Jump to content

User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2021

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

Happy New Year, Joe Roe!

Happy New Year!

Joe Roe,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
MRRaja001 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2021

Delivered January 2021 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.

20:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

G14

Sorry, but WP:G14 doesn't apply here. I thought that much had already been explained in the discussion. And at any rate, there's no way that an alleged technical CSD could overrule good-faith keep arguments. CSD is not for conroversial deletions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: The two links you added were for a different acronym and were removed, leaving just one blue-linked entry, so in fact it was eligible for G14. In any case, the consensus was clearly to delete. It's just a disambiguation page and can easily be recreated if you or someone else turns any of the other entries blue. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same page? If I remember correctly, it had two "main" entries: the primary topic, and the crystallography organisation (so far, with two articles disambiguated, G14 should be out of the window), a third entry without a blue link (it needs to either be removed, or expanded with a blue link), and a fourth, "see also", entry. The entries that got removed were not ones I had added: they were on the page before, and had good reason to be there as the term they disambiguate - IOGC - is a redirect to the same primary topic. Yes, they needed to be removed, but their content (if useful) ought to have been moved to a hatnote at IOCG.
Would you mind re-opening the discussion? Also, and on an unrelated note, when deleting dab pages it's a good idea to make sure the navigation they formerly provided is still available from a hatnote, and no dangling redlinks remeain, as in the hatnote here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
There was one blue-linked entry. The second only had a link to the jawiki article on the International Organization for Crystal Growth and to crystal growth, which mentions neither the organisation nor the acronym and so doesn't meet MOS:DABRED. I don't see any reason to reopen it, since even if it didn't meet G14, there was a consensus delete; you were the only person opposed.
I generally close dozens of AfDs at a time (WP:AFDO is backlogged nearly a week), so I leave link cleanup that isn't handled by the script to other editors watching the page(s). – Joe (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The second entry had a perfectly acceptable blue link to the jawiki article. If two editors have said that G14 applies to a dab page with between 2 and 4 entries (depending on how you count), then frankly, I don't think I'd trust their judgement very much. I won't be going forward with a DRV only because this is a small and rarely visited dab page that's probably not worth everyone's effort. As for link clean-up – leaving it to others may well work when deleting articles, but for dab pages with incoming links from hatnotes, it's your job as a closer to deal with it. It's not other people's job to clean up after the mess you create. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Freedlan

I just wasted precious time looking at this person's edits and giving them warnings. Could you add them to your watchlist as one more BLP or Covid violation and they need an indefinite block. They have been misrepresenting sources for a start. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

See also my edit summary here.[1] Doug Weller talk 09:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: They seem to have stopped for the time being... but yes I agree they're quickly heading for a block. Will keep my eye out. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, they edit a bit sporadically. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

B.B. Lal

In case you didn't receive ping from other editor on talk page, I would like to note here that this version was the last stable version and rather accurate one since it removed unsourced and unsupported assertion. Generally I avoid bothering after the protection but the article is about a living person who is currently in news. Thanks. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Credit tenant lease

Dear Joe:

Re "credit tenant lease." I'm just a lawyer who happens to know quite a lot about credit tenant leases. I am not a Wikipedia expert -- I know nothing about the plumbing and internal policies and blizzard of acronyms that Wikipedians use with each other. I spent an hour or so this morning fixing up the copy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Credit_tenant_lease

From the discussion I could see, the folks who acted between June and September 2019 knew nothing about the topic. The concept "credit tenant lease" has nothing whatsoever to do with mortgages (contrary to Bearean's remark on the delete discussion), and nothing whatsoever to do with apartment leasing (the edit that apparently triggered the deletion).

The confusion in the conversation on the "delete" page was a troubling example of everything I find so irritating about the Wikipedia process. (I'm pretty prominent in my field, the law that governs federal agency decision-making -- about three years ago I gave a talk at a conference, where the next guy on the podium after me was Chief Justice Roberts. So in the law, I guess I know what I'm talking about. But Wikipedia -- I am just sick of dealing with people who make up rules on the fly that have NO basis in written policy. My specialty, administrative law, is the practice of suing the government when the government behaves irrationally. I am constantly stunned at the way Wiki editors do exactly the stuff I sue agencies for.)

So the ask is "Please do something to put the page back where it belongs." Assume everyone who touched it in 2019 knew nothing about what he/she was doing. My only interest is in getting this to be right. I have no interest whatsoever in immersion learning of Wikipedia process. If you need to add a "citation needed" tag, go ahead -- that's self-explanatory enough that I know how to fix that. But I will not try to push this upstream through a process that I find to be utterly irrational, decisions made by people who know nothing of the subject matter, and designed to waste the time of knowledgeable contributors. And worst of all, based on nothing more than personal opinion and rules made up on the fly, when the written policy documents say exactly the opposite. I will not play a game that's as arbitrary and capricious as my experience with Wikipedia editing.

This is the last interaction I will undertake on the topic. If you put the page back (even with a "citation needed" tag), great. All users can benefit. I'm not asking you to do any affirmative act, I'm asking you to undo errors of others to restore a status quo ante and undo your action of obliterating history. The page was right before June 2019, and this morning I've made it better.

If you don't want to do that, well, we can let it rest in peace. And I'll have yet another confirmation of my experience that expertise is not welcome at Wikipedia.

Thanks for your help.

BostonBowTie (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@BostonBowTie: Thanks for adding references. I've moved it back to mainspace. – Joe (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. BostonBowTie (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2021

Delivered February 2021 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.

15:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond

Hi there. It appears that something went awry with your close here. Please can you correct. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for spotting that. Still getting used to the new XfDCloser interface. – Joe (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (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 09:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Palaeogenetics articles

Hi Joe Roe! Can you have a look at the rants of the self-declared WP:NOTHERE IP who regularly hurls insults against all of us in diverse talk pages, including Talk:Eastern Hunter-Gatherer as the last gem of their activities, and also the questionable encouragement by a regustered user? (I am aware that many of the pages are badly-written and overly rely on primary research papers, but since people like David W Anthony and Stephen Shennan write about these concepts, however simplistic they eventually may turn out to be—both the concepts and the way Anthony and Shennan adopt them—they are certainly notable; but that's another story). –Austronesier (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Austronesier. Honestly I can sympathise with a lot of what they're saying... I deliberately keep these pages off my watchlist, because I've reached the conclusion that if we can't stem the tide of primary-sourced, amateur aDNA syntheses, it's at least better to direct it towards them and away from articles on archaeological cultures, ethnic groups, and languages.
That said, the long talk page rants are obviously not productive, and they've admitted that they're evading a six-month block on their main account (I'm not sure which that is), so I'll block the IP and try to convince them to adopt a less high-handed approach when their block expires. – Joe (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
On closer inspection, they actually said their six-month block was a year ago, so technically that's not block evasion. I'll have a think about if there's any admin intervention warranted here. – Joe (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I've settled on an attempt to calm them down. I'm holding out a hope that they can start commenting more productively, or at least stop. Otherwise it looks like they're using a very changeable dynamic IP so I'm not sure how effective whack-a-mole blocks would be. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for handling this! Content-wise, I heartily agree with you about the tide of blog-inspired synthesis that regularly gets dumped into WP articles. The simplistic equation of material cultures, genetic population clusters and proto-languages is appealing for those who look for simple answers (unfortunately also scholars fall into this trap: Blust/Bellwood are a prime example of circular self-affirmation with their model of Austronesian expansion). But I think that articles about e.g. EHG, WHG etc. shouldn't only serve as "tonsils", but be maintained at the same quality-level (but then, by whom?). It's certainly better to have these pages based let's say on Shennan's book The First Farmers of Europe than on Eupedia, "Academia" Prisca or an amassment of primary sources. Whether these paleaogenetic concepts actually deserve standalone articles is another question. Some are ephermeral, others might prove to be more stable, but they only make sense if presented in full context. –Austronesier (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European homeland

Hi Joe. I suspect that the IP currenntly active at Proto-Indo-European homeland is the same as User:سیمون دانکرک. Give the disruptive nature of their never-ending "discussions," would it be worthwhile to consider a topic-ban? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Sorry it's taken me so long to look at this. I've been taking a semi-wikibreak from DR since I left ArbCom. But I'm pretty sure this is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of MojtabaShahmiri used to evade his topic ban, and have blocked both. – Joe (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
A heartfelt thanks!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your advice

Joe, hi. Please check Draft:LastObject. It is a proprely stated WP:COI contribution about a Danish sustainable products manufacturer. The article was reviewed at the WP:AfC and declined. I reworked the article removing what can be viewed as promotion. Now I am keen to know if more editing or shortening is needed. Please give your expert opinion. Peter. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo: Not to be rude but can I ask why you're asking me? I don't know anything about cotton buds. – Joe (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I approached you because: a) you are based in Denmark and can evaluate Danish sources, b) have a great experience of editing Wikipedia, c) know quite a few things about ecology. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2021

Delivered March 2021 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.

13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Over length evidence

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 1000 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've requested an extension on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Shemuel Yeivin

Hi Joe, and thanks for the excellent work on expanding the Shemuel Yeivin article. Could you please offer English translations for the three Hebrew titles? They're of little use right now and they can offer a window in the range of his activity. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope to work further on it soon, he's an interesting figure. Unfortunately I'm not much use translating the titles of his publications – I can't read Hebrew and I'm mostly relying on Google Translate for those sources. Maybe @Bolter21: you would be kind enough to help? – Joe (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure thing. I have access to most sources available online through Tel Aviv University. In an English article from the archaeological journal of Tel Aviv University commemorating him the following titles appear:
The History of the Hebrew Script (1939), The Antiquities of Israel, co-authored with Professor Michael Avi-Yonah (1955) and The War of Bar-Kochba (1957, third edition). I can write here the full text of the article (2 pages) though I am not sure it is legal due to copyrights to paste an entire article in a talk page. It is available through Taylor & Francis (David Ussishkin, "Professor Shemuel Yeivin 1896-1982", Tel Aviv Vol. 8). Otherwise, I can send the full text privately so hmu if you need anything like that or help with translation. I am quite busy at the moment so I don't have much time for actual editing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. More than enough. I should be able to access those sources. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Your evidence

Just a note: The article Coronavirus disease 2019 was recently renamed to COVID-19, and xtools apparently can't follow redirects so links like this (and a couple others) have broken (this works). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah that's annoying. Thanks for the heads up. – Joe (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Joe

Hello Joe! I am Joe also. :P Joe (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joe, nice to meet you. And no worries about the similar signature – I don't claim any exclusive right to this very common name :) – Joe (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
We're all 'Joe's or 'Donald's or 'Tabitha's or 'Kimberley's at the end of the day. Cheers man, and take care, from one Joe to another. Joe (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Iranian place names

The same user that mass-created all of the doubtful Iranian place names also created a couple thousand dubious stubs for places in the US state of California that primarily turned out to be railroad features, mines, ranches, or natural hot springs rather than communities, so I'm not surprised that there was doubtful mass-creation in other countries, as well. User_talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive_12#Please_don't_create_any_more_articles is pretty telling, although that archive loads very slowly due to the sheer number of deletion notices on the page. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I'm hoping that he will respond positively but yes, that's pretty worrying. Places in the US at least get a fair number of eyes on them; I don't think we have a lot of Persian speakers on enwiki who will be able to check these (I certainly can't). – Joe (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I once attempted to use xtools to determine which pages he had created to look for where there might be mass-creation, but he had too many edits for xtools to register which articles he had created. So without a list of created articles, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy way to determine the extent of the issues. Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count has Carlos at #3, with over 80,000 articles created. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are geography stubs. On that list, #1 created a large number of one-liners about caves in Gibraltar based on a single dubious map hosted by Scribd, and #9 created a couple thousands stubs for the state of Virginia, many of which are subdivisions or unnamed corners. There has been so much mass-creation of NN geography stubs that I doubt it can ever entirely be cleaned up. Hog Farm Talk 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Well the discussion is not going anywhere and the task of cleaning these up is indeed incredibly daunting. Maybe there's a way to extract a list of Carlos' creations straight from the database, bypassing xtools? – Joe (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I've left a discrete query at WP:VPT without naming any names or reasons, as I didn't feel its appropriate to hash out the details there. But if there's a tool that'll help, the folks there ought to know. Hog Farm Talk 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
See User:Hog Farm/C46. The mass-creation also extends to several other US states, some Mexican provinces, Armenia, and ancient Turkey. This looks like a real mess. I think some of these pages, such as User:Hog Farm/C46 8, easily contain over 6,000 Iranian place stubs. Hog Farm Talk 05:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Thanks. Wow, that's a lot. 4nn1l2 and Spiderone have recently sent some of the Iranian ones to AfD, which look like they're going to confirm that they're not notable. What should we do about the rest though? It would be a nightmare to send them all to AfD. I was thinking about checking a small random sample from each page for notability, then once we have a rough percentage, taking it to AN to figure out if we can deal with them in bulk. Also @FOARP: who's argued persuasively in favour of bulk deletion. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
And @Reywas92:. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Demerging

I object to what you did at the Village Pump discussion. You deliberately brought up a discussion at Goldberry that I hadn't mentioned and wasn't really relevant. My question was about policy. It was prompted by a number of merger discussions, but fundamentally it was a question about policy. What happened to AGF? You have just trashed what was a reasonable question.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I find it easier to talk about policy disputes with a concrete example to hand. I apologise if that wasn't the one you had in mind; I saw that you had made the same points you did at the village pump at Talk:Goldberry 30 minutes before and made an assumption. However I did also give an opinion on the general policy question, as did Kusma further down (in more depth). – Joe (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
But you pointed out that Goldberry didn't fit my scenario, which implies I'm dishonest or unhinged. If I wanted more discussion about that article, I would have brought it up. The Goldberry discussion just reminded me of longstanding questions I'd had about policy. I deliberately talked about a scenario that wasn't Goldberry. You then invited the two other editors to come in to talk about Goldberry and make false accusations against me. That's very frustrating. Please observe AGF in future.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Joe Roe. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! bop34 • talk • contribs 00:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bop34 and CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you both! 16 years, phew... I've now officially been editing Wikipedia for more than half of my life. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

NPP

I'm not sure of the intention of this ping but I naturally prefer to AGF and assume it was simply innocent ignorance of the facts that I am retired from any pro-active work on Wikipedia, especially NPP, and that I obviously have no wish to collaborate with you on anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No malice intended, just that you're the person who knows the most about NPP's history. Feel free to ignore, though for the record it isn't my project. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Heads-up

Just in case you didn't see this edit. PamD 09:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks... somehow, I don't think we were ever going to be friends. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your rejection of my minor edit to the Göbekli Tepe page

The first sentence of the article is now, again, "Göbekli Tepe (Turkish: [gœbecˈli teˈpe],[1] "Potbelly Hill"; known as Girê Mirazan or Xirabreşkê in Kurdish[2]) is a Neolithic archaeological site near the city of Şanlıurfa in Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey."

I had added translations of the Kurdish names. Your objection stated "Thanks but we need a better source than Google Translate. Also, the lead sentence is already quite crowded and this makes it worse."

Clearly you have much more experience than I do as an editor, but what sources are acceptable for translation if not Google Translate? The translations are the same at Translate.com. There are various other translation sites online. I don't know whether you reject Google's translation or all online translation sites, or would you require that I find a paper, English/Kurdish dictionary?

Your objection that the opening sentence "is already quite crowded" is, or course, pretty subjective. Seemingly, you think the first sentence would be better as simply ""Göbekli Tepe is a Neolithic archaeological site near the city of Şanlıurfa in Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey." I wouldn't disagree, so long as there is also some addition informing readers of the meanings of the names of the site.

For example, we could then have another, more inclusive, informative, and interesting addition saying: 

  "Göbekli Tepe is the Turkish name for the site, and means "Potbelly Hill".  The site also has Kurdish names, "Girê Mirazan" meaning ""Hill of Miracles" and "Xirabreşkê" meaning "Evil."

I would find this more interesting because these names seem so show that by the time the site acquired a Turkish name, all recognition that the site involved an ancient religious purpose had been lost. However, the Kurdish culture seemingly predated the Turkish culture in the area, and the Kurds recognized the meaning of the site. This would also remove the cultural bias suggested by providing only the translation of the Turkish name.

I assume I could also find phonetic pronunciations for the Kurdish names, as is shown for the Turkish name. Do you think that would improve the article?

I might propose such a change, but first I would want to know whether you are just going to undo my change because you reject online translation sources, or for some other reason.

/Don

A6zzz (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi A6zzz. You can find guidelines on identifying reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In this case, Google Translate doesn't really even meet the basic criteria of being a "source", since it isn't a text written by a human being, but a machine-learning powered tool. It's of course a very useful tool but, at least for any language I'm familiar with, can't be relied upon to provide fully accurate translations. Perhaps @Balyozxane: you could advise us on whether the Kurdish translation is accurate in this case?
I have no objection to adding the etymology of the Kurdish names. All we need is a source (preferably in English), simply stating "Girê Mirazan/Xirabreşkê means XYZ" – as we have for the Turkish name, for example. The same goes for the pronunciation. People often use dictionaries as sources for these.
The crowding of the lead is a subsidiary issue but still worth thinking about. The first sentence should tell the reader concisely what the article is about. Having a long list of alternative names, etymologies, and pronunciation guides gets in the way of that. We have to assume that most readers are primarily interested in what Göbekli Tepe is, not where its various modern names come from (see Wikipedia is not a dictionary). If there's more than one or two pieces of information like that, I prefer to move it to footnotes or a dedicated "Name" or "Etymology" section.
But the reason I reverted your edit was the lack of a reliable source – if you have one, go ahead and put in the etymology/pronunciation. We can finesse the placement later. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Joe! I was happy to see that you reverted the Google translate edits, both were incorrect. On the other hand I haven't seen any source acknowledging the English translations but since both Girê mirazan and Xirabreşk are compound words they can easily be translated word by word to English by sourcing an English-Kurdish dictionary like Ferhenga Birûskî or the older edition. The translation is Kurdish: Girê Mirazan, lit. 'Hill of Wishes'; gir = hill, miraz = wish/desire, and Xirabreşk, 'Black ruins'; xirab = ruined/ruins, reş = black, -k = diminutive suffix. Balyozxane (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sara Distribution has an English translation for Girê Miradan (Wishings hill) which is the same as Girê mirazan since miraz/mirad is an Arabic origin word مُرَاد d an z are interchangeable. Balyozxane (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2021

Delivered April 2021 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.

11:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent RfC closure

Hi, does your closure at RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention also include User:Citation bot and other bots, or is your closure specific to Monkbot task 18? There is currently a discussion underway at WP:ANI about User:Citation bot, where opinions differ about your closure. Any clarification would be helpful in moving that discussion forward. You can reply here or there. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I've responded at ANI. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice where you have been mentioned

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH21talk 18:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Svetlana Zharnikova's theory

https://2lib.org/g/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%96%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.122.141 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

https://vk.com/topic-32482446_31777280

https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/9493/

https://cont.ws/@INFObazaSM/161480/full

http://www.knt.org.ru/Jarnikova%201.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.123.36 (talk • contribs) 22 april 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Svetlana Zharnikova. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2021

Delivered May 2021 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.

11:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2021

Delivered May 2021 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.

18:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yamnaya Culture Butchery

What do you think now? Still too much aDNA and OR? Tewdar (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Much better, thank you for doing that, and for your additions today. My talk page rant was a bit of an indulgence but it really is depressing to see so many archaeology articles getting overrun with walls of text on the relative proportions of R1abcd versus R1wxyz lately. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Cueva de las Manos Expert Review

Hi Joe! I noticed your name under Wikipedian Archeologists, and I was wondering if you are interested in helping edit a page I've been working on, Cueva de las Manos. The subject is an ancient South American cave with rock art that goes back nine-to-thirteen millennia. Currently, the article is at B-class, but I'm hoping to get the article to become rated as GA class. I've added lots of info to it, but I'm hoping to have a professional archeologist look it over in order to prep it for peer review. Anyways, let me know if you're interested, and thank you for taking the time to read this over :)

Best,
Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

So, what do you think? Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tyrone Madera – so sorry for missing this for so long. I don't know much about American archaeology, but the article looks very good to me. I've fixed a few minor things like inconsistent date formats—I find it's more accessible to stick to either BC/AD or BP, not mix them–and the names of periods. I also removed the radiocarbon dates referenced to Borrero 1999 since unfortunately they aren't calibrated and therefore not actually meaningful dates. His range of 9320±90 to 7280±60 radiocarbon years BP would actually be something like 10726–10251 to 9190–7968 BP in real calendar years, but unfortunately this isn't a straightforward calculation so we can't include it without a source to back it up. It's not so common to talk about only uncalibrated dates in publications any more so you might be able to find a calibration in more recent sources. It would also be worth checking the other sources for dates for the same problems.
Other than that I think this would easily pass GA review with perhaps a few minor style tweaks. Go for it! – Joe (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries, and thank you for your insights and editing! Your edits have been very helpful. I'm not so sure about your conversions from BP to BC, however, considering that I think the process is more specific than simply subtracting 2 millennia. Isn't BP dependent on equipment and therefore not so easy to convert to BC? I'm taking what I know largely from some precedent here. This discussion brings up using whatever the source uses, but I digress. Thank you again for your help! Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
PS: You also mentioned checking the other sources for uncalibrated radiocarbon dates. Now, there are quite a few other sources, lots of which with radiocarbon dates. That being said, how deep do you think this goes? I'm not sure if I could check them all by myself. Is there a place to request help with this sort of thing if it could be widespread? Thanks again, Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
BP is literally "years before 1950" so converting between BC and BP is just a routine calculation. I think some people are over-cautious because they mix this up with calibration, but it's really fine. After the discussion you linked above I actually started drafting some conventions for writing about radiocarbon dates. They're very rough—and just my own view—but you mind find them useful.
In terms of sources that only include uncalibrated and not calibrated dates, I doubt it's a big problem, and probably restricted to older sources (before ~2000) discussing older dates (before ~10000 cal BP). Some time ago someone created {{Is this date calibrated?}} to flag the issue but I don't think it's widely used. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's a relief. I am sooo glad that you can just do it by simple conversion. I'll check the other radiocarbon dates for potentially similar problems—I had no idea that radiocarbon years were different!
Looking into this, you're absolutely right to draft conventions related to the topic of archaeology, considering the amount of misinformation out there (in talk pages and pop science as mentioned especially [the dates in pop science can vary unbelievably!]). I'll be sure to use the 1950 conversion from now on, if not the BC/AD dates when I can. Thank you for your professional—and common-sense—insights :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
PS: Is it unusual for Archaeologists to not have formal degrees? I'm asking because of something I read in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#May_1. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it was quite common in the early days of the discipline—when there was still a lingering sense of it being a "gentleman's pursuit"—but probably not so much in the last century. In addition to the people mentioned in the ref desk discussion, other early founding figures like Augustus Pitt Rivers and Flinders Petrie didn't have a university education. And even in the next generation, people like Mortimer Wheeler, V. Gordon Childe, and Dorothy Garrod tended to have degrees in an adjacent field like classics or history, because archaeology programmes didn't yet exist. Those started to appear around the 1930s, so I imagine it became gradually more difficult to find a place in academic archaeology without formal training after that. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, alright. Yeah, I thought it was weird that Gradin was just a technician and pretty much apprenticed his way up to being more or less the most renowned archaeologist for the Patagonian region. I guess his work must have been really good to be referenced in so many publications, though. Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Patience is a Virtue Award
Thank you for having patience with my endless questions :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tyrone Madera: No problem at all! Thank you. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Joe Roe,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2021

Delivered June 2021 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.


16:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Actual question

You wrote the article on the Sintashta culture, who are said to be generally accepted as the originators of the Indo-Iranian languages, but it seems that the Abashevo culture, who inhabited the area prior to them (and culturally influenced them), spoke a proto-Indo-Iranian language; so why wouldn't the Abashevo also be the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages? Is it just that the claim for the Abashevo is more conjectural, or is there an actual distinction between being the origin of a language and the origin of a proto-language? jp×g 10:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi JPxG, interesting question. It's been a while since I studied this, and the linguistics side was never my strong suit, but my understanding is that a proto-language is specifically the last form of an ancestral language spoken before it split into its descendent languages. Before that there would have been an unending sequence of Proto- (Proto- Proto- etc.) languages stretching back into time. With Indo-Iranian the theory, at least as Anthony tells it, is that the technological advances of the Sintashta culture (metallurgy, chariots, etc.) created a warrior elite that pushed east across the steps and south into India, spreading their language over such a wide area that it lost its cohesion and evolved into the mutually unintelligible Indo-Iranian languages. The people of predecessor cultures like Abashevo could well have spoken an ancestor to that language (maybe – making connections between archaeological cultures and languages is super conjectural and imprecise), but strictly speaking we wouldn't call that the proto-language because it's not the form that spread and diversified. – Joe (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi Joe, I'm about to go to a baseball game, so advanced apologies if I can't respond promptly. I wanted to drop you a note that I recently revision deleted an edit summary of yours for violating WP:BLPCRIME. As you probably know, BLP applies in all namespaces and to all people. Please be a little more cautious with accusations, and feel free to ask another admin or at AN if you think I seriously overstepped. Best, — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: You'll have to help me out here, what part of the policy you linked supports your revdel? – Joe (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 21:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, seriously consider not – how does one get from this to grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material? You also just posted a comment accusing me of defaming Vami which, as you helpfully pointed out, is a crime. Can I delete that? – Joe (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples under "RevDel usually valid" you will find, next to RD2: X committed a grossly insulting or morally depraved crime, where this accusation is not sourced to WP:BLP standards, and where X is a specifically identifiable individual. I assumed that you—a recent member of the arbitration committee who held oversight tools—would at least be familiar with the basic training we give to administrators on revision deletion and BLP, but you know what they say about assuming I guess. Mea culpa. I seriously tried my best to not make a big deal out of this because everyone has lapses in judgment, but you seem to insist on projecting blame outwards rather than reflect on why multiple editors have raised concerns with you.
At no point did I say that you defamed Vami, and as I said to Chess, substantiate your accusation with an exact quote of where I did so. In this edit you distinguish between pointing out facts and making accusations saying ...is a crime in Germany. That is a fact, not an accusation., but now you seem to collapse that distinction; how convenient for you. Let me recount what I did do using the distinction you made: I pointed out that, one, defamation is a crime (a fact), two, it is a crime in your jurisdiction (a fact), and three, a crime which motivates our BLP policy (a fact). If from that series of facts, you infer that you did something wrong that says more about your conscience than about me. At no point did I say "Joe Roe committed crime X". If you can identify exactly where I said that you defamed anyone you may remove it. Hell, if it makes you feel better, you can remove whatever parts of my comments upset you; I openly encourage refactoring my comments given that I created and am listed in Category:Wikipedians who support others refactoring their comments. So if you really want to see how that will reflect on you, go for it.
To end, I'm not here to play "who hates fascism more?" with you, Joe. Hitler wasn't defeated by editors saying mean things about him in the local newspaper, and you're not going to destroy the global rise of fascism at RfA by haranguing a teenager on the internet. Come off it. As a politically active, gay, black socialist during the Donald Trump administration, I have confronted actual neo-Nazis which is why I find this whole song-and-dance so banal. I have friends fighting in the streets against armed fascists mobs, and you expect me to think you're brave for standing up against a photo some teenager posted on the internet 4 years ago? Just follow our BLP policy by not blatantly accusing people of crimes they have not been charged or convicted of; that is literally all I'm asking. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't asked you to do anything except explain which policy supports your use of revision delete, Wug, which you have failed to do. The page you linked is not policy; my comment was not "unsourced", at least as far as an edit summary can be. You'll also note that the text of RD2 also includes but not mere factual statements and that, before you leapt to shield a former teenage fascist from exposure to the implications of their stupidity, one current arb/oversighter and one former arb/oversighter, both of whom disagreed with what I said, decided that it was not eligible for revision deletion. Please undo it so we don't have to drag this tedious discussion to AN.
But since you've raised the issue of anti-fascism (and please drop the snide implications about my level of activity in the cause off-wiki – you know absolutely nothing about it), I'd encourage to seriously consider whether even if you're right about my edit summary being a BLP violation, your actions here are making Wikipedia more or less tolerant of hate speech. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Then take it to AN, Joe. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it myself. Feel free to comment in that thread. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

AfD

Dear Joe. Thanks for your time spent on closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zangezur corridor. I am contemplating on appealing that decision - where would be the best place for doing that, please? Also, could you please help me by elaborating on your reasoning behind your closing conclusions? Those were not apparent or transparent enough I am afraid.

1) How did you reach "the heavy canvassing on both sides" conclusion? Be as specific as you can please, to avoid false balance effect.

2) What methodology did you use to conclude that there is a "rough consensus to keep"?

Thanks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni. This was obviously a contentious discussion—it was left open a full week longer than it should be, creating the longest backlog I've ever seen at AfD—and I was fully expecting somebody to challenge my close. You ask for it to be reviewed at WP:DRV, but I would ask you to very strongly consider not doing that. Like I said it was inevitable that somebody would be unhappy however this was closed, and I am quite confident that a DRV will not meaningfully change the outcome; it will only consume yet more volunteer time.
On your questions, while I'm always happy to explain my reasoning, please note that I'm not obligated to satisfy arbitrary demands for specificity. The purpose of a closing statement is to summarise the result of the discussion, such that the average uninvolved observer can understand how it was reached. Ultimately it is the discussion itself that is the full record of the consensus and the reasoning behind it. The canvassing was evident in the large number of participants with shallow contribution histories and little experience at AfD, making arguments with no reference to relevant policy. These editors !voted for both "delete" and "keep". You yourself added {{Not a ballot}}, which is usually used to indicate this. When you discount the these arguments—the ones completely detached from the deletion policy—there are actually only a small number of comments/subthreads left and I believe the rough consensus (the standard benchmark we always use when closing discussions) to keep amongst these would be obvious to any uninvolved observer. – Joe (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2021 (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. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2021

Delivered July 2021 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.

12:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Joe Roe/Archives:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Dragon Man

  • Hello, thank you for your decision of no consensus, which I agree with. The posters that supported the change to H. longi made many ridiculous arguments, it was quite time consuming to dispute them all, so not all of their arguments were addressed including WP:QUALIFIER. Blockhouse321 (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like to ask how quickly one could re-list Dragon Man for another move discussion. I do not feel that "no consensus" is a satisfactory outcome when more than 60 % of the editors are in favor of a move and many of the opposing editors have no prior experience editing articles of the topic at hand. I very much disagree with the assessment "reasonable arguments being made for both titles". None of the opposing voters addressed the nominator's original argument based on WP:QUALIFIER. None of them demonstrated that 'Dragon Man' was the WP:COMMONNAME and when I asked about this, I was promptly ignored by the opposing voters. My arguments based on WP:CRITERIA were also promptly ignored and never dealt with. Blockhouse321, who was in favor of keeping the article title, in particular made many claims that were refuted by other editors, but refused to respond to these refutations. WP:RMCOMMENT states that "arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements" which I do not feel was taken into account here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Hello Ichthyovenator, I would suggest that it be relisted in several years after the scientific community has performed significantly more research including DNA and comes to a consensus as to what species Dragon Man actually is and then assign the appropriate binomial name. However, even when the correct binomial is assigned the WP:COMMONNAME remains Dragon Man not Homo ????? Blockhouse321 (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    It is not satisfactory to keep an article under an informal nickname for several years because you do not understand the policy- and science-based arguments raised against the points you were making. You never proved the WP:COMMONNAME to be 'Dragon Man' and you even refused to respond to me when I explicitly asked you to demonstrate this. In any case it's best to not continue the discussion needlessly on Joe Roe's talk page. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    WP:MOVED suggests waiting a few months, but it's not a hard requirement. The more important thing is that you don't just restart the same discussion on the same terms, because I guarantee that won't get you any closer to a consensus. I suggested in my close that a fresh discussions that focused on our article title policy—rather than the minutiae of taxonomic nomenclature and mud-slinging about each others' credentials—would be more productive. It might also be an idea to wait until more high-quality sources are available, since a major point of disagreement was supporters of Dragon Man making an argument for it being the common name based on media sources, and the supporters of Homo longi arguing that only peer-reviewed sources (of which I believe there's only one) are important. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the response. The issue with waiting for more high quality sources is that it can take a long time for more to get published in the scientific community and I believe that us keeping the article under the informal nickname without designating it as such is a bad way to go. I will ask the other editors of WP:PALAEO as well. Hopefully a second move discussion, if or when it happens, will focus more on the actual article title policies. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    You could also try notifying WP:ANTHRO and WP:ARCHAEO. I got the sense that editors from the palaeontology WikiProject were bringing a certain set of assumptions to the discussion that aren't necessarily codified anywhere or shared by others, which might explain some of the frustration encountered. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the suggestion, I will contact them as well and see if there is interest among the other editors in these projects in re-starting the move discussion. Otherwise there isn't much of a point in going on a one-man crusade. Though I think Homo longi is the superior title when looking at title policy as well, I agree that there certainly were non-codified assumptions brought to the table - wider input would not be a bad thing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Be careful about canvassing, it must remain neutral Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies to Joe Roe for arguing with another editor on your talk page. Blockhouse321, I'm not canvassing, I'm asking on relevant WikiProjects, where opinions may very well vary, whether they think a second move discussion soon would be a good idea. This is an ironic accusation given that you invited other select editors to partake in the second discussion you started on the Dragon Man talkpage after you had seen their opinions on the idea of a page move. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
We both know you are trying to recruit editors to support a second attempt at a move, without waiting a significant amount of time, as advised by Joe Roe. In addition, we both know you are obsessed with trying to change the article name to Homo longi even though there was no consensus. May I suggest you move on to other activities now; the issue has been resolved by a neutral third-party, unlike what you espouse to be. Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies again to Joe Roe: I've continued the discussion on Blockhouse321's talk page instead of cluttering your talk page up more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"Fatburger (drain obstruction)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fatburger (drain obstruction). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 13#Fatburger (drain obstruction) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Near East: Regional Name (Line 163)

Hello Joe,


I just wanted to bring one thing up regarding this paragraph. It's preferable, in my opinion, and more factual, to refer to the historic regions by how they were referred to at the time of the Bronze Age collapse. It makes no sense to use Syria or Palestine to describe the region that together encompasses Canaan, and in fact misleads readers as it reads in a way that seems to suggest that Palestine and Syria were the common names for the region in 1200 B.C., many hundreds of years before either of those names were used to identify the region. I think you said yourself that Palestine and Canaan are not synonymous in the area that they encompass, which seems to provide more support behind using terminology that (a) is not anachronistic, and (b) provides more clarity regarding the actual area affected at the time. Thank You Emmett87 (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Emmett87. That's a reasonable position, but it's not one shared by most historians, archaeologists, or encyclopaedia-writers. See for example medieval England (not Englaland), Ancient Greece (not Hellas), Neolithic Europe (not ???), and so on. We frequently prefer to discuss history in terms of modern territories, because they are unambiguous and familiar to most people. Canaan, on the other hand, is not a term the average reader will recognise, nor can we know for certain how if and how it was understood in the Bronze Age.
I also can't help but notice that you didn't, in fact, change Syria or any of the other geographic names in that article. You only removed Palestine. You also removed it from Palestinian cuisine, which has nothing to do with the Bronze Age (and obviously quite a lot to do with Palestine). You should familiarise yourself with the special rules we have for contentious topics like Israel–Palestine if you intend to continue editing in this area. – Joe (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joe. I wonder if you'd have time to work through the contents of the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org mailbox again? I've sent a couple of reports, but I suspect there's a build up of others. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: I will try to take a look, but also send a note about it to the functionaries list. As you might have noticed I only find the time to sit down and work through the backlog every couple of months, so it would really help to have more people looking at it... – Joe (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2021

Delivered August 2021 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) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for BOXX Technologies

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BOXX Technologies. 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. Bumm13 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bumm13: I would have been happy to WP:REFUND this for you if you'd asked. I don't think WP:DRV is the right place for your request; did you read the instructions at the top of the page? – Joe (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Joe. Thank you for your comment at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, most especially for we can work to improve the general atmosphere around here, so that people don't have to be afraid to link their Wikipedia editing to their real-life identity. It is, of course, a cliché, but i am quite passionate in believing that we have chosen to function as a community in our Project; as we are a community, i believe that it is incumbent upon us to behave as though we care for one another, at least a little bit: I suppose that's why i asked the question, is there something i ought to do. I don't have the/an answer, but hope that maybe one can be found. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 18:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks LindsayH. I agree completely. As for what we can do individually, I certainly don't have the complete answer: but I think it's some combination of being as welcoming as possible and allowing new editors to make mistakes, while holding those in positions of (relative) authority to account. – Joe (talk)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2021

Delivered September 2021 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.

21:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Living Actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood deletion

I am still scratching my head as to why this article was deleted. The editors of that article were doing a very good job, I tested them once and they put me in my place, they ran a very tight ship there. I see the main reason is that it wasn't considered encyclopedic to have a list of living people that will be gone in x number of years. But isn't the beauty of a LIVING encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, is that you can post articles such as this? I hope this deletion will be reconsidered, as there was an immense amount of history and useful resource within the article that was just wiped away with a click of the button. 76.11.71.40 (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't just that. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood. – Joe (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw it, you said there were valid arguments on the side of keep: "With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article." 76.11.71.40 (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but these decisions are rarely made unanimously. Our standard is to seek a rough consensus. – Joe (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well if there are valid arguments to keep an article, that should outweigh any valid argument to delete it , no? Deletion of an article is quite a drastic move. As you know in court if one jury member votes not guilty, then the person is not guilty, it doesn't matter if the other 11 vote guilty. 76.11.71.40 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a jury, it doesn’t work like that. There’s no set number of people allowed to vote so a unanimous vote would be largely down to chance. Dronebogus (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I get it that both of you (Personal attack removed) look down on the world of cinema, otherwise you wouldn't be so passionate about deleting such an important article to the world of cinema/film as this. I'd just like to ask you how you would feel about a major article in Wikipedia about archaeology being deleted so casually. And Dronebugus, judging by all the complaints on your talk page, it looks like you get off on just deleting stuff from Wikipedia hastily and clumsily, quite often. Is it just out of a desire to be irritating? 76.11.71.40 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Please don't resort to personal attacks. I have no opinion on the content of the article, I just implemented the consensus in the discussion. I've tried to explain to you how consensus works in AfDs, and it's the way we've been doing it for nearly twenty years, so while you are more than welcome to try and change it, I don't think you will succeed. More than 15 people participated in the discussion so it was far from a casual decision by Wikipedia standards. – Joe (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
76.11.71.40, your “arguments” (if they can be called that) are incoherent and poorly researched in the extreme. Besides the issues Joe Roe has already addressed, I’m not sure why you think my talk page is littered with complaints when there’s only like three incidents, months apart, that are hardly “complaints”. Plus why archeology, it’s so random. I hardly even edit archeology articles, in fact I’m more often cleaning up the obscure cinema articles you accuse me and Joe of hating. Dronebogus (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes "cleaning up" as in completely deleting. Nice euphemism. I won't be intimidated by your unprofessional, bullying personal attacks. And the complaints on your page were for rushing through Wikipedia just deleting articles willy-nilly at an inappropriately fast pace and deleting an article on someone even though they had a Grammy nomination. Sounds really professional of you. 76.11.71.40 (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

there was ONE complaint. ONE. And also “cleanup” is not a euphemism for “delete”, it literally just means “copyediting” (i.e. removing typos, adding links, fixing grammar, trimming odd unnecessary details). Dronebogus (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I've said all I'm going to say about this 76.11.71.40. If you want to continue arguing please do it somewhere other than my talk page. – Joe (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Autopatrolled right

Hello, hope you are doing good. As per the criteria, I have created well-over twenty-five articles and adhere to the guidelines and policies. Can you please grand me the Autopatrolled right? I've already requested in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Thank you, -- Sreeram Dilak (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sreeram Dilak. The average wait at WP:PERM/A is a week or two I think. Please be patient; administrators are volunteers like you. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Autopatrolled Right

Hi Sir, Hope you are doing well. One week ago I have applied for autopatrolled right, as per wiki guidelines I have created over 25 valid articles, But the Autopatrolled right request was not approved. Sir, Could you please let me know, what is the best time to apply for autopatrolled right? or is there any timeline for new users? and when I should apply for this? Joy Wick (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joy Wick. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled are a just minimum standard and subject to admins' discretion. When I should apply for this? Honestly, never. Autopatrolled makes absolutely no difference to you as an editor and is not worth worrying about. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sock farm

Hello Joe Roe, can you run a CU? it appears to be a sock farm of the recently blocked User "Roculator" [2] [3] [4] Magherbin (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

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 or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (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 12:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Re:Cyprus

Thanks Joe! I have contributed a couple of times to articles on Turkish Cypriot and I know that there is a strong consensus to keep the Greek names in the northern part of the island too, that's why I warned Doug. I'll definitely check out his other edits today, I just hope I don't have to make edit wars :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Joe, I have done my best to restore the status quo ante of the North Cyprus articles that have been changed. It seems to me that the user has made the following mass edits:
  • he has moved the articles from the Greek name to the Turkish name;
  • he has changed the content accordingly (but not everywhere);
  • he has removed the template related to the Greek Cypriot district (Greeks consider the northern towns as part of the republic of Cyprus, so they insert the corresponding template, even if the administration is Turkish);
I noticed that there are still some articles that have not been moved back. Not being an administrator, I can't do that.
However, I think that to make changes of this magnitude there has to be consensus, which I don't feel there is. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Alessandro57: after I reverted the editor, they created a sock to revert two edits of mine. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: too bad. But you have superpowers, don't you? :-) One question: why don't we have a guideline for Cyprus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)? We could save ourselves a lot of trouble. Alex2006 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I've just blocked them. Between the Turkish nationalist POV-pushing and the petulant sockpuppet created to stalk Doug, it's obvious they're not here to build an encyclopaedia.
@Alessandro57: Thanks for your help with the cleanup. I had thought I'd reversed all the moves, but some of the edit histories were too messy for me to fix right then. If you can point me to anything I've missed, I will do it. – Joe (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
It looks like today all the moved articles have been moved back...Well done! Alex2006 (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:List of archaeology journals has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of archaeology journals. Thanks! Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari. But there seem to have been two versions of the article:

  1. Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari
  2. Syed Mohammad Alaa Ud Din (Khansahib) Rizvi-Al Bukhari - this was tagged as being considered for deletion with a link to the deletion discussion.

And some redirects:

  1. Khansahib Bukhari
  2. Khansahab Bukhari
  3. Syed Ali Alaa Ud Din (Khansahib) Bukhari
  4. Syed Ali Alaa Ud Din Khansahib Bukhari
  5. Syed Ali Alaa Ud Din (khansahib) Bukhari

Please could you do some cleaning up.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. The problem was that the page was moved mid-way through the AfD. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

A help

Hi Joe Roe,
Hope you're fine.
My created article, B A F Shaheen College Kurmitola, was deleted by you as it's deletion discussion page. But I wanna recreate this. And I did it. But it was again nominated for speedy deletion. I've added reliable source to this article. You can see...
Can I recreate this article? If yes, How can?
Please help me!
Thanks. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tajwar.thesuperman: I have restored that page as a draft at Draft:B A F Shaheen College Kurmitola. If you can improve the article and add sufficient reliable sources to show that it meets the general notability guideline, you can submit it for review by another editor by clicking the button at the top of the page. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Hi. I've added four references (news) to Draft:B A F Shaheen College Kurmitola and I think they are reliable. Can I move it to mainspace now? Thanks. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 09:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Like I just said, you should submit it for review by someone else. Since you say you go to the school, you have an obvious pre-existing interest in believing it is notable. – Joe (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Okay... Yeah :) ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 12:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Not fully Unicode compliant

See User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive024#Ref desks edits and commons:User talk:Mysterymanblue#Signature, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed content

I have removed and oversighted the discord logs you posted at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-09-26/Discussion report, as they are not permitted per the result of this RfC. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 12:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: The second quote that you redacted is from Wikipedia. In the comment immediately above mine. I trust that is still allowed? – Joe (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
My apologies - I realised this whilst explaining my use of oversight, and have restored it ~TNT (she/they • talk) 12:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and keep up the good work! – Joe (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime: Out of curiosity, were you alerted to this breach of the no-Discord-logs rule on Discord? – Joe (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No, IRC (#wikipedia-en-revdel connect) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 12:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Hey @Joe Roe Thank you for checking the articles, I didn't edit as I don't know exactly where the problem is, if you have time could you check this for me, please. Kind Regards. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Cambridge University Press & Assessment

John, I would deeply appreciate it if you could stop making the quite patently wrong reversions to Cambridge University Press - an organisation that quite clearly no longer exists (see my entry on the Talk Page) - and we could bring this frankly pointless edit war to a swift conclusion.

As a Cambridge graduate and former student of Cambridge exams, I can assure you that Cambridge Assessment is not the "unheard of" entity you seem to think it is - millions of people all over the world take their assessments. Bringing the Press and the Assessment organisation together was a well-reported event.

Best wishes,

User:Fabius Planciades Fulgentius

Hello Fabius Planciades Fulgentius. My name is Joe, not John.
Did you ever hear the joke, "How can you tell if someone went to Cambridge"? (Answer: "They'll tell you").
Anyway, I'll respond to your message at Talk:Cambridge University Press. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Opened report at WP:COIN

I have opened the report at WP:COIN regarding ticket 2021082810000152. It can be found here Useight (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Strange DRV close

Could you take a look at Special:Diff/1046975990; looks like you accidentally got bits of two different cases combined. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for spotting that. I used {{subst:DRV top}} instead of {{subst:DRV bottom}}. I really wish there was a good script for closing DRVs... – Joe (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I use importScript('User:Lifebaka/closedrv.js'); -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I could never get that one to work. But thanks. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2021

Delivered October 2021 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.

12:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer

Hello Sir Joe Roe, Sir I kindly requested permission to be a new pages reviewer, Could you please sir see it. Request Superatp 15:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Dating methodologies in archaeology

neither project has included a redirect —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

What? There are plenty of redirects tagged with {{WikiProject Archaeology}}. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
look at it again. both project’s assessment system do not include the redirect class. i set archaeology to N/A assuming that is why you were interested and removed Time’s again, since that is what brought me to the redirect. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Look at what again? We just use the standard {{WPBannerMeta}} classes, which by default mark redirects as NA-class. Please, just don't mess around with templates from projects you have no involvement in. – Joe (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Varna culture

Hi Joe! I was browsing this topic on my smartphone, and responded to the (mobile) site's suggestion to "ADD IMAGE CAPTION" for the image at the top of the mobile page, which - on mobile platforms only - seems to repeat the first image of the article proper. "What could be more natural than to describe it as 'Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis'?", I thought. So that's what I did, and the updated mobile page appeared satisfactory.

Then today I noticed that you've reverted it, and was wondering why. So I checked the source changes on a PC, and they indicate that I added (and you removed) the text "{{Short description|Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis}}" just before the existing text on line 1 "{{more footnotes|date=August 2016}}", rather than as part of the first image of the mobile article only, as I intended. The first image of the article proper is: "[[File:Burial with gold treasure, 4600-4200 BC, AM Varna, Varm25.jpg|thumb|Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis (detail)]]", as shown here.

Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis (detail)

Clearly, I don't know how the WikiMedia software translates a webpage's wiki markup to, or from, the mobile platform, but something seems amiss.

I also rechecked the mobile platform's version of this page just now, and it carries the text I had added as an image caption: "Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis" just below the article title "Varna culture", as though these words were indeed a "Short description" of the article! Which was never my intention, and is rather nonsensical.

Do you have any hints for how one might usefully respond to future requests from the mobile platform to "ADD IMAGE CAPTION"? yoyo (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yahya Abdal-Aziz. I try to avoid editing with the mobile site or app since, in my experience, they are both very poorly put-together pieces of software, which seems to be borne out here. So I'm afraid I can't really offer any guidance other than to consider not responding to any automated prompts on mobile. The wikitext you added, with {{short description}}, adds a sort of caption for the article as a whole, rather than the lead image. Since I reverted it you shouldn't be seeing that any longer... but maybe it's just a cache thing.
Sorry I can't offer any more insight. You might try WP:VPT. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Joe Roe! Thanks for your reply. Yes, I might try the Village Pump, but it seems that there's a much bigger problem with the mobile site or app than I have the means to address. Think I'll emulate your avoidance of editing there in future! yoyo (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, 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 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A help...

Hi Joe. Hope you're well. I'm here to ask you that if any user's one or two created page deleted, he will not be granted for autopatrolled? I've created 50 articles. But more than 5 was deleted in July–August. But from September, my created a few articles was deleted. But I think that I meet with other criteria. Thanks.  regards, Orbit Wharf  💬  •  📝 05:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Howley Hall

I am bewildered as to why you would argue that Howley Hall is in Batley when it is indeed in Morley. The ancient parish was much larger and included Morley but Morley did exist and that is where Howley Hall was built. Ancient parishes were very large, neighbouring Dewsbury included Ossett for example. In times past something might have been recorded as being in the historic parish but I think Wikipedia uses modern boundaries, as does Historic England :Location Leeds (Metropolitan Authority) Parish:Morley. Here are two maps showing boundaries, one modern, one older. It can quite easily be closer to Batley centre but that really doesn't change the fact that it is in Morley. YOu are misleading readers by continuing to argue it is in Batley. (https://mapit.mysociety.org/area/9045.html) (https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Batley/BatleyMap)

Answered at Talk:Howley Hall. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Alexis Mallon

On 27 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alexis Mallon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1929, the world press proclaimed Teleilat el Ghassul to be the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, but Father Alexis Mallon, the site's excavator, disagreed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alexis Mallon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alexis Mallon), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Barry Fell -- pseudoarcheology

I see that my edit to the article on Barry Fell lasted only a few minutes before you reverted it. I expect you know a lot more about him than I do, so it would be silly to argue. Nonetheless, the problem I have with putting such a disparaging term in the opening paragraph, putting him in the same category as charlatans like Erich von Däniken, is that it is effectively asserting it as a fact, whereas it is an opinion by other specialists, admittedly a large majority of them. I have no quarrel with saying the same thing in the section on Archaeology survey, because there it is indeed a fact that most specialists think that it is pseudoarcheology. Athel cb (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources in the article that say that Fell's theories are considered pseudoarchaeology or pseudoscience. I think that makes it a "fact" as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and it would be unusual not to include that point in the lead when quite a large portion of the article body is devoted to it. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
(I seem to have accidentally deleted the reply I drafted, but no matter, I'll try again.) If that's Wikipedia's definition of a "fact" then sobeit, but it seems weak to me. I won't pursue the matter. Almost all I know about Barry Fell is what I read in the article, which I turned to because I had just added Honor Fell to the List of biologists and saw his name next to hers. Athel cb (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2021

Delivered November 2021 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.

21:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Efe Ukala

Hey Joe, I would like to create an Article on Efe Ukala, I am aware that you just performed a deletion action on the article, with your kind permission, I would love to give it another trial. I engaged in the Article for Deletion Discussion, and with your kind permission, I believe I have done enough research on the Subject, with good Ref to warrant it being considered for notability. I kindly await your reply on this. Ogele (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ogele. I can't stop you but I don't think it's a good idea. You already made your case for keeping the article in the AfD, and unfortunately nobody agreed. Unless there is significantly more and better coverage than there was in September, it will probably just be deleted again, wasting everybody's time. – Joe (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there are more coverage than that of September. Ogele (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Close of Sacramento Freelancers Drum and Bugle Corps

Hi Joe, I was following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacramento Freelancers Drum and Bugle Corps and there doesn't appear to be any consensus to delete. While the IP users did not cast a vote, their responses indicate that they wish for the page to be kept, IMO. Also, a PROD was contested so there is evidently some opposition to deletion. As a result, would you be willing to change the close to no consensus? I feel that would be more appropriate in this case. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The comment from the unregistered editor didn't offer any policy-based reasons to keep the article and did not refute the central argument for deletion: lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I down-weighted it accordingly. Read together with the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colts Drum and Bugle Corps, I think there is a rough consensus for deletion, if only in the absence of substantial objections. – Joe (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joe: I'm not familiar enough with the Wikipedia deletion and editing process to know where I should comment on this, since the pages in question have already been deleted, but I recently noticed that a few entries for very notable drum and bugle corps entries (such as the one referenced here, as well as the Colts) have been deleted. I tend to only weigh in on edits to pages in topics of my professional scientific expertise, but I participated in marching bands and the drum corps activity in my youth and still follow it, and have many friends that became professional band directors, and I know that corps like the Freelancers and Colts are known by generations of marching band students, drum corps fans and participants (probably numbering in the hundreds of thousands), and I'd be hard pressed to say that these don't meet a reasonable "significance" threshold, and are certainly much more significant than some other drum corps with individual pages that have not been put up for deletion. However, as a professional scholar and I recognize that pretty much every individual page for each drum corps in its current form is terrible by any reasonable standards of scholarship, so I understand the arguments for removing these or at least giving them a significant overhaul. There needs to be some general discussion about the entire corpus of drum corps activity pages, though, rather than just piecemeal and somewhat arbitrary deletion of individual pages, which gives a very skewed idea of the activity, as there are some very noteworthy groups whose pages have been deleted while other groups of marginal importance have existing pages. (I also recognize that there really isn't a place for things like the drum corps pages in a traditional encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is different and pages like this are consistent with the existence of tens of thousands of similar Wikipedia pages, at least.) Is there a place that this discussion is already ongoing? Dr.RMills (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Undoing

I saw this edit, as you didn't leave an edit summary, why did you undo it? As it was simply a lenghty way of saying "WP:AGF" of users. Ah, now I see that it was already closed. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. – Joe (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU and Gerda Arendt: Thanks to you both. Four years already! – Joe (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2021

Delivered December 2021 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.

18:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For taking on the challenge of closing the biggest and arguably most contentious AfD in Wikipedia history. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, clpo13! It was a doozy. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you.

The Mountain Of Crap Barnstar
Anyone who climbs half a megabyte of AfD deserves to have something waiting for them at the top. jp×g 03:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Daveyboyz / David Bass (page)

I find it absurd that you should target a page based even partially on the subject being a Christian or a conspiracy theorist. This seems to be an unfair bias. There were plenty of independent sources on this page, many mainstream newspapers and other media. Granted some were examples of the subjects online work, but David Bass is a public figure as presented, with a large following for around a decade. 2A00:23C6:3EAB:A801:8139:A272:A06B:EC58 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There weren't though, that was the problem. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"08:34 Joe Roe talk contribs changed group membership for Joe Roe from autopatrolled, checkuser and administrator to checkuser and administrator ‎(I'm happy for my creations to be reviewed" - a noble sentiment, but you don't really get a "review", and this will just add further to the patrollers' workload. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Well for some years now I've been advocating for drastically reducing the number of editors with autopatrolled (e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Revising_the_minimum_criteria, [5], [6]), and I also tell a lot of people at WP:PERM/A that they don't meet the current criteria for it, so I feel a lot better not having it myself. I don't create many articles myself and, although I don't do much new page patrolling any more either, I think I still review more than I add to the queue. – Joe (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Over 400 articles for deletion ?

Hi Joe, the user Dlthewave probably received a mission from the heavens and runs a campaign of deleting 400 pages, claiming that creating several articles a day for several months is mass TNT. If you can, then take a look here. I'm relatively new here, there is no one who could argue with him? My arguments do not recognize. As it will go on, I do not use autopatrolled that you have given me. After all, similar articles were created earlier without controversy. I do not know what's going on? ThWiki1910 8:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi ThWiki1910. I can understand your frustration. The kind of work you are doing is, generally speaking, completely uncontroversial and valued by the community. However, you have been unlucky and started doing it just after we had a couple of incidents of it being done carelessly (creating pages on 'settlements' that do not actually exist), and that has stirred up some controversy. The good news is, nobody is going to delete 400 of your articles at once – not without a lot of prior discussion. So don't worry too much about the AfD of Litva. The discussion will run for at least a few more days and maybe it will be deleted, maybe not. If it is, rest assured that you are far from the first editor to have one or two of their articles deleted. As long as you are mindful of WP:GEOLAND and open to suggestions of how to improve your articles, you will be fine. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the clarification. It does not change the fact that the mentioned user in a primitive way first destroys the content (already several dozen articles) leaving only first line of article, and then his friend FOARP enters with the thesis: "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer". After Dlthewave's "corrections" this thesis is true, so there is already a reason to delete the article. Interestingly, he denies the sources of the information provided in the article. No argument goes to him. And I can only watch this kindergarten? It is sad. ThWiki1910 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ratchet Feminism protection level

Ratchet Feminism was indef fully protected when it was a redirect, but now is an article again. Should it be unprotected? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I've asked the protecting admin to reconsider the protection on the talk page. Since I can edit through protection, I restored the improved article as a separate, uninvolved action. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Hello Joe, I would like to sincerely thank you for proposing and coming up with the idea of Wikipedia:Administrative action review which has now been accepted and established by the community consensus at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Passed:_6C_Administrative_action_review. I really liked the whole idea from the beginning and found it very helpful which is why I had also supported this proposal. A proper and specific noticeboard where the focus will only be on the administrative actions will be an excellent way to help establish even more and better trust and understanding between the regular users and administrations and the community as a whole as well. Once again, thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TheGeneralUser. I hope so too, and I'm glad others agreed with us. – Joe (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thank you for coming up with the idea for Administrative action review and seeing it through the RfC process. Not only is it a solution to a concrete gap in our review processes, it promises cultural change by challenging the equation of sysop and administrator. I'm looking forward to its impacts, and I'm excited to working together to ensure it succeeds. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Wugapodes. It's a small thing, but I hope a nudge in the direction of bigger changes, and I'm glad others saw the potential. After many years mulling over the many ways our community is dysfunctional, I think this is the first time I've tried to make a significant structural change, and now I'm fired up thinking about what other things we could try. I know you've got a very keen eye for the underlying social dynamics around here, so I'd be really interested to hear if you had any ideas – especially now that you're going to see how the sausages are made (congratulations!)
By the way, I'm sorry that we fell out over the RfA revdel. I think it was you (correct me if I'm wrong) that introduced me to the idea that the project functions as a culture of honour, and that situation got to me in a way that I'm not proud of. Please accept my apologies. – Joe (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you're excited! It may seem like a small nudge, but while the big changes get the fanfare, I think incremental changes like this make a bigger impact in the long run. It helps build consensus, and it gives everyone an opportunity for a classic BarnRaising. When's the last time we set something like this up? For most of us, I think this is the first time we've actually had to figure out how to build a process from the ground up. For those who have, it's an opportunity to share community lore with us. For the newest editors, they get to see how a barn raising works and get policy experience by doing some of the simpler policy editing. The newness of the process means we also have the opportunity to try new things without the baggage of tradition that comes with reforming old processes. You may have only nudged, but a well-placed nudge can start a snowball rolling. It has all the hallmarks of a great idea, so I'm excited to see your next one.
And no worries, I'm just glad we can patch things up. I've been wanting to apologize for a while, but thought it best to give you space. I worried that an apology too soon could seem insincere, and then ACE rolled around so I held off because I didn't want it to seem like it was some political move. The culture of honor is a new concept to me, so you'll have to thank someone else for that, but we're all human and can get caught up in the moment. I don't think either of us came out of that situation feeling proud of ourselves, and I regret unilaterally escalating. Especially given that cultural context, I certainly don't blame you for feeling attacked. I should have worked harder to de-escalate, and I'm sorry you had to endure that. Apology accepted, and hopefully you accept mine. I'm glad we can move past this as our falling out is one of my biggest regrets here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Huh... I was sure it was you! I don't think you have anything to regret, really, but I appreciate your understanding. – Joe (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas cracker jokes?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your edit summary when you reverted my edit. A lot of people are dyslexic, or may otherwise not be intimately familiar with English spelling, and it's entirely reasonable to expect that many people looking for information about desserts may type "desert" instead. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just heard a lot of bad dessert/desert puns and made an assumption. I'll concede that someone looking for desserts might end up at desert, and I see there is already a hatnote there. But "Syrian desserts" → "Syrian Desert"? We don't even have an article or redirect at Syrian desserts. – Joe (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply re my talkpage

Hi, those were all participants at a Noongarpedia editing workshop. It *was* the practice at the time as they otherwise couldn't do very much on here with accounts that we'd helped them create minutes earlier - but I suspect any editing they do now is on a separate Wiki. No objection to removing the tag. Orderinchaos 06:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW I think you might have mixed up autopatrolled and autoconfirmed, though: new accounts need autoconfirmed to create articles, but autopatrolled does nothing from the user's point of view. Seems to have been a relatively common mistake, looking through the inactive list. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Hi Joe Roe/Archives! Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year!

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Joe!

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TheSandDoctor Talk 05:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 with Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Recreate a deleted page

Hello, I was trying to recreate the Wikipedia page of a news website you deleted about 3 years ago. I had created the profile of notable personalities and organisations.

I had to reach out to you over the Wikipedia page for the news platform as I learnt that it has been experiencing increasingly terrible issues of identity theft and cybersquatting.

Fake pages and websites claim to be the brand, and many also create clones of the site to cash in on its authority, networks and clients. Unfortunately, many of its unsuspecting clients have fallen prey to these bad actors.

The brand now has some notable mentions in the most reputable platforms in Nigeria, (I am still trying to gather more). Please take a look at what I have written so far based on my current findings and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palness (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Palness: I see you've prepared a draft, it should be reviewed soon. In the mean time, please familiarise yourself with our rules on conflict of interest and paid editing. I will post a templated notice on your talk page with more details in a moment. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia essay

Howdy, Joe! I hope you've been doing alright. I don't like pestering people on Wikipedia, especially admins, but I've got a question for you. Do you remember back in September of 2018, when you said that it would make sense "to get WP:SCIRS promoted to a guideline"? Well, 3 years later, it hasn't happened, and I'm not aware that anyone else has proposed it yet. Would you agree that it is now time to go to Village Pump and suggest that this finally be done? Especially considering you've put WP:SCIRS to such good use in the past year. Well, I'd really appreciate knowing what you think about it. Thanks for your time and Happy New Year! - Hunan201p (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Yeah, that's a good idea. These things can be make-or-break though. Maybe it would be worth workshopping a proposal at WT:SCIRS and/or WP:RSN first? I think the key would be to make the case that SCIRS is an established and stable essay that already has broad consensus behind it (e.g. by number of incoming links from article talk pages and noticeboards), and avoid it being mistaken for a brand new proposal. – Joe (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Joe Roe!

Happy New Year!

Joe Roe,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Joe Roe/Archives! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Roe/Archives/2021&oldid=1252468051"