Jump to content

User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2022

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

In need of aid

Hi @Joe, I have a question sir, how does one qualify for an Autopatrolled position? Motlatlaneo (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2022

Delivered January 2022 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.

12:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Mortimer Wheeler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Mortimer Wheeler 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/Michael Mortimer Wheeler 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.

DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Policy proposal at RS Noticeboard

Howdy Joe, just thought I'd inform you of a recent policy proposal at WP:RS Noticeboard, concerning a project you've been involved in.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_policy_regarding_genetics_sources

As always, I appreciate your input and advice, and thanks again for sparing any time. Hunan201p (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Joe! I would like you to be aware that this user was banned several times for pushing racist and racial POV and invite you to have a look through his contribution history, I'm sure that you will find it very interesting. He is also known to coordinate his activities on reddit (see on his talk page) and targeting and monitoring asian-focused subreddits. Best regards ☺ 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:A8CC:8149:A53F:5A9C (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2022

Delivered February 2022 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.

17:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

David Starkey

Are you sure that Starkey can actually be termed a racist? This has now become such a serious charge that it can be a sacking offence and the basis for libel suits. Valetude (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valetude: We don't say "Starkey is a racist" (though he is), we say "Starkey made racist comments", which is accurate and backed by dozens of reliable sources cited and quoted in that section. That's all we need to worry about. The scare-quotes you added would imply, in Wikipedia's voice, that there is some doubt or scepticism about it, which is not present in the sources. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Apportionment of Human Diversity

Information icon Hello, Joe Roe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Apportionment of Human Diversity, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits of David Graeber page

Moved to User talk:Piakerner § David Graeber
 – – Joe (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prehistoric Southwest Asia timeline

Template:Prehistoric Southwest Asia timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2022

Delivered March 2022 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 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to ban draftifying articles more than 90 days old without consensus

Hi Joe Roe. Thank you for your detailed close of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to ban draftifying articles more than 90 days old without consensus and for updating Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review. Should Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation be modified to add this newly formed consensus? Wikipedia:Drafts is an explanatory supplement that says in a banner it "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" while Wikipedia:Deletion policy says in a banner it "describes a widely accepted standard all editors should normally follow". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cunard: Thanks for pointing that out. I've updated it. – Joe (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the policy! Cunard (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
On the way I spotted this: Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Why draftify articles that aren't being actively improved?. – Joe (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy first edit day!

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tropical Storms arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 13, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 08:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2022

Delivered April 2022 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.

17:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Close of "Proposal to ban draftifying articles more than 90 days old without consensus"

Hi Joe. I have not read through the whole discussion, and had mixed feelings myself, but I don't understand your weighting. You essentially seem to be saying in the close that people who think something isn't a problem should have less weight than people who think there is a problem. Why is saying existing processes work OK a perspective worth less weight than people who think there is a problem? As for "First, that surmountable objections to the implementation details of a proposal are not strong arguments against it in principle, but opportunities for further refinement through our normal consensus-building processes." I think this is normally correct, but I do wonder for bigger proposals - and tbh I'm not sure this qualifies as a big one - if it's true given what's happened with XRV and NSPORT this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I should add that I just looked in on the NSPORT discussion and they seem to be making actual progress which is good to see. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not that I weighted seeing a problem over not seeing a problem. Those are both valid standpoints. But in that specific discussion the case for there being a problem was well made and substantiated (including a strong basis in existing policy), while the vast majority of arguments for there not being a problem were not arguments at all, just bare assertions. That's a dynamic I'm very used to seeing at AfD—"notability is shown by XYZ sources" vs. "nah not notable" or vice-versa—and I've always given very little weight to those who don't give refutations or counter-arguments.
And yeah I'll die on the hill that surmountable problems or nitpicking should not sink a proposal. That's a basic prerequisite for continuing to claim we have a consensus-based model and if we drift any further towards proceduralism our policies are going to completely ossify. Can you imagine if we'd insisted every new policy or process was fully worked out in a big RfC from the beginning? We wouldn't have any policies or processes. It's another principle of consensus that it's maybe easier to see in content discussions: if one editor proposed adding a well-sourced paragraph to an article, and another editor flatly refused because it had a spelling mistake in the second sentence, we'd obviously give the second short shrift.
The strongest parallel I see with NSPORT is that this was also a big discussion about a very much not-big proposal. Ultimately, it amounted to a tightening of a single point of WP:DRAFTIFY, which is single section of an explanatory supplement essentially written by a single editor a few years ago. I know it's the nature of policy, but you have to marvel that rules roughly hashed out by a handful of NPPers, five years later, need 100-person RfCs to shift. I mean, the whole draftspace concept was created in a 2013 VPP thread (with a prophetic note in the close: a number of users argued that there is a risk of creating new layers of bureaucracy) with I think slightly less participants than either of these two discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

On Discord and OUTING

Personally I think a lot of how we apply OUTING is at minimum mockable, if not actually harmful to encyclopedic content. This is why I have been heartened that the recent VP discussion on OUTING and mainspace has indicated a preference for a case by case approach, if not a general OK if supported by reliable sources. This is a fair deal more nuanced that the discussion I have seen when it's come up on the OS listserv. Our first obligation, in my opinion, must be towards our readers and preemptively cutting off discussion of what content should be included if it happens to involve a Wikipedian strikes me as the wrong trade-off to make to protect editor privacy enough that people feel comfortable creating other content.

As for Discord, I agree with you our current procedure is a bit silly. It's also a bit silly that policy says that it could be outing if you identify yourself on some other wiki even though it's the same username and account. But that silliness represents the community's preference towards privacy. This silliness also explains why when you and Chess linked stuff at Vami's RfA it wasn't OS'ed - the first inclination was since it was clickable to anyone was to allow it. I think a policy where posting something authed people on Discord, IRC, and Wikimedia had written would not be OUTING but until the community comes to agree with me I'm going to respect their consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Sorry for the slow response to this, it's been a bit hectic lately. Of course I don't expect ArbCom to balloon the scope of the case to all Discord activity or override community consensus. But I think it's a historical fact that our current surrealist definition of outing traces back to that boneheaded 2007 decision: the precedent for pretending Discord was private was pretending IRC was private; the precedent for pretending IRC was private was pretending emails are private; and the precedent for that was ArbCom's bizarre idea that copyright law prevents you from quoting something someone said to you (remember this was back when people were less bothered by ArbCom 'legislating from the bench'). I think and hope that you could amend that. I'd actually been thinking about filing an ARCA about it for a while before this case came along. But as I replied to WTT, I think the issue is very relevant to the current case as something stopping the community from effectively handling disruption caused by off-wiki cliques.
On OS, of course with Discord the OS team's hands are tied – they have to enforce what the RfC decided. But I've had similar thoughts recently. Honestly when I was subscribed to the OS list I never paid it much attention. It seemed like everyone was being reasonable and cautious and as you know arbcom-l gives you plenty to do. But from the other side of the fence, I can see how most people subscribed to that list, for obvious reasons, tend to be on the conservative end of the spectrum when it comes to outing etc. – inclined to prioritise privacy over other concerns and inflexible when it comes to enforcing 'rules'. This is a very good set of traits for a group enforcing the outing policy but not for one setting it. And unfortunately, the unusual nature of oversight means that a lot of policy does, effectively, get set by the practice of this closed and unrepresentative subset of editors. But I have no idea what could be done to correct that. The community isn't going to do it, because they have no way to know what is and isn't being oversighted. Theoretically it's within ArbCom's remit, but I can't imagine any iteration of the committee ever wanting to tackle that. I have a vague hope that the UCoC will eventually lead to more transparent and fair processes for handling disputes involving nonpublic information, but we'll see.
P.S. Unless I'm misremembering I don't think I linked to anything potentially outing at that RfC? My initial objection was to content on his user page which at that time was visible and quite recent in the history (and I believe already brought up in the questions). IIRC Chess brought up the off-wiki stuff, I just agreed with him. – Joe (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with your second paragraph. If I run again for ArbCom one option I'm seriously contemplating is making it a stated reason why I'm running. Absent that, or even with that, it's going to take a thoughtful community discussion to see something else happen - I'm less convinced than you are that ArbCom can make the change. And I definitely didn't reread the RfA so I'm sure your recollection about logs is correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2022

Delivered May 2022 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.

12:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Review

Hi Joe Roe, you recently deleted my article Inikiri Umuezeoka which has been norminated for AFD. I wish to request for your assistance in retrieving the article and to review it for publication. The community is a remote area of Ebonyi State with no official publications other than linked pages. The community has Inikiri Bernard market and Inikiri health center which are landmarks on Google maps, churches, schools, etc. Thanks for your assistance Topsy4men (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Topsy4men: Usually I'm happy to restore drafts of deleted articles, but I'm not sure about it in this case because the article has already been recreated so many times, and in the AfD multiple editors said they tried and failed to find sources. And if I understand correctly, what you're telling me here is that you agree with them: if there are no reliable sources on this place, then unfortunately we can't have an article about it (Google Maps is not a reliable source). If I restored a draft for you to work on again, what would you add to it to overcome this problem? – Joe (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I will start by providing the linked pages and the postcode address. Moreover, I will research further for more sources. Thanks for your assistance. Topsy4men (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Topsy4men: Sorry, but I'm not willing to restore the page if you don't have any additional sources to hand. You can ask another admin at WP:REFUND, but I would recommend first finding those sources. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Help Request for Article - Draft:Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips

Hi Joe Roe. I am trying to get the article above published but it has been rejected; the reason given was 'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article'. Please could you give me some help and guidance on how it can be made eligible? I hope you're well, many thanks Cmdcam01 (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cmdcam01: The key is to show that there are sources that are both independent (i.e. not press releases, interviews, publications of organisations that they are affiliated with) of the subject and have in-depth coverage of the subject (i.e. the source is primarily about them, they're not just mentioned in connection to something else). Taking a quick look at your draft, the only source you have cited that meets both criteria is the InPublishing article, but one is not enough. But honestly, few businesspeople actually meet these notability criteria even when it appears there's a lot written about them, because it all turns out to be press release/marketing type stuff. – Joe (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Joe, I'm surprised that only one of the 22 references meets those criteria? Quite a number of the references are news stories, and where Peter is the main subject. I wonder if you could only see the original list of (8) references from the first submission though? Can you let me know please? Many thanks Cmdcam01 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Cmdcam01: There are only eight references in Draft:Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips at the moment. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
How odd @Joe Roe. It was in my Sandbox and I've published again in the hope you can see everything that's there now!? Many thanks as always. Cmdcam01 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input

I really did appreciate this. I appreciate people who are committed to the betterment of the collaborative project even if we do not agree, I appreciate the interaction. On a more jovial note, I know this is quite inappropriate but is that you on your UP? If yes, then not only are you good looking but Your hair is beautiful, as aforementioned if you deem it inappropriate then I’m sorry but whenever I see good hair I tend to always tell the relevant editor how gracious their locks are. Thank you for your time Joe. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Thank you. It is me, and everyone appreciates a compliment :)
I don't think we really disagree. I can certainly understand the feeling of frustration that you're one of a few people working to combat what I agree is a major threat to the project's integrity. Just remember that there are others who have been working on it for years too, even if they're not so visibly active on it now. If you come across UPE that you think needs admin action, you can always give me a ping. – Joe (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of archaeology journals

Information icon Hello, Joe Roe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of archaeology journals, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled comment

I read your comment about 'autopatrolled' in the recent discussion about people's reasons for ceasing Wikipedia editing on WIR talk. I would like to request autopatrolled. I began editing Wikipedia in 2014 and since then have created 149 new articles. They are mostly biographies, especially botanists, microbiologists and other scientists (some alive, some deceased), some pages about organisms, a few other topics. --MerielGJones (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi MerielGJones Sure, you're well above the minimum criteria. I'll drop a templated message on your talk page since it contains some useful links, but you don't have to do anything differently. – Joe (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! MerielGJones (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

About ArbCom being kinder

Do you really think that might be the case? I don't participate in ANI much, but if this is what's it like a lot of the time, I see why people think of it as depressing and avoid getting involved there. Although I see now that there seems to be some unique circumstances that makes it potentially worse than normal. I don't know much about ArbCom, apart from that it exists and it usually takes quite a lot for something to get accepted there, but I also don't know how I feel about the ANI thread either. I symphasize with Celestina007. There's concerns but the way that this has gone on bothers me. I think ARoseWolf's comments on their talk page are more constructive than a lot of what has been posted there. It surprises me how many people seem to think this situation warrants indefinite topic bans or blocks, but maybe I'm out of touch. At this point, I'm worried I've bitten off more than I can chew and maybe my comments are getting in the way instead of actually helping resolve the situation. Clovermoss (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess events have overtaken me, but yeah... while arbitration certainly isn't a pleasant process for anyone, the 15 arbs are all people I trust to approach this with kindness and emotional intelligence. That ANI thread, on the other hand, showed the worst of "community" "dispute resolution". In the end Beeblebrox's close seems very fair to me, though, and I hope it will encourage Celestina to resume her good work and put this behind her.
I still think you did the right thing bringing it to ArbCom. If nothing else, it seems to have nudged people into realising that the ANI thread needs to be closed rather than turning into an indefinite pile-on. – Joe (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not the one who opened the ArbCom case request, that was someone else. I did comment there but had an edit conflict with you and your comment stood out to me because I care about kindness. I haven't really participated in ANI much but that thread was overwhelming for me, I can't even imagine what it would be like to be the subject of it. Clovermoss (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

John Lubbock

Hello. The information, now removed, from John Lubbock's Wikipaedia page is taken from The www. farnborough-kent-village.org.uk website. It was reworded by me for copyright reasons. The truthful information on there is recorded for all to read; it's a great shame that doesn't now include Wikipaedia readers. Heath St John (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Heath St John: But nobody could know that it was "recorded there for all to read", what's why we require references. There's a tutorial if you don't know how, but really any indication of where the information comes from is better than nothing. I'll take a look at that source about Lubbock now. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay I think I found the page you mean (https://www.farnborough-kent-village.org.uk/lubbock_burial_ground.html) and partially restored the passage you added. But as far as I can tell it doesn't say Lubbock's actual remains were moved the second time, just the marker. It would be pretty remarkable if the council exhumed and reburied a 70 year old body... – Joe (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Right.

Thanks very much. It does mention it in one of the pages. Your efforts shall continue to help others always. Again, thank you. Heath St John (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 810 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 848 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

Fade258 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Fade258. You can request the permissions you asked about at WP:PERM. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that but I am asking on different aspect i.e can you grant permission on personal request? i.e request placed on your user talk page. Fade258 (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, any admin can grant you the permissions there at your discretion, but unless there's a special reason not to, it's better if they go through PERM. That way they are recorded and archived, and any any admin can review them as they have the time. – Joe (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that “settlement” implies year around habitation?

Just wondering as L'Anse aux Meadows was almost certainly not occupied year around. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. Just somewhere where people built buildings and intended to stay for an extended period of time (and/or revisit). Could be wrong though. – Joe (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It’s confusing as “settled’ does imply some form of permanence. Doug Weller talk 22:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Bias towards things that are true

I got a chuckle from that, thanks ;) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"Religion & Education article" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Religion & Education article and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 1#Religion & Education article until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2022

Delivered June 2022 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.

09:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Joe Roe

Thank you for creating Otto E. Ravn.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. Needs much building. The given source has material for that. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

you should check a blanked page you warned

You warned a user about edit warring and now he is harassing other people and articles. Your warning and his very personal attack reply towards you have been blanked, by him of course, from his talk page. You should review the history and see if anything should be done. 'He's clearly here to cause trouble. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MisterWizzy&oldid=1091448718 this is your warning, but it's been blanked and his reply to you was completely horrible. 2806:102E:18:B693:887D:F761:33F3:A30C (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2022 (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 08:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrative action review

Regarding this comment: I disagree that I've been one of the most vocal opponents of the administrative action review process. I recognize the consensus of the RfC and have worked towards implementing it. Contrary to the assertions of some of the opponents, I do not see indications from the support statements in the RfC that the supporters were unclear on the scope that you expressed in your proposal. However those who agree with this reading of consensus were unable to convince those with a different reading. Since I personally believe in collaborative discussion to determine how to proceed, but very few others remain engaged, I'm stalemated in next steps. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl: at this point I can't keep track of who did what (one of the most irritating things about that whole affair for me personally was that it happened right in the middle of me moving my family to another country, so I had to piece it all together after the fact). If I've mischaracterised your views I apologise. I do still think that adding tags like that was highly damaging and contrary to consensus. When you have a well-attended RfC that is formally closed with a consensus in favour of something, it's entirely unreasonable to say that implementing it hinges on whether an arbitrary group of self-appointed gatekeepers are also "convinced". That is not a collaborative mindset. – Joe (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Although I disagreed with it, a bunch of critics showed up at the talk page asking to put the process on hold, and from that consensus, others removed the links to the administrative action review page. Afterwards I added the note to the page itself, which did not last very long, so I disagree that it caused damage: it was already done. Multiple times I've stated my view that the documented process matched the proposal that was approved in the RfC. Unfortunately, the way decision-making works here, I can't assume all of those who provided support statements would have disagreed with putting the process on pause. I agree that the implementation of a process should not be stalemated by those who disagree with it, but the "last consensus wins" approach of English Wikipedia means the squeaky wheels have greater leverage. isaacl (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

100% agreed there. – Joe (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

xTools counting articles started from a redirect

You said that this is the case here [1] but my personal experience has led me to believe that this isn't true. There's discrepancies from the articles that I created that were originally redirects listed at User:Clovermoss/Content compared to my xTools article count [2]. It's part of the reason I created that usersubpage to begin with. While we're on the topic of autopatrolled though, I was wondering if you could remove my userright for it? I'm not in any rush, especially since I already asked Chetsford and I'm aware they are on Wikipedia in off and on doses. I'm okay with waiting for a response if that's what I should do. The main reason I didn't want it anymore is explained here: [3]. Clovermoss (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not surprised it's inconsistent, but usually they seem to show up there. Voyageurs for example is listed on North8000's.
Sure, I've removed autopatrolled for you. You're welcome to have it back any time. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. In regards to xTools, that's interesting. None of mine show up for some reason? I wonder what causes it to recognize it. See Beau-papa, Oui ou non, Pas là, Donne-moi ton cœur, Moi aimer toi, Joie de vivre (album), and Project Surname. The first 6 are stubs about French pop, but Project Surname isn't. Clovermoss (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate a second set of eyes on Project Surname, though. I spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to approach it but it's a difficult topic. I'm worried I messed up somehow. Clovermoss (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I really have no idea... I also treat XTools as an approximation anyway.
Project Surname looks like a good and interesting article to me. Maybe a little light on criticism? I mean, I don't know anything about the topic, but it sounds like something that would not go down well even if it was marginally better than being numbered (jesus...) and at the moment there's only one quite mild critical sentence. A quick Google Scholar search seems to confirm that. – Joe (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I know! I felt like it was light on criticism too! I had a hard time finding it, but I'm sure it's out there. I need to look into it more. It's just... awful. What about autonomy? The whole disc number thing is crazy. Like I didn't even know about it. I learned about the residential school system in high school and from my great-grandfather... but how are more people not talking about this? It's super dehumanizing. Clovermoss (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll check out Google Scholar, thanks. Clovermoss (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It really beggars belief. I don't know how you stand with access to journals articles etc., but I have a good library so if you find anything promising behind a paywall just send me an email and I can probably reply with a copy. I'll also try to work on it if I have time... it is an interesting topic and, like you say, probably not very well known. Getting it on our front page could help with that! I guess you've missed the first window for DYK, but you could maybe try to get it to GA and then do it? – Joe (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I have access to the Wikipedia library and open source materials. The academic year ended in April and doesn't resume until September, so I don't have access to anything more substantial at this time. If you have access to a paywalled source I'm interested in, I'll let you know. Eventually getting it to a GA is a good idea. Front page visibility would bring awareness. Clovermoss (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I think another thing that shocks me is how recent all of this is. The last residential school closed in 1997. My great-grandfather was forced to attend one in the '40s (he was Cree, not an Inuk), but something that keeps shocking me as I get older is how recent and ongoing so many of these issues are. I don't identify as indigenous myself, but I care about these issues because I used to live with my great-grandfather at one point and because I have empathy for other human beings. Plenty of communities still have issues with accessing clean drinking water! But assigning literal numbers to people from the 1940s to the 1970s is just another absolutely horrifying thing. I have made some more edits to the article to re-emphasize the content in the lead about the alternative of assigning surnames being criticized as paternalistic (rightly so, imo) and about the importance of names in Inuit culture. I think the article could still use a lot of work, but at least it's a bit better. I do work later today, but when I have time I think this will be my primary focus. Thanks for your input and offer to help make the article better. I appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Just to mention what was going on about Voyageurs - it was a history merge. The original was moved to "(fur trade)", North's was moved on top, then there was a bit of deletion and recreation. I think Clovermoss is correct that normally xtools does not count the individual who created the page from the redirect. WormTT(talk) 09:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Thanks for bringing that up. Do you know if there's a way to keep track of articles created from redirects, apart from manually? This does kind of have broader implications for anyone who could apply for the autopatrolled perm. I know when I did back in 2021 there was a bot that mentioned I hadn't created 25 articles, when I had actually created more than that iirc. Autopatrolled is a really weird perm because it's mainly for the benefit of other people. I did like I didn't have to get a notification every time Danny's bot patrolled one of my redirects though (sometimes twice or thrice for the same ones), which happened when I was on the redirect autopatrol list. The NPP backlog is crazy. But at the same time, I've got the impression that lots of problems can happen when someone is autopatrolled. Precisely for the reason that there isn't a second set of eyes. Clovermoss (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
No idea whatsoever. An article created from a redirect is simply a "significant expansion" according to the system. Indeed, I can't think of a simple way - you could check the before / after of edits, but that doesn't account for any situations where the article has been replaced with a redirect and reverted, or many other edge cases. I don't like autopatrolled as a user-right, it should be reserved for bots / mass creations with consensus - I see no issue with all articles being reviewed. WormTT(talk) 07:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Aha thanks WTT, that explains things. In theory it's a bit of a problem for WP:PERM/A because removed redirects do show up in the new page patrol queue, but in practice I don't think there are many people out there who create tonnes of articles but only from redirects.
Totally agreed on autopatrolled. I'd like to see the criteria significantly tightened. Though given the current panic about the NPP backlog it's probably not the best time to suggest it. – Joe (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: If the information at Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled#2015 to 2022 is correct, the criteria used to be 75 articles compared to 25. I think it might be easier to get the criteria higher again than to only limit autopatrolled to the circumstances you listed, but I can see a lot of people agreeing with your perspective, too. Honestly even I'm inclined to agree. I also agree with Joe that trying to do this is the middle of a huge NPP backlog isn't a great idea. Ideally there should be more community participation in that area so the people who are actively reviewing aren't completely overwhelmed. I will also say that the thing about unproblematic creations is, by their very nature, they take less time to review. But no review whatsoever can lead to certain problematic creations being created en masse because there isn't someone checking up on them. Clovermoss (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to say this was meant as a generalization and not as a comment on current events. I wasn't aware of the current ArbCom case at the time I wrote what I did above. I did want to clarify that the part I agreed with more was there's no problem with all articles being reviewed. Maybe it's just because my self-confidence is kind of like a seesaw but even though I've been around awhile, I still feel kind of terrified of making mistakes? Like I get that everyone's human and mistakes happen, but I guess I just have really high expectations for myself. I don't know. My point is that my perspective on this might be a bit different than others. Maybe if I became more self-confident, I'd be more comfortable with the idea of autopatrolled in general. I can kind of see the perspective of "what's the point of 'marking as reviewed' ad naseum if it's just to mark it as reviewed?" I feel like autopatrolled does have an intended purpose. There's also the whole search engines and backlog thing. Like everything on Wikipedia, it's nuanced. Clovermoss (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC), edited 23:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A problem that needs a resolution

Hi, Joe - I don't want us to keep going back and forth at VPP. I'm now aware, or at least I think I am, of the policies you've been referencing. I've requested a link to OR footnote (a) so I will have a better understanding of what took place in that discussion to arrive at such a decision. I've already expressed my concerns at VPP, and now I need to figure out the best direction to go in order to find an appropriate resolution beyond status quo. I have always appreciated your knowledge and input over the years, and still do. Atsme 💬 📧 15:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: thanks for the kind and conciliatory words. Just to clarify, I'm not basing what I'm saying on a footnote to WP:OR. I've never even noticed it before. From my perspective everything I've said is just a straightforward repetition of two core policies: the editing policy, which says try to fix problems, and the deletion policy, which says that lack of sources is only a reason for deletion when thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. And as corollaries to these policies, Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing with unsourced material and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations both offer guidelines on how to handle unsourced material, and notably both specifically prefer tagging over removal unless there are other problems (e.g. it's a BLP).
As I understand it, your position is that either these policies are in contradiction with WP:V and/or WP:NOR, or that WP:PRESERVE only applies to sourced content. But the contradiction is only there if you read "unsourced" and "unverifiable" to mean the same thing; as WhatamIdoing and I have both tried to explain, there is an important difference. And there is no mention of a sourcing caveat in WP:PRESERVE. In fact, WP:BURDEN refers directly back to WP:PRESERVE to explain why one shouldn't always remove unsourced content. Please understand that I'm not trying to argue technicalities here. I believe there's a very well-established consensus that, while unsourced articles are a problem, they are a surmountable problem and not a reason for deletion. Now experienced editors like you and I might find unsourced articles intolerable, and I'm certainly not opposed to discussing being more strict about sourcing in new article. I just think it's important that discussion starts from an accurate understanding of the status quo.
I usually try to steer clear of these "who are you to talk?" issues, but while we're on my talk page: I do get the feeling that you and others see this as an "NPP vs. the world" argument. I've been a new page patroller since 2016, an AfC reviewer since around 2012, and practically all my admin work is somehow related to page patrolling and new editor retention. So honestly, I'm on your side. I've never been the most active reviewer but one thing time gives you is perspective on what are recurring issues at NPP. One of them is definitely a tendency towards siege mentality. This current crop of regulars at WT:NPR has it... really bad. Many of them are new editors who probably don't realise that we've had big backlogs and low morale before and the sky hasn't fallen down. But you're not a new editor, you've got that perspective too, and I think it would be really helpful if you could use your experience to nudge them away from groupthink. Otherwise, I worry there'll inevitably be a clash with the wider community and a lot of disillusioned or burned out reviewers. – Joe (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Nicely put, thank you. I wouldn't call it "seige mentality", although I do understand what you're saying and will absolutely keep it in mind. Having said that, I align more along the lines of this comment. When did that mentality change? As for NPP vs the world - [4] my first thoughts. ^_^ Does that date me? On a more serious note, I do encourage my new trainees to communicate with article creators, and to fix articles if they have time, especially when WP:FIXIT is easier than finding the right tag. I invite you to review one of my training courses with an editor I consider to have great potential (I will email you that link). As you'll see, my training course is not an easy one. The fact that I read those same PAGs over and over again because of the training exercises, it has proven to be quite helpful when I get a chance to do some actual reviewing. Of course, none of us are perfect, and I do AGF relative to most editors/admins who tend to oppose my perspective. As John Lydgate wrote so eloquently: “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.” No truer words ever spoken. I feel quite fortunate to have had the pleasure to collaborate with some of our most excellent editors/content creators/FA-GA types over the past 11 years or so. If you haven't seen what's coming at us down the pipes, this may be worth your time. Oh, and you've got mail. =b Atsme 💬 📧 16:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that what Joe calls the siege mentality is a problem on its own. I think it might be a good idea for the core community to talk about that. Do most of the NPPers feel like other editors generally respect and support them, or do they feel like they're battling against both a flood of garbage from outsiders/newbies plus potshots from the other experienced editors?
As for the uncited/unverifiable thing, all you really need to is stop claiming that uncited material is a policy violation ("unverifiable"), and start saying instead that it is an indisputable violation of Wikipedia's core values and the principles that all true editors hold dear. It can be a bad thing even if it's not technically a policy violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I will take your suggestion to heart, WhatamIdoing. Admittedly, I'm getting a little rusty at crafting the best choice of words in my retirement years. Words now come sputtering in on pothole ridden backroads whereas they used to come racing in on the autobahn. As for the frustration reviewers are feeling, perhaps some of it is evident in this ANI case. It's just that there are so many variables we have to deal with, it's difficult to pinpoint only a few. I'll end by saying I've always admired the way Project Med operates. They've received a lot of favorable media attention, which I'd like to think filters some positive light down to the rest of us, even if we only see that light as an inspiration to do better. Oh, and here is the answer to your question about how NPPers feel, but I can't speak for all of them. Atsme 💬 📧 20:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
WPMED has had its ups and downs over the years. I usually think that media attention is a distraction, but I agree that it's more pleasant to get favorable attention than the other way around. We had one WPMED editor in the news about a decade ago with a legal complaint over his editing a few years ago – a basically invalid complaint that I understand was dismissed at the earliest opportunity, but in the meantime, he had to deal with lawyers and the stress of it all. I wouldn't have wished that on anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15284 articles, as of 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Psycharpax

Hi Joe, hope you're well. I emailed a while ago – concerns of paid editing regarding User:Psycharpax. You agreed, but thought a warning would result in disclosure (warning, FBOY Island). It seems like they will not disclose, but still doing paid editing (recently hired in June 2022). Can you please re-visit that email ticket and then their profile to confirm this information? Perhaps, we need some action now, so they start disclosing. This time article in question is: Katy Tur. Thanks. 136.36.8.58 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I see what you mean. I'll address it now. – Joe (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2022

Delivered July 2022 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ygm

Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

hope its ok...

I boldly removed this request as they posted it immediately after your decline and they appear to just be seeking perms for no reason. autopatrolledaccount creator and i'm sure more. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, they obviously can't or don't want to understand what they're asking for. – Joe (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING

Hi Joe, in this edit, you would make allegations of WP:CANVASSING. WP:CANVASSING is quite clear as to what are reasonable notifications and what would be constitute as WP:CANVASSING. The notifications you would refer to are explicitly acceptable. On the other hand, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are quite explicit about making allegations of misconduct against another user, how and where such allegations should be made and particularly, the ramifications when these cannot be reasonably substantiated. That you would invoke DS clearly indicates that you are aware of same and exposes you to these same sanctions. I would strongly suggest that you might redact the post I have linked. This has been a civil discussion. Please, let us keep it this way. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I would similarly note this edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I explained why I think it's canvassing and not an appropriate notification. Fair enough if you disagree, but I don't see what I did wrong in pointing out potential canvassing in the discussions it affects. It's up to whoever closes them what, if anything, they do with that information. Personally I'll be trying to ignore that civil but extremely tiresome RM from now on. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I explained why I think it's canvassing and not an appropriate notification. I dont see where you did this. It looks to me as though you simply linked to a post and asserted that it was canvassing without justifying that claim. Wallnot (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The part after the colon. Selectively notifying audiences that are likely to support one 'side' (e.g. the watchers of MOS talk pages on capitalisation) is explicitly defined as canvassing.
Semantics aside, do you seriously expect anyone to believe that three editors with a long track record of having Very Strong Opinions about capital letters, and zero track record editing articles archaeology, randomly turned up at Talk:Copper Hoard Culture? Just after they all spent weeks arguing about Indus Valley civilisation? Has the typochronology of the South Asian Bronze Age suddenly become a popular topic? – Joe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
By your argument, placing a notification on say, the wiki project India talk page is also canvassing, since participants in such projects almost always wish to ignore MOS’s capitalization rules. Neither counts as canvassing, however, because the policy explicitly excludes notices placed on talk pages like these (see WP:APPNOTE), as I pointed out over at the MR.
Also, if you expect the editors who follow an MOS capitalization talk page to oppose capitalization, you’re conceding that MOS requires lowercasing here. Wallnot (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the kind of battleground thinking that needlessly escalates disputes. Participants in WikiProjects are just ordinary editors, i.e. the people who write 99% of our articles in complete compliance with the MOS. These notices on the MOS capitalisation page clearly summon a group of editors like yourself who think it is very important to remove capital letters from article titles, and whether that is or isn't in line with the MOS, do you really think treating the people who actually write those articles as enemies is going to help you achieve your goal? – Joe (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's the difference between relying on a special alert page and posting to the actual Wikiproject's talk page that is the problem for me. I doubt that a lot of project members such as the archaeology and Indian projects read those and depend on the talk pages. I suspect that the more enthusiastic members of the others watch those alert pages carefully. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The notifications fall outside WP:CANVASSING and are quite acceptable. However, making allegations of misconduct and in the way that this has been done would probably be considered misconduct.
If you consider that this (Copper Hoard Culture) discussion would benefit by reasonable further notifications to specific projects or similar (IAW WP:APPNOTE), then you are at liberty to do so. However, I don't think that continuing to pursue this course is either productive or civil. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Pursue... what? This is my talk page, I'm responding to messages on it. I noted the canvassing, in the discussions it affected, for the benefit of the closers of those discussions. I don't think there's anything more to be done and it's farcical to call that "misconduct". You guys really should consider taking it down a notch or two when it comes to capital letters. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Need some clarity..

Hi, joe i am newbie here.

My article again moved to draft space. In the article talk page i added Class=Start [5] Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment According to WikiProject_Film/Assessment Quality_scale [6] it should be in main space right. why the article move to draft space Redirect also criteria for speedy deletion CSD R2 Process. This is happening because I add Class=Start instead of Class=stub. Neu84321(talk) 18:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

not getting it

....sigh PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Newpedia

I would appreciate your input on this idea. Lots of N-related externalities can be avoided by having an inclusionist sibling that never deletes things due to N and captures the range of dabs + redirects + translations of a topic (which could be captured on WP as part of a table, a bullet in a list, a section, a stub, a category...) – SJ + 15:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2022

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2022

Delivered August 2022 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.

11:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Joe Roe/Archives,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Do not edit my user page

@Joe Roe: "The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves". WP:USERPAGEBLOG. You should edit another user's page yourself only when "the material must be addressed urgently . . . , the user appears inactive, the edit appears likely to cause problems, and you are quite sure the material is inappropriate". Id. Even leaving aside the fact that there was nothing defamatory or otherwise urgent on my page, I am obviously not inactive. Do not edit my user page again. Wallnot (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

😆 wikilawyers gonna w.l. – SJ +
@Wallnot: Thank you for reformatting that section into something less confrontational. I can't promise not to edit your user page again if the need arises, but if it's not urgent I can certainly ask another administrator to intervene instead. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sodom and Gomorrah

While you consider the theory WP:FRINGE, it is in fact published in Nature. The connection to Sodom and Gomorrah, I see, "is beyond the scope of this investigation" although twice it is stated "we consider".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

And the authors do love the creationist Steven Collins. Also see this Doug Weller talk 19:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Vchimpanzee. Sorry for the late response, I haven't been actively editing for a while. The paper was published in Scientific Reports, which despite sharing a publisher is notoriously less respected and reliable than Nature. Its fringiness has been discussed at some length at WP:FTN (e.g. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Sodom_and_Gomorrah) and Talk:Tell el-Hammam – Joe (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Drafts

I've been out of the loop for a while. Could you give me a link to the discussion Draftifying "unreferenced" articles in particular has been discussed at length recently and has decidedly NOT found consensus. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I think I was thinking of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_174#Mandatory_draftification_of_poorly_sourced_articles. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that. The consensus was clear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Younger Dryas

Have you seen my post to FTN and my link to the article talk page? Doug Weller talk 11:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Well, I have now, but yeesh... trying to reason with Alux is exhausting and I'm rapidly running out of good faith. Time to ask for some third opinions there maybe? – Joe (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Could be, I did go to FTN with no response. That last question at the bottom feels like bludgeoning. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP

Hello, I saw your comments at ANI that you might want to grant me NPP. I feel like I can help in this area. Thank you for your consideration Lightburst (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lightburst. Sorry for missing this, it was just after I went on a wikibreak. If you're still interested, can you make a request at WP:PERM/NPP? I'm happy to grant it, just so there's a proper paper trail. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I requested there as well. I am eager to help with the backlog and happy to be followed or monitored. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh I missed that. In that case I'm reluctant to overrule Rosguill, who has more experience granting NPP than me. Sorry. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I was hopeful that serving my TBAN would have been enough recompense. I was just granted AP today which would indicate that I have a good understanding of what constitutes notability. Also the main concern raised in the request involved matching the AfD result. But matching the AfD result is rather easy if one wanted to game the system. One only needs to show up after many have ivoted and cosign the majority. I hope you had a restful break and I thank you for being considerate after your denial in November 2021. I am eager to help and contribute and I am hopeful that perhaps User:Rosguill might reconsider. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Lightburst, sorry for the late reply, off-wiki life has been hectic. My reasoning at this time is that the temp ban served as a momentary time out, after which a new track record needs to be established. One month is on the short end of track record evaluation, so given the lack of a day-and-night difference between editing before and after the ban I'm not comfortable conferring NPP permissions at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Rosguill Thanks for the reply. I have moved on. I have twice applied and I have been twice denied. I will not request the perm again. It is just an area of need and I thought I could help. I appreciate that Joe Roe was considerate in his review of the November denial, but I will find other areas where I can help. Good luck with the growing backlog and thanks again. Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ITN recognition for Man of the Hole

On 31 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Man of the Hole, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 19:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2022

Delivered September 2022 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, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

Hi Joe! Thank you for your suggestion at ITNR on wording for the blurb. I have changed it.

I wanted to update the Genocide of indigenous peoples in Brazil article to mention him, but I would also like your feedback on how to improve the paragraph I wrote for sensitivity purposes. Do you have suggestions?


Unchanged Text below

In 2022, Man of the Hole, who was totally isolated for 26 years and was his uncontacted tribe's last survivor of genocide died. He lived in Tanaru Indigenous Territory in Rondonia state. The Observatory for the Human Rights of Uncontacted and recently-contacted Peoples called for the territory to be permanently protected as a memorial to Indigenous Genocide[1]

Thank you! -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi TenorTwelve. I should say that I'm not Indigenous myself and by no means an expert on these issues. But as I said at ITN, I'd suggest 'people' over 'tribe' and clarifying that 'Man of the Hole' is an outsiders' nickname not his name. If you ask me it's a pretty stupid nickname (he didn't live in a hole), so if you can just avoid it with e.g. the last survivor of... I'd go with that. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh and on the capitalisation of Indigenous: I try to do that in my own writing, but here on Wikipedia I've encountered pushback from the (surprisingly fanatical) Anti Capital Letters Crowd. So be warned... – Joe (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@TenorTwelve: As expected! – Joe (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I know. Multiple times I have tried to capitalize Black and it usually gets reverted. I expected that, but I might as well try. The policy should be changed. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
It's one of those arguments I've decided life is just too short for, I'm afraid.
By the way, the renewed attention on the Man of the Hole reminded me that some years ago I created List of indigenous territories (Brazil), with the idea of using it as a guide to creating new articles on TIs, almost all of which are red links. Maybe something of interest for you? – Joe (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/13331

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I restarted a discussion at User talk:Levivich#links to Administrative action review, about whether you or Levivich were planning to launch a request for comment. Your comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2018

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

For over 360 article reviews during 2018. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

DRV closure error?

You closed a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 1#Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) as an endorse but you (I think accidentally?) wrote "deletion endorsed" when the actual result being endorsed was a keep. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. – Joe (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Man of the Hole

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Man of the Hole you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Man of the Hole

The article Man of the Hole you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Man of the Hole for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2022

Delivered October 2022 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.

11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You've got email

Joe - you received an email from me on Sept 29. I'm hoping you can do a reply all to answer at your earliest convenience. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Man of the Hole

The article Man of the Hole you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Man of the Hole for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for such a wonderful contribution. Kioumarsi (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Kioumarsi: Thank you, happy editing. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion, draft

Hi Joe,

Someone on the section suggested me to message you for unblocking a page and move it to Draft, actually i want to fix the page and add some information there along with new references. I shall be thankful if you could restore the page.

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion - Wikipedia Slackyboy (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Slackyboy. The Wikipedia community decided that Phougat was not notable enough for a separate article in 2021 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjali Phougat) and then again just a few months ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjali Phougat (2nd nomination)). Unless there has been a significant change, I don't see the point in restoring it. Has somebody asked you to edit this page? – Joe (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello Joe, no, no one told me to edit the page or ask me to work on it. It's not a paid to edit work I am a journalist myself so was covering NYFW 2022 last month and saw some designer there including Anjali and now I see she has no Wikipedia page. I understand that the page was deleted but in two months I am seeing enough references of the entity such as Cannes coverage, Times of India, Forbes, and many others. So is it possible to re-create the draft and remove the previous references and add new. I would like to clarify I am not hired by them or not asked to edit page and I am not being paid, if i was then I would have disclosed it as a paid editing.  Slackyboy (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a no, sorry. If you want to have another go at the article, you'll have to start it from scratch. I'm also pretty sure it will be deleted again, just to warn you. – Joe (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Your comments at RfA

In response to what you have written at RfA:

  • You have now chosen to misrepresent my username/misname me three times. My Wikipedia name is Gusfriend and not Gus. The only time I have ever used that was to provide an example of how I could change my signature if I wanted to use it. Could you please fix that at the RfA?
  • I still believe that someone's signature is not sufficient for me to oppose administratorship for someone but it is sufficient for me to be neutral rather than support a candidate. Which is exactly what I wrote.
  • There have been recent editors who have opposed at AfC based on number of GAs and other reasons. I realise that you disagree with my reasons but that does not make them invalid.
  • You have said twice that I am doing it to make a point which is not true. Gusfriend (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
As I have said, you're perfectly entitled to think that the signature policy is wrong, but repeatedly bringing it up as a way to fault other editors in unrelated discussions (the ANI thread about me, now the RfA) is disruptive.
I think you'll find it's quite normal to abbreviate usernames in comments, as you recently did here, for example. If you do not wish to be referred to as "Gus" I suggest you change your username or signature to something that is not readily shortened to "Gus". – Joe (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion

See WP:ANI#Joe Roe. Fram (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can I offer a friendly piece of advice? I've been on the receiving end of Fram when we've disagreed over something, including being dragged off to ANI and my conclusions are this. Firstly, I've found Fram tends to be at his most abrasive and incivil when he's right about something; that doesn't make it appropriate to be incivil of course, but it does make it harder to take action because people turn up to ANI and think "well, actually, Fram's right", particularly when the other party responds in kind. Which leads on to .... secondly, in a high-profile discussion like this, there will be other people who can make the case of who's right and who's wrong independently for you, and so the best thing to do here is ignore the discussion and do something else. I think by replying to everyone and keeping the discussion going, you've harmed your case; obviously Fram has done this too, but not to the same extent, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
That's sound advice from Ritchie333, Joe. You and I have had our ups and downs but I'd hate you to end up losing your bits for being right. ANI is the very breeding ground for the peanut gallery to dig up enough dirt to look like a pattern in the sand and send an admin to the coven of governance obsessives where the usual outcome is being stripped of your T-shirt and thrown in an oubliette from whence there is neither return nor right of appeal. Any reputation you had for doing anything good for Wikipedia will be torn to shreds and thrown to the wind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both, really. I've of course had my share of run-ins with Fram too, and while I once agreed with the old "worst when he's right" chestnut too, I changed my mind a long time ago. They're not right, either in general or in this specific case, they're just single-minded and very good at spinning a narrative. The irony here is that I spent a huge chunk of my time and energy on that coven of governance obsessives trying to get Fram out of a site ban... I should have saved it to speak up for those who actually deserved it.
But I take your point about ANI. This is only my second time round there, I think, and my instinct to be as responsive as possible was clearly very naive. I will disengage now and sorry for reacting poorly to your first intervention, Ritchie333.
@Kudpung: I think at some point we might want to follow up on the "WP:DRAFT is only an essay" sentiment expressed there w.r.t. NPP, though. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Years ago I was partly instrumental in getting the Draft namespace created and the 'Incubator' deprecated. I'm heavily involved at the moment with another NPP issue and when that's over I'll take a break and go back to my semi-retirement until it's time to write my user guide for the next coven election. I'll mention it though to MB and Novem Linguae, the NPP coords, who can look into the entire palaver because there is so much controversy over the use of drafts that nobody really seems to know what they are supposed to be doing (I do though, and it's in keeping with the reasons why 'Move to draft' exists). What we don't want is for the Draft space to become simply another name for the old Incubator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Joe. I hope you're doing okay despite the ANI. I think it would be good for you to briefly engage, so that the discussion can be wrapped up. A majority of participants does seem to have a different view of involved as you do. Femke (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi, Joe. I'm very sorry for this, I feel responsible. The WP:ANI discussion is too complex for me to understand but I don't think you've done anything wrong. I've returned to see my Autopatrolled status has been removed, even though I'd not got round to using it. And to have my almost three years of work, that I have spent hundreds of hours on, to be completely disregarded has made me feel really low. I'm now thinking of leaving Wikipedia for good. Thanks. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Moondragon21: No no, I'm sorry that you got dragged to ANI over this. I at least signed up for this when I became an admin... the whole point of autopatrolled is that you shouldn't even notice you have it. And I know what you mean, these kind of discussions really hollow out my enthusiasm for this project too. I don't know if it will help, but I always try to remember that the people who hang around places like ANI are a tiny, unrepresentative subset of the wider editing community, and not at all representative of the millions of readers who have learned something because your work here. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the functionary team

At his request, the Oversight permissions of DGG are removed. Also at his request, the Checkuser permissions of Joe Roe are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks both DGG and Joe Roe for their service as an oversighter and a checkuser, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionary team

Diff hiding

Hello, Special:Diff/1116775292 can you hide this version because of annoying posts? I would be glad if you also hide the username thanks --5.46.31.201 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, done. I'll assume this was a 'temporarily compromised account' situation. – Joe (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

New Pages Patroller

Hello! Can you please grant me new page patroller rights? I've done quite a bit of it in the past; however, I stopped doing it for a few years. When I wanted to start doing it again, apparently it had become a privileged action. So, I went to another admin to request the privilege, but he said that I needed to go to WP:PERM. I went there and placed the request. There's been no response. I found an admin that seemed to be active there and asked him/her for the permission, but they haven't responded. I was wondering if you could grant me the permission. I appreciate your help! Thanks! It's me... Sallicio! 12:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like WP:PERM/NPP is backlogged. I'll take a look. – Joe (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! It's me... Sallicio! 12:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yazzi, Arizona

Would you consider reopening this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wymola, Arizona? Your closing statements says If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion and in both cases, multiple other editors in good standing have suggested that it should be deleted in the AFD. The keep !votes in those are all based on GNIS, a source about which WP:RSP says It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.

I don't think closing these AFDs where there was a significant push to delete simply because the nomination would out-of-process is productive; it's merely adding another layer of red tape to something that needs to happen anyway. I have half a mind to just redirect Whitlock Cienega, Arizona myself, based on the forming consensus at that AFD. Hog Farm Talk 13:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I've responded in greater length at ANI. I don't want to undo them all because I don't agree that enforcement of the harassment policy is "red tape" and think this is a case where process is important. But I'm happy to undo those two. And for the ones that were heading towards redirect, I agree that there's no reason for them to return to AfD. – Joe (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Your ANI comments on Pratyeka

I just wanted to thank you for adding some balance to the conversation about Pratyeka's departure at ANI. While I agree that their edit summaries were overly ferocious and inappropriate, I do think Wikipedia is teetering in an existentially delicate state at the moment. Actually adding new material and editing in main-space (the key thing on which Wikipedia depends) is a really stressful business. It is so, so frustrating, and I worry that the typical life-cycle of a Wikipedian is now to arrive, enthusiastically edit, get reverted by wannabe-Cluebot-people fighting to get their finger on the trigger, watch their article linger in AfC for months; and if they put an article in main space themselves, watch stupid things inflicted on it by a page-patroller who doesn't know the subject. After six months of this, there are two outcomes: they either drift off in disappointment, or they mutate into a wannabe-admin, spending their time at AfD, the notice-boards, and doing non-admin closures of things in hopes that one day someone will recognise their dedicated behind-the-scenes activities. Anyone who has the audacity to suggest that finding a reference to support a currently-unsupported (but quite possibly true) statement is better than deleting the statement will be shot down in flames. With attitudes like this, why would anyone bother writing in main-space or trying to improve the encyclopaedia? It's even worse if you try to edit as an IP (I've done that), where you might just as well tag all your edits "vandalism" in the edit-summary.

It was originally a principle of Wikipedia that articles need not be perfect, because this is a work in progress: they will always be improved. Now, unfortunately, we seem to have moved to a principle that if anything about an article is not perfect it must be deleted on sight, and anyone who suggests otherwise is evil; this is not conducive to good writing or good scholarship.

If we can't find a way to welcome those who actually contribute factual information, or improve the sourcing of the factual information we have, then we're going to degenerate into a collection of battered old articles that are kicked around as the objects of argument, incomprehensible maths articles that exist to glorify their unofficial-owners rather than inform anyone, and plot-summaries of Telugu films. I do understand Pratyeka's frustration, even if I don't sympathise with how it was expressed. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also been involved with new page patrol for about six years now, so I can appreciate there are pressures on both sides (in short: NPP has to sift these kind of editors from a lot of bad faith garbage and is chronically under-peopled), but I do have a nagging feeling that we're morphing into a project that values 'defending' the status quo over expanding the encyclopaedia. I suspect draftspace has a lot to do with that. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I often disagree with your takes, but I think what you said there was both true and necessary. I find it confusing and upsetting to see this happen so often, almost by clockwork: somebody who's been writing articles for years or decades will complain that their contributions are being aggressively removed, and the response is basically to get bent, with "legacy user" often used as a pejorative(!) and the consequence is one less volunteer on a project that is not exactly swarming with new blood. Thanks for saying what needed to be said. jp×g 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

reverted

greetings,

I noticed you reverted a minor edit I did in the Gobekli Tepe article recently. Please clarify why this is the case, as I was under the impression if a specific word has an article on wiki, one is to use the double brackets with said word when it's first encountered. Thank you Gizziiusa (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)gizziiusa

Hi Gizziiusa. That is usually true, but in order to avoid a distracting, excessive number of links, our style guide says not to link to subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. Notably, this includes major countries like Turkey. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Duly noted. Thanks for the pro-tip. Gizziiusa (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)gizziiusa

PogingJuan

Hello, Joe,

I was just going through today's AFD log which contained all of those AFDs lodged by PogingJuan which you procedurally closed. Then I read the ANI discussion that you referred to. So, I was curious, a week later, what PogingJuan's response to all of this has been. In the past week since he filed the AFDs, he has not made one comment but he has returned to vote "Delete" on dozens of AFDs involving Arizona small towns (see Special:Contributions/PogingJuan), which is far away from his previous editing interest in Filipino people and the culture of the Philippines. I think he hasn't gotten the message and while there is nothing wrong with participating in an AFD discussion on any subject, I'm concerned when I see an editor hold on to a grudge like this despite the issue being brought to ANI and the majority of his AFDs being closed unceremoniously. I think without some acknowledgement from him, this might turn into ongoing harassment. Since you were involved in the ANI response, I thought I'd bring this update to you to see if it warranted a warning or some action taken. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Thanks for reminding me. !voting "delete per nom" on eight AfDs in four minutes, all of articles created by Onel and only one of them a 2nd nomination, looks like a clear resumption of hounding behaviour to me. I've blocked him. – Joe (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Changes to procedures for moving articles to draft space

Regarding this comment: I imagine you meant to say that we shouldn't rush into making changes? isaacl (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Just checking that you're paying attention... – Joe (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

This keeps getting edited by people who don't understand the words of the title. Or use poor sources. All the edits since my last one need examining I think. I just don't have the energy and have been hit by an emergency appointment with urology to see a surgeon Tuesday after some blood tests and the letter strongly implies I'll need surgery. The claim at Amesbury seems feebly sourced and is copied at Oldest town in Britain. Ok if you don't have time. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: These lists are more trouble than they're worth, I think... I've added it to my watchlist. Och, surgery again? :/ Fingers crossed for a swift recovery. – Joe (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Although, being less pessimistic, linguistic homeland was similarly bloated and undersourced for a long time, but Austronesier, Kanguole and I managed to get it into a pretty decent shape by simply removing anything unsourced and building it back up from what remained. You sacrifice comprehensiveness, but I think it's worth it. It's one of the top 100 most read archaeology articles. – Joe (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you!

Thank you for this! I will endeavor to use it wisely. – ClockworkSoul 17:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Genetic diagrams

Hi Joe! Thank you for this edit. Since these charts always look suspicious to me, I did some sleuthing. The chart was uploaded to Commons by @YgorC9. The same user has uploaded a number of similar charts there, including this file, which was then inserted after only 20 minutes to WP here. I suspect that some kind of sockery is going on here. Initially I thought it could be User:WorldCreaterFighter, but the POV doesn't match (at least with the edit trail of the Austrian IP). Austronesier (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Yeah, I also have a very strong suspicion that Kush3897 is not a new editor. Maybe Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CadAPL/Archive or LambdofGod? But there are so many sockpuppeteers floating around ancient DNA now. Doug, do you have the capacity to take a quick look? – Joe (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
On a different but related note: I have experimented with a new format for integrating aDNA research into historical and archaeoloigical articles. Less obsessed with technicalities like haplogroup-combing and without the endless "Study A says this, however Study B says that". Putting everything into Wikivoice, I have tried as much as possible to make use of secondary sources plus some primary sources with a high citation-level to present what appears to be a relatively stable state-of-the-art in the field (ok, in one case also a minor primary source just to add a small detail that is not add odds with the key aspects of the major sources). Here's Afanasievo culture, another one is Hoabinhian#Genetic_links_to_ancient_and_modern_East_and_Southeast_Asian_populations (this is what it looked like before: Special:Permalink/1079454642#Ethnolinguistic affilation). What's your impression about it? I know how you feel about the endless disruptive POV-pushing and unencyclopedic editing surrounding this topic, but I believe we shouldn't leave it to LTAs and trolls. –Austronesier (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that's the way to do it, yes. I like the level of detail in Hoabinhian especially. I'm quite convinced that the average reader has no idea what the significance of haplogroup XyZ is and doesn't care to find out. To me, it's akin to including individual radiocarbon dates or artefact types in archaeology articles. There's no reason to include it unless it's specifically germane to some interpretation or dispute in the secondary sources. We should tackle this problem, I know. – Joe (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Austronesier: Thinking about this again... I've been working on User:Joe Roe/Archaeology conventions for a while, do you think we could add something about how to write a good archaeogenetics section? – Joe (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
That's a great idea. I will try to put up a draft in your draft. As a next step, we can ask for wider input. I can spot a certain lack of thoughtfulness in the way information is added to articles about archeological cultures. Sometimes this lack of thoughtfulness is inherited from the sources they cite, but often also on the editors' part. I assume generally good faith since the existing standard is low, and many editors take the existing "standard" they see in these articles for granted and just continue to add to the unfiltered amassment of arbitrary information. –Austronesier (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I should also get around to filling out the other sections and asking for wider input on them. – Joe (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
CU is stale. I'll ping those who worked on the CadAPL spi @NinjaRobotPirate, Sir Sputnik, and Ponyo: . There doesn't seem to have been a LambdofGod SPI. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
From a cursory glance at behaviour I don't think it's CadAPL, they have some tells that I don't see here. I've just started to run a check and there are a bunch of socks, so hold tight and I'll post my findings, either here or a relevant SPI.-- Ponyobons mots 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ponyo thanks. I’m still not up to elaborate CUs. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2022

Delivered November 2022 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.

17:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sonna Rele

Hi there. Could you do me a favor? This is create-protected, and there's a draft, Draft:Sonna Rele which I think is sourced enough to move out of AfC. Could you take a look and if you agree with that assessment, remove the protection and ping me so I can move it? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 21:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Sure. It looks fine. You should be able to move it now. – Joe (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Anjali Phougat

Hi, I'm an AfC reviewer, and just recieved a request to look at Draft:Anjali Phougat. My first impression is that the subject is notable, with 15 references to mentions in national newspapers. But the article has been deleted three times - once by you - and I notice that among those who opposed deletion was someone suspected of sockpuppetry. I would like to see the deleted article to see if the new draft has been improved, or if it's just the same text that was already delted. Is there some way I can do that, or can you give me any other advice? (Oddly, I received this request on my talk page, which is not the normal way AfC reviewers come to look at drafts, which is another reason to be careful.) Doric Loon (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doric Loon. I don't have any special insight into the former article (I just closed the last AfD) or the sockfarm that created it, but that draft stinks of undisclosed paid editing to me. If it were me I'd drop {{uw-paid}} on the creator's talk page and see how they respond before doing anything. Otherwise, check very carefully whether those 15 references are really in-depth and independent coverage before accepting it. But personally I prefer not to spend time on potential paid creations – life's too short! – Joe (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Joe, thanks for the advice. Doric Loon (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2022 (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 19:33, 17 November 2022 (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 12:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Fundraising banners RfC: independence?

Hey Joe. Thanks for closing that RfC. One thing I wanted to ask though: I noticed a lot of people were complaining that the banners implied that Wikipedia's independence was under threat, not just its existence, but that this wasn't discussed in your closure. Would it make sense to amend the first dot point to something like "Wikipedia's existence or independence is under threat or dependent on donations", or was your assessment of the consensus that the community was okay with the "defend Wikipedia's independence" references in the banners, or something else? Cheers. Endwise (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Endwise. Good point. I'd consider this covered by "under threat", and have clarified my closing statement accordingly. – Joe (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Endwise (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022

WiR Women who died in 2022
WiR Women who died in 2022
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
    like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2022

Delivered December 2022 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.

16:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Khazar hypothesis debate re-energized

Since you have previously edited the page The Thirteenth Tribe and know about the debate over ties to Ashkenazi Jewry, and are a current editor, please weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources for the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. You may also wish to ask other editors to give their own feedback on how to proceed in covering the new and upcoming genetic studies. In the past, Jayjg, Briangotts, and Humus_sapiens have also edited Wikipedia on this topic, but none of them have been active lately and as a result all three of those I named have lost or will soon lose their admin and editing privileges. 2600:1000:B12B:24B:C66D:AB21:B40B:4CDE (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for 1994–95 Cruz Azul season

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1994–95 Cruz Azul season. 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. Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Cruz Azul season

I just saw that this had been relisted (finally). But already closed. I'm not sure how this is a delete - can you relist? Should be easy enough to find references for a team near the top of the best league in the continent! Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  • You also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Tigres UANL season - where the recent discussion may support delete - but we've been waiting since October to have this relisted - and I don't think there's been enough time to assess it - I only just noticed it was back at AFD. I'm not sure why it took an extra month to close the DRV. Nfitz (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Nfitz: It's unfortunate that you didn't notice it until now, but the discussion ran for a full week after the second relist and was due to be closed under AfD's usual procedures (overdue in fact – these were the last AfDs left on the log for 28 November). Relisting it again would be out of the ordinary and, given that we're now into the second month of discussion of this article, I can't see it being productive.
    After the second relist there was one additional delete !vote, one keep that I discarded because it is clearly block evasion, and one genuine keep. That put the tally 2-1 in favour of deletion which, considering that the other related discussions tended even more strongly towards deletion, was enough to call a rough consensus for me. I would be happy to restore the deleted versions to your or userspace or somebody else's, if you want to try again with it. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    It spent most of the time between the last two relists at DRV. It's the middle of the World Cup - who in the project is paying much attention. Also, I don't see much consensus for deletion for the Cruz Azul article - and it's in contrast to the other DRVs for this league and season, where there was a full discussion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Universidad Nacional season. Please relist. Ultimately, I don't think after the lengthy ANI case and a near 2-month DRV, that a single week at AFD is sufficient, when there was no notification that the DRV had finally been closed, such a long period had passed, and the result at similar cases where a proper discussion had taken place. Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah .. hang on. I'm realising why I missed this. The October 19 DRV ended on November 28, when the AFD was reopened, and article undeleted. However, it wasn't relisted at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football until 4 days later on December 2 (diff)! Can you please reopen these? Thanks - Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    No, sorry. The process was followed here: the AfD ran for the standard seven days and was listed in the daily log. Deletion sorting is an optional additional log but, as you say, it was also listed there. It's unfortunate that hardly anyone from the lengthy ANI and DRV discussions chose to participate in the relisted AfDs, but they had ample opportunity to do so and I have no reason to believe that another week would change that. – Joe (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think 3 days is ample time - it may have been in the daily log ... (I don't think I've ever looked at it during almost two decades - I only attend AFD in certain projects); I'd think the lack of participation after the lengthy ANI and DRV would be evidence of a lack of sufficient notification. I also disagree that process was followed here - 6 weeks at DRV - about 4 weeks after comments dried up, is not the process. However, only the Cruz Azul closure is egregious; I've taken that one to DRV. Can you please put the others in my user space? I don't know why you don't think another week would change it - did you look at the two of the seven that were originally kept, and an extra week lead to clear consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Universidad Nacional season)? Nfitz (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with Nfitz about this, I was going to look at working on those articles, but you went and killed them. Mexico covers its football quite well, so I can't see why there wouldn't be sources around for those season articles you killed. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  • You commented at DRV that 'you had three weeks in which to put forward and didn't do so.'. I'm sorry - what is this referring to? I had 3 days after it was listed in deletion sorting; I thought I'd check before I replied.
(I was also going to comment that the three others weren't near identical, as only this one was split between keeps and non-keeps post-listing - and only this one made the play-off finals that season before going on to win the intercontinental championship. Also, you keep mentioning those 3 AFDs but don't appear to have considered the other two simultaneous AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Universidad Nacional season) that were relisted rather than being deleted, and weren't closed until after the DRV started - where there was a keep consensus. Don't well-attended Keep discussion for other articles in this set of deletions, outweigh poorly-attended AFDs? Also, in terms of weighting arguments to be based on policy, it was pointed out in the article that WP:NSEASONS passes (and therefore WP:NSPORT) passes - and not one delete vote countered that very strong argument.) Nfitz (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The AfD was open for a total of three weeks. I'm not sure what you guys expect here: we always close or relist AfDs after a week, we almost never relist them more than twice, and this set were the last outstanding ones on yesterdays log. And no, I didn't consider other discussions closed weeks earlier, because I didn't know about them – why would I? I get that for you these were important discussions, but from an outsider's perspective they were just a few out of nearly a hundred due to be closed that day. – Joe (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I understand your point. Yeah, I could have been paying more attention - on the other hand, the day I ran through the Football deletions, there were 58 AFDs open. This is just unmanageable to review them all, I did glance at them, and they seemed to be under control, and were clear no-brainers, given the massive pass of WP:SEASONS. By the time I looked again on October 22, some had closed, and I commented on the others (which were all kept). I just realised now that there were more impacted articles than I'd ever realised. I can see how this happened - but the goal of AFD and DRV is to get the decisions correct - which means reopening again when necessary; not to apply rules, regardless of the impact.
BTW - did you see the ANI thread about these AFDs - see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Concerns about articles nominated for deletion; the lack of a proper closure to that discussion is part of what's lead us to such delays and issues dealing with all this; I thought notability had been established in that thread, so the lack of comments back at AFD a month later is unfortunate. BTW, I note that the one article from this set that you didn't close has been reopened again today by the closer - WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Santos Laguna season. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I note that the one article from this set that you didn't close has been reopened again today by the closer - WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Santos Laguna season – at your request, yes... and I note that so far the consensus to delete has only strengthened since the relist.
I'm not applying the rules blindly here. If this was the first relist or an uncontentious AfD, I'd reopen it without a second thought. But put yourself in my shoes here: you have four two month-old AfDs that have already been through DRV and relisted the normal maximum number of times, all with low participation since the last relist but a rough consensus to delete. Am I supposed to divine that there is a host of people waiting until day 22 to share their well-reasoned arguments on the notability of the 1994–95 season of FC Whatever? That one or two of the discussions are special for arcane football reasons? Should I reopen it just because one person says they wanted to !vote but didn't? Where does that all end?
I can understand that mass nominations are difficult to deal with, because they're a pain for the AfD process too. We need to close things in a timely manner or the whole thing starts to fall apart. These were languishing overdue because nobody likes closing messy discussions, listening to hyperbolic complaints about "killing" articles and being dragged to DRV. Now that's happened, if it's relisted again, probably nobody from the DRV is going to bother to show up in the actual AfD again, and in a week it's going to be clogging up the old AfD log again – with one less person able to close it this time. I'm more worried about the impact that has on the AfD process as a whole than whether Cruz Azul fans needs to elsewhere for their statistics.
I forgot about restoring the userspace drafts – I'll do that now. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canoe Place station

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canoe Place station but apparently only removed the template from the first nominated article, so the others (e.g. Fire Place station) are still tagged as being nominated for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Thanks. I usually just rely on XfDcloser to detect the extra nominations. Not sure why it didn't this time. I've cleaned it up. – Joe (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

White Sands fossil footprints new research

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363885949_Deep-water_delivery_model_of_Ruppia_seeds_to_a_nearshoreterrestrial_setting_and_its_chronological_implications_for_Late_Pleistocene_footprints_Tularosa_Basin_New_Mexico Deep‐water delivery model of Ruppia seeds to a nearshore/terrestrial setting and its chronological implications for Late Pleistocene footprints, Tularosa Basin, New Mexico]

CUP: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/abs/critical-assessment-of-claims-that-human-footprints-in-the-lake-otero-basin-new-mexico-date-to-the-last-glacial-maximum/7EC770BAF784D0FF813711CD63C126F6 A critical assessment of claims that human footprints in the Lake Otero basin, New Mexico date to the Last Glacial Maximum]

[https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/11/new-research-questions-dating-of-ice-age-footprints-in-north-america/145212 NEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS DATING OF ICE AGE FOOTPRINTS IN NORTH AMERICA]

Shouldn't the article be linked to some others? Mentioned in others? Doug Weller talk 13:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Message of the Sphinx

Unsourced. PROD? AFD? Doug Weller talk 15:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's at AfD now.
On an unrelated note, while I was looking for sources about the book, I stumbled across this charming reminder of who Hancock appeals to. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Yuk. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Please revise Draft:Alexei_Kharitonenkov

Dear Joe

May I request your kind help to review (and possibly move to mainspace) this Draft:Alexei Kharitonenkov, thank you. Neuralia (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I don't help paid editors for the reasons explained at Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Dear Joe: Where do you get that I am a paid editor? I have made this draft article in the honest belief that the candidate may indeed have merits to deserve a biography in Wikipedia. Please, reconsider your position. Thank you. Neuralia (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
You have a link to a LinkedIn profile on your user page where people have "recommended" you for writing biographies of them. I'm no longer involved in enforcing the Terms of Use's prohibition on undisclosed paid editing, otherwise I would have blocked you already. Nevertheless, I've no interest in helping. – Joe (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Joe Roe: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas, Joe! TheSandDoctor Talk 18:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Patrol rights

Hello @Joe Roe, I hope you're doing well. I would like to assist with the backlog, so I'm requesting new page reviewer rights. You previously declined my request. I accept I did mistakes but I learn from them so, I won't repeat the same ever again. So, would you be willing to grant me a trial run? Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi C1K98V. I'm not particularly active on Wikipedia at the moment. You'll probably get a faster answer if you ask directly at WP:PERM/NPP. – Joe (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Roe/Archives/2022&oldid=1199759072"