of droughts, including one that extended between 1995 and 1997. All other participants agree to delete the article, and reading it again in light of your "no consensus" close, I see nothing but synthesis of routine weather reports. Please reconsider your assessment of the discussion. — JFG talk 02:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

https://www.google.de/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_enDE785DE785&biw=2133&bih=1047&tbm=bks&ei=yGaLW8LWG4vMwALX5LHYDg&q=1995+heatwave+london&oq=1995+heatwave+london&gs_l=psy-ab.3...27390.32216.0.32845.7.7.0.0.0.0.122.611.5j2.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.79...33i10k1.0.vADwKbRGKwc is specific to 1995 and not tabloid. Had I looked for that references earlier. Agathoclea (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
This book search shows nothing of note. — JFG talk 09:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi JFG. I agree with your assessment of the keep argument, although I would say it is still a valid opinion and nobody challenged it in the AfD like you have here. The problem is the deletes. You made a valid argument, but the other two !votes were empty "per noms", which I assign virtually no weight to. With one reasonable objection on the table, I therefore didn't see a strong enough consensus to delete. I actually considered bending the rules and relisting that one a fourth time, because I think had it not been overshadowed by the other weather AfDs an informed consensus would have been reached, but I decided it would be better to leave someone to renominate it in the future, if they want. – Joe (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Understood, no problem. — JFG talk 09:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

MBA Rendezvous

Hi Joe, Greetings of the day!

Hope you are doing well. I wanted to understand the guidelines for including our page of MBA Rendezvous on Wikipedia because Students ask us during workshops regarding wikipedia page of MBA Rendezvous. Hence we thought of a wikipedia page for MBA Rendezvous for providing information to MBA Aspirants. But it was deleted. Please suggest on the same. Looking forward to your help please. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glacier39 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Glacier39: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social network or business directory. Please don't attempt to use it to promote (or "provide information" on) your business. See WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI, WP:PAID & WP:NCORP for more information. – Joe (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Thanks for the information. Request to suggest on pages like these please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiksha.com. Do they follow the encyclopaedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glacier39 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, thank you for pointing that out. If you would like to help find pages like this and nominate them for deletion, it's always appreciated. – Joe (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Heat wave of 1995 AfD closing

Gretings. You closed this AfD with a decision of "no consensus." I have a couple of questions about the closing. First, User:James500 submitted the only suggestion to Keep the article. The suggestion was based on the exact same piece of notability proof used in all of James500's suggestions: A list of droughts, when drought of course is never, in itself, proof of a "heat wave" since droughts can be caused by other reasons as well. It strikes me as a suggestion without substance or a basis in policy. Second, and possibly less important, I thought we have a trainwreck when multiple articles are bundled in the same nomination, which was not the case with any of the heat wave AfD proposals, including the one about the 1995 summer. Any response would be appreciated. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gnome. I explained the reasoning for this close a few days ago: User talk:Joe Roe#Contested AfD close. Trainwreck usually applies to bundled AfDs, but in this case I think nominating so many similar articles in close succession had the same effect. But that was just a comment on why I thought the discussion failed to reach a consensus. It wasn't a factor in the close. – Joe (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Archaeologists appearing on Time Team has been nominated for discussion

Category:Archaeologists appearing on Time Team, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 14:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar
you've helped out a ton with your photos to WP! thanks! Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Redditaddict69! I'm a terrible photographer, but I get to go to some interesting places :) – Joe (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Same here! I have a page with all of my vacation uploads (states include: AL, AZ, AR, CA, FL, LA, MS, NE, OK, SD, TN, UT, plus another 1-2 I may be missing) but yeah they are, for the most part, crap. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greece

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greece. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shariyah,_Ajman

Hi! You closed the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shariyah,_Ajman. I found today (via Google Street View) this settlement actually is verifiable and the article should probably be restored for passing WP:GEOLAND, but you absolutely closed it correctly and I'm unsure what the procedure is: WP:REFUND? Thanks! SportingFlyer talk 07:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: I'm not sure that really counts as verifiable, Street View being both unreliable and original research. But I can reopen and relist the AfD, if you want to try anyway? – Joe (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd actually appreciate it if you could, just so I can run the argument by others. I understand the source issue, but we typically keep articles on populated places, and while the nominator's doing a bulk cleanup of UAE stubs, I'd like to see if anyone else can find any information on this town now we know it's not a hoax. SportingFlyer talk 17:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. – Joe (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Joe Roe/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hamas

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hamas. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!



New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Tetragrammaton

n this special episode of Hebrew Voices, 1,000 Manuscripts with Yehovah, Nehemia Gordon celebrates the incredible milestone of finding God's holy name with full vowels in over 1,000 Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Nehemia speaks with some of his team scouring Bible manuscripts in libraries around the world, as well as some of the people who have been key in spreading this vital information to Israel and the Nations. He also shares the exciting project he has planned next.

My thanks to all those who support my ministry and make it possible for me to do this important research! Thanks also to T-Bone, Dawn Irion, Chris Clark, Adam Kinghorn, and all the other volunteers scouring the libraries of the world looking for Yehovah's holy name in Hebrew Bible manuscripts!

https://www.nehemiaswall.com/1000-manuscripts-yehovah

Thanks, Mike Sept 30, 2018

So there must be a consensus to edit a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkleberte (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mkleberte: Yes. – Joe (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) @Mkleberte: At Talk:Tetragrammaton, yes, once edits are contested (policy: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD). —PaleoNeonate – 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2018

Delivered October 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

20:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Joe, I opened a RfC concerning a dispute in Talk:Saudi Arabia, after a period of time it expired and was deleted by the bot, in the RfC page it says that the RfC could be restored after its deletion by the bot, but when I did it (since two support one encompassing section and two support separate sections for the pre Islamic history of Saudi Arabia, so more opinions are needed to form a consensus) it was deleted again soon after by the bot. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Szlachta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Szlachta. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives



New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please comment on Talk:Norsemen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norsemen. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Joe Roe/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2018

Delivered November 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom

I know you are away, but if you at all are checking this/have time, I'll repeat my earlier appeal to consider running in ACE. You'd be excellent if you're willing.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the encouragement. It's awkward timing for me, but I managed to get a nomination up. Should have prepared it before I left! Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we need new people there, which is one of the reasons I decided not to run again. thanks for running. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Very happy news. Thanks for your willingness to run :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
as you will see, I changed my mind, on the basis that the viewpoint of actual editors needed further support on the committee. Ihope we will be able to work there together. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm very pleased also. I've emailed you. Doug Weller talk 08:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. And good luck DGG! Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hell Joe from Bill Fitts concerning Warenne/Albo Monasterio families

Hello Joe,

Thank you for your support. I am in the process of writing an article for hoped publication of the subjects mentioned. I am sorry that I am so ill equipped as the navigation of the Wikipedia website. I have been researching my subjects since before 2007 and I will try to submit my article sometime in the future. I wonder if you could send me the conversation that you had with Dr. Peter McClure on the Radulf/Ran(d)ulf problem, could you send this info. to my email, fittstaber@aol.com?

'User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2018 - WikiVividly https://wikivividly.com/wiki/User_talk:Joe_Roe/Archives/2018 Jan 2, 2018 - The following is an email exchange between Dr. Peter McClure and myself which is about the Radulf?Ran(d)ulf problem, also his Biography is ...

Thank you again Joe,

Bill Fitts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fittstaber (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Joe,

Sorry Joe,

After reviewing the history, I see that I mentioned my email exchange with Dr. McClure. Please disregard my previous email.

Best, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fittstaber (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Whoops-I meant to say Hello not Hell.

Again, Apologies,

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fittstaber (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bill. No worries. Wikipedia isn't the most intuitive. Good luck with the article; I'll read it with interest. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Joe Roe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Good job :)

You get my vote :) It's somewhat amusing, but while I am still waiting for replies from several candidates, you are the only one who actually was able to access the paper (may I ask how you did that)? I didn't realize that nearly every candidate would just give up seeing the paywalled link (as I did upload the paper to several open access repositories, there's also Sci-Hub, so a minute or two spend with Google, Google Scholar or Sci Hub all yield the paper with no charge and no registration). I will say that it is a bit dispiriting that so many reasonably serious individuals applying for ArbCom either don't have the abilities to locate an academic paper, or the will do do so, particularly considering that being an Arbitrator entitles being, well, digitally literate and not too lazy :> I didn't intend my question to be a test of either of these skills, but I have to say it is proving to be one... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus! I work at a university, so fortunately I could just go through the paywall.
I genuinely enjoyed the paper, by the way. It's always fascinating to read academic research on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone has ever done any research on how the accessibility of sources affects Wikipedia coverage? I'm a big fan of open access, but I have been surprised before by how reliant Wikipedia editors are on easily-accessed online sources, and how few people seem to be willing to go to the library or buy a book to improve an article. – Joe (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adolf Henryk Silberschein has been accepted

Adolf Henryk Silberschein, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red

The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.



New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I'

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks

Thanks for graciously answering all eight of my questions at the ArbCom questions for candidates--probably the most of any questioner. If you feel I have reached my limit, I understand--I don't want to overdo it. I do have another one that is complicated I asked some other candidates. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David. If you have more questions I'd be happy to answer them. I don't think there's a limit! – Joe (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2018

Delivered December 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
archeological culture
... you were recipient
no. 1785 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! – Joe (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, A 10 fireplane (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
A 10 fireplane (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@A 10 fireplane: A year already? Thank you! – Joe (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
no problem thanks for all you do A 10 fireplane Imform me 13:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Stable revision?!

We're discussing his edits [2] and except some bots and IPs, who edited that article since July?! How do you call it a stable revision [3] while 3 users (at least) are against his additions?! Have you seen the ongoing discussions on talk page? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Please see Wikipedia:Stable version: it is not the "correct" or agreed-upon version, only the version that was in place before the dispute began. In this case that unambiguously includes the sentence about Tikriti, which was in place for three months before Wikaviana removed it on 7 December. – Joe (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but i agree with Wario-Man here, the whole point is that the Tikriti addtion triggered the "dispute" and i think that you have not read the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page (however, i confess that it's a very long thread). All editors except Alexadermcnabb were discussing the issue without editing the article and he has been asked to refrain from editing the article while there was an ongoing discussion on the talk several times, this is the normal practice right ? Per Wikipedia:Stable version : "The term "stable version" is a concept that refers to the most recent version of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war." Therefore, the stable version was the version before his addition, not the one after that. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The dispute started with your removal of content that had been in the article for months. I was watching the page beforehand and have read the entire discussion. The purpose of protecting a page during an edit war is not to pick sides but to encourage all parties to use the talk page to reach a consensus. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok, i did not know that the content was included in the article before because i did not check the editing history of the article. If i removed his addition, it was because according to me, there was an WP:UNDUE weight given to the source he included. Also, his edit was not in compliance with WP:LEAD since his addition to the lead of the article was not covered in the body. Anyway, i understand your point about the stable version of the article now. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor warring against three others at Arab cuisine of the Persian Gulf

Hey Joe, sorry to bother you again, but since you're online, could you please take a look at this ? An editor is repeatedly removing content while having been reverted by three other editors (LouisAragon, Oshwah and me). Also, on the article's talk page, he makes personal attacks based on the ethnicity of LouisAragon and me. LouisAragon asked Oshwah for an intervention, but it seems that he's not online. Thanks a lot for your valuable insight. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Case solved, user blocked indef by Ferret as WP:NOTHERE. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 11#Ryan Worsley

Hi, thanks for taking on the work to close this discussion. However, I believe you made an error when you closed it as "no consensus to endorse the determination of a consensus". Per WP:DRV#Closing reviews, "if the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases" – i.e., unless the AfD is relisted – "this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed." This means that, given that you (correctly, in my view) determined that the DRV resulted in no consensus about whether my "delete" closure at AfD was correct, you should then have concluded that the "delete" closure was endorsed by default, and that the article therefore remained deleted. Thanks for your reconsideration. Sandstein 17:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sandstein. I hope that, with all your experience at AfD/DRV, you can appreciate that this was one where however I closed it, somebody would probably be here asking me to reconsider. I did allude to your point in my close. The full instructions give the closer the discretion to either fall back on the original decision or relist. In this case, my reading of both discussions is that the community simply cannot decide whether to delete this article, and in that case WP:PRESERVE directs us to keep it. I'd therefore be willing to relist the AfD, but not to delete it again. However, as I said, I highly doubt relisting would get us any closer to consensus. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, but given that we agree that the DRV closer may only "fall back on the original decision or relist", as you put it, I don't understand why you didn't pick either of these two options. If you think that either option would not be appropriate - and I can see why one could hold this view - then I put it to you that you should not have closed the DRV, but commented in it as an editor. I therefore propose that you undo your closure and do that. Sandstein 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:IAR, basically. Relisting is not going to do the encyclopaedia any good. But I'll do so if you insist.
That neither option is appropriate is a failure of the guidelines, not anything to do with the fact that I personally closed it, so I don't see what undoing the close and commenting would achieve. – Joe (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
IAR, in my view, applies when it is obvious or widely agreed that the rules are not meant for some particular circumstance, and that following them would do more harm than good. But in this case, that is not so. We have a clear rule about exactly what is supposed to happen when there is no consensus in a DRV: the original closure prevails, which may include a delete closure. There is no reason to ignore these long-established rules. I try to close AfD and DRV threads not with a view to which outcome I personally would prefer, but to what consensus and/or policy dictate. That's why I expect my fellow admins to do the same, and why I ask you, in this case, to undo your closure, which in my view is clearly outside policy and community expectations. Sandstein 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
As I've said: I won't undo the closure, I'll relist the AfD, which we both agree is an outcome permitted by the closing instructions. – Joe (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, but you should also amend the DRV closure to reflect this. Sandstein 18:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course. – Joe (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Joe. Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2019 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

  • the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
  • if you wish to assigned checkuser and/or oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned checkuser or oversight permissions you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If isn't, and you haven't signed the agreement, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed it. If you have signed the agreement, but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,
WormTT(talk) 10:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Joe, well done, and good luck to you! Drmies (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I supported you in my voters guide, though I thought your relative unfamiliarity in drama circles might have have led people to overlook you. I'm delighted that my fears were unfounded. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your successful run to be on ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, Joe! Gird your loins, you're in for 2 years! Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Congratulations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Negro slave listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Negro slave. Since you had some involvement with the Negro slave redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Negro slaves listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Negro slaves. Since you had some involvement with the Negro slaves redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom

Saw the results just now, what a pleasant surprise. I think and hope you will be outspoken about the establishment. Good luck! Alex Shih (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to echo Alex - Arbcom desperately needs new people each year, and the complete onus of "fresh ideas" is on you! I'm really glad you made it onto the committee and look forward to working with you. WormTT(talk) 10:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I've just seen them. I'm obviously very pleased to see got elected! Doug Weller talk 11:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Doug and I are pretty obviously in the same boat. Congratulations (and perhaps apologies!) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all! I will try to gently rock the boat, if I can. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't know if only admins can congratulate you, if so, then my appologies for this post. Just a little message to congratulate you for your success at Arbcom elections. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course not Wikaviani. Thank you! – Joe (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Rollback use

– Joe (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13

Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

  • Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
  • I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
    • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
  • Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in Red

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108


Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

January events: Women of War and Peace Play!

January geofocus: Caucasus

New, year-long initiative: Suffrage

Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019

Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list
Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list
Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0)
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!
May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings !

Hello Joe Roe: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message


Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Yo Ho Ho

Liz Read! Talk! is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.


OKCoin

Hello Joe,

I was reading through the cryptocurrency pages for major exchanges and I noticed that you have removed OKCoin and OKEx?

Can you please elaborate as to why you have done this, given that both pages were drafted in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and contained valid and checked references?

As an independent contributor, I'd like to create the OKCoin page again, because it is a vital part of the digital assets industry history and removing it along with any other big players would do harm and prevent access to information for many enthusiasts out there.

Thanks,

Post(Icarus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posticarus (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Posticarus: I deleted OKCoin because it was the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OKCoin. Another administrator, Premeditated Chaos deleted OKEx because it was proposed for deletion and nobody objected.
I see you've already recreated OKCoin, but you should be aware that unless something has changed since the discussion in August, it is likely to be deleted again. – Joe (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thank you for the Christmas greetings @CAPTAIN RAJU, Cameron11598, TheSandDoctor, Wikaviani, and Liz:. I hope you're having a restful holiday, and wishing you and all my Wikipedian friends a happy new year! – Joe (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome! Thank you and I hope the same for you . --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

LouisAlain

Did you really look at the discussions? ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If you need help, Marianne Schech. I don't understand how a woman with mentioning in authority control can be regarded as "unreferenced". Yes, no inline citations, but how is the one sentence about her dates of birth and death and being a singer not referenced by the French and German National Libraries?? Happy New Year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I did. My intention wasn't to weigh in on one side or the other of the dispute. The issue is more that editors with autopatrolled need to be relied upon to create articles that are completely uncontroversial. If there's any doubt at all, it's better that they be reviewed. I appreciate that removing the right can feel like a rebuke, but it isn't one: having your contributions reviewed by other editors is a normal part of Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
LouisAlain is my greatest helper, period. He translated all Bach cantatas to French, DYK? Removing the right just means more work for reviewers. What do you think about requesting an inline citation for one line of text about a singers dates and death, which is all in authority control, without controversy. - Can you help me to source Amos Oz where the same belief in the inline citation has prevented the appearance of one of the greatest writers in Hebrew - if not the greatest - among Recent Deaths where much lesser people appear just because a formal requirement is met. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure Louis does lots of valuable work, but it's a core policy that any statement that has been challenged requires an inline citation. If an article has been properly researched, it should be trivial to provide one. – Joe (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
He doesn't research, he translates, and so do I. So I suggest you forget about him and talk only to me. I took over Schech anyway. In the one line about her that was there (challenged??), and that was criticised, - what was in it that authority control doesn't support? The French and the German Wikipedia are not basd on inline citations, but on Literature. I know the process of first translating, and then trying to find sources, which is often harder than researching first. Schech will go to DYK eventually, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
ps: recent German example de:Leipziger Universitätsmusik, one inline citation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, I'm not involved or interested in the content dispute, only making sure that autopatrolled is assigned appropriately. If Louis is translating articles without verifying the information in them, then he definitely should not be autopatrolled. That's not to say his isn't a valuable contribution – just that it benefits from review. Ironically, I was criticised for doing the same thing in my RfA (Q from Vanamonde). I've since come round to the idea that translations should start as drafts, until they can be brought up to enwiki standards. – Joe (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Gerda Arendt, I totally concur with Joe's interpretations of notability, translations, and the autopatrolled right. I equally endorse his action on the account of LouisAlain who furthermore did not begin significantly editing this encyclopedia until he was indeff blocked and banned in April 2016 on fr.Wiki. for sockpuppetry, and block evasion following a consensus at the French ANI after a series of blocks.
We are fully aware that the German and French Wikipedias are not so strict on the requirement of sources, but this does not exempt the requirement for translations of germanophone or francophone articles from complying with the guidelines and policies of the English Wikipedia. 'Auotopatrarolled' is not a right per se. It is not an award and does not accord any editing privileges or extra tools; whether you feel you need to speak for him or not, the loss of his autoptrolled flag will not affect your work here in any way and it should leave you completely indifferent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Roe/Archives/2018&oldid=1212136836"