Jump to content

User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2024

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

added Clovermoss
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Revoking NPR

Thanks; I think it was needed, I didn't entirely feel comfortable doing it myself. I realized later that there was yet another article I'd found issues with that I didn't post on-wiki, and consequently didn't mention to you; now mentioned here. Uncomfortably similar to what Praxidicae found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not something I like doing, but I think in this case both autopatrolled and NPR had to go. – Joe (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Concern over an autopatrolled permission

There is a comment within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyse de Pury you may be interested in seeing. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. – Joe (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2024

Delivered January 2024 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.

13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

For over 360 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sock

You were right about Qautro. Perhaps surprisingly, the master was not stale. I G5ed a couple of articles, can I leave you to perform any further clear-up that's needed, I've got to run. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 14:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sure, thanks for the check. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey Joe, just wanted to thank you for all the great maintenance work you do at NPP. We're really lucky to have you around. Big thanks!

– DreamRimmer (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much! – Joe (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Ldm1954

Hi Joe,

Hope you're well. Ldm1954's recent spree of draftifications after becoming a reviewer is a bit odd, reflecting their limited experience with the guidelines. They use a strict interpretation of WP:NPROF, which is okay, but they should aim for RfC and change the guidelines rather than doing it this way.

The article on Draft:Steven Detweiler was a perfectly valid one, but they chose to draftify it. Draft:Shyam Gollakota is another article they draftified, akin to soft deletion, considering this article had been up for more than 3 months and is a direct violation of WP:ATD-I (i.e. discussion you closed).

I should also point out that they are also an AfC reviewer and they are similarly declining valid academics and researcers' drafts. Can you please revert these spree moves and give them some specific advice? Thanks. 109.180.245.108 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2024 (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. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about dispute resolution venues

Hi, I am unsure if this is the correct place for this (and admittedly I'm mostly here since I have not interacted with any other administrator for a while), but there is a somewhat difficult situation unfolding over at Talk:Budapest#Climate. I do not think I can give you a full explanation of the issue -- there's no way I can explain all 70 comments in a talk page message, though I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at it if you have time.

I am unsure as to where to carry this dispute. The two other editors in this dispute have violated WP:QUO by insisting on the new version without the discussion ending, cast aspersions/did not WP:AGF on multiple occasions, while also creating WP:LISTEN-related problems. I don't know if this is severe enough for a report to ANI, but I am also unsure of what other venue is appropriate for this. I have alerted the Weather WikiProject and Talk:Köppen climate classification to no avail, as well. Could you please take a look?

Thank you, Uness232 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Uness232. That's an interesting discussion. My read, with the large caveat that I don't know much about the topic at all, is that it's probably not one that is going to be solved through the user-conduct route with ANI etc. You're quite right that "humid subtropical" is the status quo version and that it really ought to have remained until a consensus develops, but in general I see three editors arguing in good faith over a genuinely tricky issue. Or issues, actually, there are at least two that I can see:
  1. Is deriving the a Köppen classification from weather summaries a routine calculation? On the one hand, as you've argued, the calculation itself is trivial. On the other, there seems to be some expertise involved in deciding which variant of the Köppen system to use, deciding whether to use local or regional weather data, how to account for climate change, and so on, which might tip it into WP:NOR territory.
  2. How do reliable sources describe the climate of Budapest? Or failing that, of Central Hungary, or of Hungary as a whole?
It might be worth having an RfC on #1, just to clarify things, but I think focusing on #2 would be your quickest route out of this particular dispute. Something I've often noticed is that if sources and/or editors disagree about something, the way to resolve the dispute is to describe the disagreement in the article itself. So in this case, it might be wording along the lines of Central Hungary has a [W] climate, but in recent years the climate of Budapest has shifted to Köppen [X], which is described as [Y] or [Z], that everyone can agree on?
By the way, this is sort of the opposite to my take on the Turkish placename dispute: I think you're right about the guidelines being contradictory there, but I don't think that particular editor was applying them in good faith anyway, so that's why I took it to ANI. I didn't mean to ignore or dismiss your point. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for your thoughts on this. While I suppose I have a different view of their conduct -- perhaps due to the unyielding and stubborn way of argumentation, i.e. calling Köppen "fringe", accusing me of "POV-pushing" (I do not even know what POV I would be pushing in terms of climate classification), arguing with repetitive assertions rather than responses to questions -- I understand that a report to ANI would be misguided.
Re. your other suggestions, I would like to offer some clarification; not as "rebuttals" or anything like that; but rather because I think the issue is even more tricky than these solutions would allow:
For the former issue, I am willing to discuss, in a more general venue, the correct way to use Köppen. I do think that our current way (using the weatherbox) would be WP:CALC not only due to the high level of standardization that Köppen has,1 but also due to the fact that I'd say we have no choice (for data insufficiency/resolution reasons), however I am willing to listen to opposing arguments. I am not willing to accept Budapest as the singular case where this matters, though. The world is full of similar cases, where climate change or an urban heat island has changed the Köppen type of a city (Zonguldak, Lyon, New York City, and many more) and for all of them we take climate change into account and use weatherboxes, not maps. This was why I repeatedly asked these conversations to be moved to Köppen climate classification, or somewhere similar; because Budapest is far from the only example of this, yet it seems like Budapest not being called humid subtropical is all that is being cared about. I would assume that to be nearly tantamount to WP:IJDLI unless generalized to other cases.
For the latter issue, this is a constant and intractable problem of climate classification on Wikipedia. Currently, all -- and I mean all -- climate articles on this encyclopedia are based on Köppen. Humid subtropical climate speaks of Cfa in Köppen, Oceanic climate speaks of Cfb in Köppen, with very rare exceptions. I had actually challenged this status quo about 6 months ago, but the community does not seem to be for changes to this Köppen-centric way of climate classification on Wikipedia.
The problem, then, is that emic/local classifications often have little overlap with Köppen, so somewhere that would be one class by a local classification could be a completely different one by Köppen. This would cause serious problems if we were to include local classifications with no systematization.
For example:
  • Portland, Oregon is generally described as an oceanic climate in local literature, but Köppen describes it as Mediterranean, because according to Köppen, oceanic climates can not have a dry summer.
  • The oceanic climate article exclusively uses the Köppen criteria, which would exclude climates like Portland from the climate page.
  • This would cause a glaring discrepancy; the climate and the city article would conflict with each other. Portland would have an oceanic climate, a climate zone which should, by its only given definition, exclude Portland.
Obviously we can diversify both types of pages, but 'one but not the other' seems unrealistic and highly problematic. And again, we arrive at the same problem; these editors seem to argue, highly persistently and stubbornly, for this change to be made only for Budapest, and ignore (not even reject, simply ignore) my attempts to carry the conversation somewhere more reasonable (so that problems on broad/local consensus are resolved). This is why I referred to user conduct.
About the placename dispute; the reason I wrote that comment over at ANI was because Omnibenevolence claimed that I had 'a point' that you 'failed to answer', which deeply bothered me. I suppose I then sneaked my thoughts by the end; but I did not mean to say that you ignored my point, simply that you took a different approach, which is completely fine.
1 While there are changeable rules in one or two places, we can and do note them when they matter, i.e in Boston. Conversely, Budapest is Cfa no matter which variant of Köppen we use. Uness232 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Uness232, Joe, I would like clarify the thing
I did not say Köppen is fringe, morover Köppen does not use those terms. I said only that Hungary would be "subtropical" country I found that term is fringe, by good faith, as I am a local Hungarian person I never ever heard about this (JSoos also a Hungarian user), and no any Hungarians know about this. Just I am looking out my window and I see a big snow... in that allegedly "subtropical" country. I also provided many Köppen maps which does not support that claim. Morover I see Hungary and even Budapest has more Köppen color in the maps, which means even a city has more climate. For example Buda-Pest (united city) is big, Buda has mountains, Pest is flat, Buda is always more cold than Pest, they have very different climate within the same united city, that is my personal experience, and all Budapest citizens know that. The provided Hungarian wiki writes also different and provide a complex situation of the country, and we learn that our climate is continental in general according to our knowledge. I contacted with the Hungarian meteorolgy service and they cannot confirm that "subtropical" thing. Köppen does not use those terms, Uness232 also mentioned that "subtropical" term was accepted by some users in the past for wikipedia, that is why need to follow that, I rather think we need follow academic sources regarding the exact definiton of the climate of a country instead of voting and rendering terms to temparetures.
In the Koppen maps I can see many areas in Hungary even in Budapest as Dfa Dfb Cfa Cfb patches, so the climate map is not unified, so I do not understand why it needs cherry pick only one and emphasize this that the cherry picked one would be true for the whole area. Morover Koppen does not use that term for these codes https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02549-6/tables/1
I suppose in Hungary the local Hungarians know better the climate than others who are not living there, I also do not think that it deserve ANI because we the Hungarian local people does not know or does not understand that our country would be "subtropical"... I also do not understand why we need use those terms (what I found fringe) and why not enough just use the official Köppen numbers. Do you think all Hungarian users are wrong or deserve ANI just because they does not understand this?
Uness232 mentioned "status quo version", so I rolled back the page manually to discover when happened that change, and I see recently the climate was not that
Another Hungarian user reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Budapest&diff=prev&oldid=931162653
IP edit changed to that "subtropical" "status quo version":
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Budapest&diff=next&oldid=975010444 OrionNimrod (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not want the dispute to spill over here, to the talk page of an uninvolved admin. I had already made my response to Joe Roe too long and too content-related; that was my mistake. Sorry. Uness232 (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Another long term Hungarian user who is not involved has the same opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borsoka&diff=prev&oldid=1194443375 What is your plan? Thinking to report 10 million Hungarians in Hungary who do not understand why their own country would be "subtropical"? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles February 2024 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.

  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
  • Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive! By searching Archaeology incategory:"All articles lacking sources", I was able to find a lot of archeology journals and sites that are completely uncited. I think you might be interested looking into them because these are your topic of expertise and is an excuse to test out your citation skills. See you at the drive on February 1st! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh great, thanks for the tip. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298


Online events:

Announcement

  • Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event.

Tip of the month:

  • AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2024

Delivered February 2024 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.

12:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Archaeology of the Holocaust for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Kazamzam (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam: I only split this article off from archaeology. You should notify the original author, Schifty8. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2024 (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. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2024

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301


Online events:

Announcements

Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2024

Delivered March 2024 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.

12:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello Joe Roe,

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/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

48 hour block of Tewdar by Sandstein

Thanks for closing this. I agree that everything had been said and the discussion had become unproductive. Would you please record in your closing statement that one of the outcomes of this XRV was to make a corrective entry in Tewdar's block log? I hope to make this correction normal when we overturn a block.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Gladly, thanks for pointing it out. – Joe (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Good wishes @Joe Roe and safe talking. I just wanted to clarify an issue with your decline of my request for Autopatrolled. Not being blameful but just a pure inquiry. Your statement mentioned "prelude" and it got me, "So, it's impossible.for me to be Autopatrolled because of one of my article being deleted via AFD. I consider you may see other articles; I don't believe one could hold me from Autopatrolled. Just a real time enquiry (ping if any case: I want to learn more also) All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pages created by autopatrolled users don't receive the scrutiny that normal pages do so there's a very high bar when admins are evaluating such requests. It's incredibly reasonable for an admin to decline granting autopatrolled because the user in question has had article(s) deleted. I will note that autopatrolled isn't like other permissions in that it doesn't really have any bearing on what you can do (apart from quicker search engine indexing). Its main purpose is to reduce the backlog of pages that need to be reviewed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, it's a high bar. We're basically looking for 100% of recent articles not being deleted and close to 100% being free of anything covered by a maintenance tag. The AfD doesn't mean you'll never be eligible for autopatrolled, just not for a while; six months to a year, though there's no hard rule. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC). 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.
——Serial Number 54129 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Ignore that-I misread the timestamps and thought over an hour had passed! All the best, ——Serial Number 54129 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing the Thinker78 ANI

Hi, Joe. Thanks for closing the Thinker78 ANI. I've been watching it, worrying a little that someone might close it before the 24 hours were up, but of course you didn't do that. I was wondering, though: in your close, you mention the possibility of waiting 72 hours. I didn't know that was even a thing; I thought the principle was to wait 24 hours before enforcing a CBAN, both to accommodate all the timezones and out of respect for the individual being banned. Is the idea of waiting 72 hours mentioned anywhere? If so, surely it's more honoured in the breach than the observance?

By the way, also, I believe you're supposed to log the ban. This would be the place. Bishonen | tålk 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Per this RFC from 2020. ——Serial Number 54129 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Minimum times mentioned at WP:CBAN, which also seems to suggest that full site bans don't require logging. It wouldn't hurt. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Fortuna. Like Hamlet, I still don't think it's usually what actually happens, though. And I'm looking at the RFC, noting the arguments, and the users urging them... hmmm. Yeah, that's what I think: hmmm. Firefangledfeathers, I do see it's suggested site bans don't require logging. How strange. I would definitely log this one, if it was me. It's not like it's a horrible scarlet letter on the user; the editing restrictions page is pretty obscure. Something for the cognoscenti only. Bishonen | tålk 14:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC).
They were the days! :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
O Fortuna, velut luna! Statu variabilis! Bishonen | tålk 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC).
The pocketings were frequent too  :) Muffled Pocketed 11:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I noticed the early close and was going to point back to that policy too, since I've been whacked with a wet trout about it before, but I think this is a good use of WP:IAR. There was obviously only going to be more hard words for the editor that they probably wouldn't hear anyway. As for logging: I wouldn't bother personally, EDR ought to be for editors with restrictions from certain things, not for editors who can't edit at all. It would be a very long page otherwise, and we have Category:Banned Wikipedia users. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't even think it's IAR because WP:CBAN says "must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours" and this seems to fall squarely into that exception. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the editor is much better off banned, given what they've said about their issues and the behavior they've shown which was a bit disturbing. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
As Levivich says, I was following the instructions from WP:CBAN: for site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. Feel free to log it somewhere; I don't really see the point. – Joe (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2024 (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. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk)

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2024

Delivered April 2024 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.

12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Flowcharts

If you just want one-word responses feel free to delete my comment. Ingratis (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No that's exactly what I had in mind, thanks. – Joe (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, 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.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Following requests to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser access of Joe Roe is restored and the Oversight access of GeneralNotability is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks GeneralNotability for his service as a member of the Arbitration Committee and Oversight team.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blmmta

Hello, Joe,

Just thought I'd drop a note to you to remind you that category redirects are not created like article redirects. Please check out the code/template on this page so if you want to create more in the future, you won't have to go looking for the information. That's it! Have a great weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason I thought that worked for categories too. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record

I just want to say that my wording was not great over at the conflict of interest discussion. In no way do I think you are unfit to be an admin or acting in bad faith. With all due respect, I do think there was a bit of bad judgment there, and I should have phrased it that way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for taking the time to clarify. As Floq has just wisely observed, messages sent through AN/I seem to come out in the worst possible way, no matter how carefully you try to word them. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

NPP Requests for Permission

Hi Joe, I just wanted to thank you for having a look at my recent application for NPP. I know it takes a lot of time to review this, so thanks!! Apologies also for not replying earlier, things suddenly got busier in real life than I had expected; sorry! Jtrrs0 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Framming"

I'm not sure how Fram felt about it given that they chose to reply to TheAnonme rather than you, but I felt "framming" to be a disrespectful verb. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I expect Fram knows how I have developed my understanding of their unique role in the project. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Didn't want to derail the ANI

(See above. It's far too serious!) but your reminder was a blast from the past. Did you ever see that episode of Brass Eye where Gerry Adams's deputy, being interviewed, has to "inhale helium gas so as to detract from his credibility"? Fantastic stuff. ——Serial Number 54129 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I rewatch Brass Eye through at least once a year :) – Joe (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2024

Delivered May 2024 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.

22:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"Rule of thumb"

Hello, in relation to this revert, and the use of the phrase "rule of thumb", many academic institutions consider it best not to use the phrase due to its history. I am easy either way with whatever you wish to do, I just thought I would let you know the rationale behind my edit. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes thank you, David Eppstein also explained it to me. I'd not heard it before. – Joe (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sock

I was looking for admin/check user to review and block this accounts. 1. User:MaartenEdieg who joined in less than a day, created a talk page reading WenguiGuo#WashingtonFarm The Kwok scam only pits the ants Guo Wengui touted things to the sky all day long, from farms to Xi Yuan, he declared, "Xi Yuan's encryption capabilities and future payments, as well as the future exchange with the US dollar, will create history, is the only stablecoin, floating, modern crypto financial platform." The ant help to fool the head, but after dozens of broken promises.... These are the diffs [1] and was blanked here. 2. User:LigonJudd who joined almost the same time did the same here, and after a welcome message blanked the talk page as usual. To show they aren't here to build an Encyclopedia, they recreated it on same TP here until they got a warning by Viewmont Viking here. After the warning, they blanked it again. This same user created a sandbox here of same content. 3. There comes User:ColbyIjazvHtE who joined at same time with the rest and created this sandbox with the same content. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I am taking this to another admin. I do think you are going to attend to it soon. Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024

Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Typo

Typo, should be nous. starship.paint (RUN) 14:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

See wikt:nouse#Etymology 2, also the OED. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh? I did not know that. Thanks for educating me. Though, OED says it was used from 1779–1859. You've been around a while, it seems! starship.paint (RUN) 14:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2024

Delivered June 2024 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.

18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

NPR activity requirement

Hey Joe, I saw your comment here which said "That's strange. NPR isn't usually subject to an activity requirement." Per WP:NPRREVOKE, if an editor has been inactive for 12 months or longer, the right may be revoked. Just wanted to point that out instead of responding to the comment directly at WP:PERM/NPR =) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Ingenuity said the same at PERM. I don't know how I managed to miss that over all these years! Maybe the heat is getting to me. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC). 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.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

History of rice cultivation

Hi Joe, noted your edit at Domestication. I've tweaked Rice and History of rice cultivation with the same source, but I fancy that the History article is using a lot of old sources, all added at the same time a decade ago, and probably in need of a bit more updating. If you fancy taking a look, it'd be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Sure, I'll try to take a look. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Robocritic

Hello. You granted new page reviewer status to Robocritic and immediately he has blanked 2 of my pages and redirected them without going through the nomination process. 1 is this allowed? 2 can I appeal? 3 this guy is clearly unsuitable to be a reviewer so can I appeal against him getting this status? Shrug02 (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shrug02. Yes, it's a common practice called blank-and-redirecting. There is no need to appeal to anyone; if you disagree, just revert it. If RoboCric (courtesy ping) disagrees with this, they can then start a discussion. I realise that the sudden disappearance of your article can feel drastic, but the logic is that because blank-and-redirecting is easily reverted, it can be handled using the normal bold-revert-discuss cycle. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Shrug02 (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
How can I access the pages to turn off the redirect as when I click on them they just go to the redirected page? Shrug02 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
There should be a link at the top of the page which allows you to get back to the redirect. For example, if you click on WP:REDIRECT, there's a note just under the title that says:
(Redirected from Wikipedia:REDIRECT)
Clicking that link and then clicking history will allow you to revert RoboCric's edit. – Joe (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Shrug02 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I hope you are doing well. I have a small question in mind. If I revert someone’s edit that is under “Pending Changes,” should I notify the user or just leave it without notifying? I am asking because I have noticed that most people do not post warnings.

Also, I am deeply sorry to you, Josh and others for the previous mess I created at the PERM and on my Talk page. I promise never to do anything like that again. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 03:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Grabup. As long as you leave an explanatory edit summary, a notification isn't needed. They should get an echo alert automatically. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, now it is clear to me. GrabUp - Talk 08:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, I have other questions on my mind. Since I am blocked because of what happened, and you said I can apply for permissions after the ban ends, will I be declined any requests in the future citing this block? For example, WP:NPPCRITERIA’s fourth rule. I am not only referring to NPP but also other permissions such as WP:PMCRITERIA’s fourth rule. Will I be declined because of this block?
Also, you blocked me from all PERMS, which is okay, but I am currently on trial for Rollbackers and using the Antivandal tool to counter vandalism. How can I apply for it after the right expires? GrabUp - Talk 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll lift the block on WP:PERM/R. Whether it is relevant to any future requests is up to whichever admin processes that request. I would say that the purpose of this block, beyond stopping the immediate disruption on the PERM pages, was to encourage you to focus on things other than collecting rights – applying for them again shortly after (i.e. less than six months) your block expires does not exactly show that. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I will keep that in mind. I would also like to confirm that I was not just collecting rights. If that were the case, I would not have used any of the rights I have, such as AfC, Pending Changes, and Rollbackers. I wanted that right because I wanted to patrol. Anyway, I will focus on other areas as suggested. Happy editing. GrabUp - Talk 09:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Mass IPBE request

Dear User:Joe Roe,


We kindly write to request for IPBE for our university students ahead of an adit a thon which will be hosted on the 5th and 12th July. All the users are new and this unblock will be helpful as we will mostly be working on English Wikipedia. Find link to the event page- https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event:WikiForHumanRights2024-Ghana_W4SAFRICA. Your support is greatly needed and appreciated. Kindly see the list of user names on the event dashboard or find here;

Abdallahaminu515

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [2]
Abutiate Josephine

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [3]
Adorble Courage

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [4]
Afesi Obed

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [5]
Amos Konfa Ibu

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [6]
Atawojei Emmanuel

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [7]
Bamanteeh

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [8]
BernardOpoku123

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [9]
BigB711$

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [10]
Charlene Gad

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [11]
Charlotte Duah

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [12]
Diana Ofori

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [13]
Fowaah Shilonne…

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [14]
Gaala Cletus

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [15]
GEKAFLASH

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [16]
Gerrie heijmwn

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [17]
Godwin Adeti

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [18]
Great Abban

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [19]
GYAMFI JOSEPH

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [20]
Henrietta Sitso…

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [21]
Jacob Agbovoe A…

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [22]
Jude Denkyi

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [23]
Kekelieee

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [24]
Lexis bills

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [25]
Linda Cobbinah

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [26]
Mariam Achiaa A…

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [27]
Michael Kwesi

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [28]
Miss Akuabea

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [29]
Miss Kudjoe

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [30]
MS. ARHIN

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [31]
Nana Afia Serwaa

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [32]
Nancy Awelana A…

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [33]
Phoebe Grant

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [34]
Portia Addison

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [35]
Prince Gyaidoo

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [36]
SenanuAmatey

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [37]
Serwaa Ruth

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [38]
Tahiru Mahey

sandboxes edits

0 0 | 0 | 0 0 [39]
Tevor Martin

sandboxes edits


Best,

Ruby D-Brown (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ruby D-Brown. That sounds like a great event. Can I ask why you're requesting this from me specifically? Are these users caught in an IP block I placed? – Joe (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Joe, there is not specific reason, I used this tool to find you https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins. I'm not sure if i contact the right person but i was hopeful i can get someone to support me or direct me. I am requesting Ip Unblock for these new users because they are new. From our previous campaign edit, our new editors could not edit English Wikipedia as they were all blocked which really impacted the event. That was not the only case; it always happens when new users who are enthusiastic get blocked and cut short on their expectations. We will like to mitigate this experience ahead of time. We believe that getting them unblocked ahead of time can facilitate a smooth experience. Also, they are being guided by experienced editors to ensure that the content put on Wikipedia is guided. Ruby D-Brown (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see, no problem. I've never actually granted IPBE before, though, so I'm afraid I'm not the best person to help you directly. You could try Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much will check it out. Ruby D-Brown (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024

Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • A foreign language biography does not guarantee notability for English Wikipedia.
    Check the guidelines before you start.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2024

Delivered July 2024 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.

19:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:DR and spirit of WP:AGF at Talk:Jinn

Hi there. I saw you offer to help Doug Weller last week when he was busy and was wondering if I could interest you in checking this. I'm part of part of couple-of-months-long going dispute and preparation for RfC at Jinn, (starting around here). At the suggestion of Bookku (here), I was wondering if you could take a look at this post by VenusFeuerFalle and see if you find it in breach of WP:DR spirit of WP:AGF as Bookku (our informal dispute facilitator) and myself do. Example:

I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

Many thanks if you can. --15:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Hot model for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hot model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Qwirkle (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Amendment request: Durova: Motion proposed

Hello Joe Roe,

In the amendment request about the Durova case, a motion has been proposed to modify principle 2 by removing copyright-related wording from it.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

AMH and Oz roads

If, you want a discussion about the issues - great! Otherwise I remain silent in response. JarrahTree 01:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: If you as a participant think these projects are still active then great, I'm not going to argue. The purpose of classifying WikiProjects in this way isn't to brand them as failures or anything, it's to draw attention to ones that might need help to thrive again. A WikiProject is fundamentally a group of editors working collaboratively, so if you have a few editors working on a topic but not talking to eachother, that's probably a sign that the project is not active even if the individual editors are. That's why I look primarily at talk page activity. – Joe (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

ː Thanks for your comments, I had started an overdetailed response in my head about the context of collaborative ventures in the domain of oz in general (sorry I am very disrespectful of my home country Australia as OZ) and there is a very weird mix of things that would not passs the project council ‘pub test’ and the participants in general did not give a rats about process or procedure - it never seemed worth giving them the third degree about the accepted council things of the old days, as they were in effect fly by night, not around for the duration - just in it for their bit and thats it. Thanks for your positive comments in your reply, I am of the opinion that in the oz domain there is need for discussion about the variegated ambience of the assorted collaborations as a collection of what happens when there are things as loose as they seem. Maybe a conference paper later in the year. JarrahTree 05:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is an unusual number of Australian-flavoured topical projects. WikiProject Australian history, WikiProject Education in Australia, WikiProject Australian politics, WikiProject Australian law, WikiProject Australian crime, WikiProject Australian Transport, WikiProject Australian Roads, WikiProject Australian maritime history, WikiProject Australian television, WikiProject Demographics of Australia – no other country comes close to that. Do you think there's a benefit to editors in doing it this way, as opposed to a model where, say, someone interested in Australian history would join WikiProject Australia and WikiProject History? – Joe (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
My answer could be quite elaborate as to this, and will take a time to compose - please understand that I wish to answer, but it might be not today... JarrahTree 09:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
No rush! I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts as a longtime participant in these projects. There is also some broader discussion of merging small/inactive WikiProjects at WT:COUNCIL, if you're interested. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear, the issue is much large, over the last 18 years, merges/muckups/messes have been made (and in the face of the general trend is also less admins, in a lot of cases a lot less editors), and so in effect the argument that you give for merges runs along merrily because very few editors 'person the barricades' for anything anymore... even xfD queues seem lighter in numbers involved these days.
I would have tackled your urge for merging in an opposite manner, I would look at the larger and in the past more generic projects like history, ships, trains - and asked (just like the WMF is trying with its operations) is there a way we can devolve? I have never seen from my experience anyone get enthusiastic about larger generic projects, it is the local identifiable items I think would see involvement.
I see nothing in rationalising projects as a benefit to anything in the general process of wikipedia operations, but a separate much longer missive/position paper is unlikely due to real life in the short term.
The proposals could be more user friendly if inactivity/organisation was not seen as something as a reason to exterminate. Imho - the reduced people on the ground and the impending threat of AI induced issues, the more small corners of obscure projects with quirks and oddities the better, regardless of the rationalising impulse. To explain further is probably not much use at this point. JarrahTree 03:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with you if there was anyone in those small corners. But the sad reality is that the original wikiproject concept isn't declining, it's already gone. For example, I've just finished reviewing the activity of history and society-related wikiprojects and of 232 total, 170 are completely the dead and almost all the rest are on life support. So my motivation here is less to rationalise and more to consolidate our efforts around the survivors. I'm thinking of a new editor who, like I did when I first started, looks for a wikiproject in their area of interest as a way to get more involved with the project. Right now there's a 73% chance that if they click a random talk page banner they'll find a lifeless page kept for historical reasons. I want to make sure that they will always find some other editors interested in what they're interested in, even if it is at quite a high level of generality.
I agree that highly-focused projects can work really well. The transport area has some great example of that. But the other end of the spectrum is also proven to work: big projects like WP:MILHIST, WP:MED, WP:WOMRED have kept up momentum by attracting people to a large topic area then using task forces or events to focus them on specific areas. So the idea is 100% to protect what works. I.e. to up-merge inactive projects until the right level of generality, but leave specialist projects that are functional and active well alone.
However in order to do that we need to be honest with ourselves about what is and isn't active. I looked at WP:AMH and saw that the last time anyone replied to a thread on the talk page was 2011, that one new participant has signed up in the last five years, and that there hasn't been any new FAs or GAs since 2020 (in fact the number of GAs has shrunk). I'm not going to try to impose my outside view, but are we really helping anyone by keeping it going? – Joe (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
we have a very different understanding of how projects can be understood, so as has happened so many times in the last 18 years, it looks like you will single handedly change parts of wikipedia. I fundamentally have a very different attitude, and not sure it is worth having further discussion at this point, have fun. JarrahTree 11:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1233108395 - it is well worth checking - to have the wikidata link which is a brilliant parallel to short descriptions: -
Latest comment: 27 minutes ago by PFHLai in topic Errors in the summary of the featured picture
Wikidata: Wikimedia main page (Q5296), Wikimedia project page
Aliases: Home Page, Main Page, Front Page, Start Page, Top Page, HomePage, Project:Main Page
Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting

from memory it is in preferences that you can set it up - well worth the view... JarrahTree 11:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Indian law

Thanks for your work on merging inactive WikiProjects. There are still quite a lot of pages with {{WikiProject Law}} and {{WikiProject Indian Law}}. (See Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates.) Are you planning to sort these out? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, I didn't think of other namespaces. I can do that. For the record, it wasn't me that merged these two projects. That happened some time ago – I just cleaned up after noticing that it had been left incomplete. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks like someone beat me to it. – Joe (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I thought it was you! Probably User:Tom.Reding then — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Tom! – Joe (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states InActivity

Hi @Joe Roe: Kindly check Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states#Child WikiProjects. Here you will notice individual Indian state WikiProjects. There has been no significant talk-page activity on these individual projects for years. It seems most of them have been inactive for years, but they remain in active mode. So, I urge you to kindly go through these individual WikiProject Indian states and mark them as inactive or keep them active based on their activity. Also check Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian districts & Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia these two seem dull projects. Thanks 2409:40E0:29:C5E0:30EE:3819:6A70:68A1 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that looks a very oversaturated topic area. I'll put it on my to-do list to take a look, but currently I'm just focusing on the history and society category, which I know best. You are very welcome to review and update their activity status yourself, if you want. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright @Joe Roe: I will try to mark them inactive based on their talk page activity. However, if someone tries to revert or challenge, then I will involve you and have a discussion on your talk page to sort things out. As I'm neither an expert nor an admin, other editors might get a bit upset. Nonetheless, I will try my best to clean up. Thanks--2409:40E0:48:FE8B:B9DC:159:AAEC:D6FE (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's History

Hi Joe! I saw you marked WikiProject Women's History page as inactive. There seems to be quite a bit of recent activity on the talk page and its archives, and this tag is used to mark women's biography pages if the subject was born 1900-1950 so it's definitely in use. I was going to remove the tag but I wanted to better understand your reason for adding it. Nnev66 (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nnev66. I primarily looked at the talk page activity, where I noted that whilst there are a lot of automated and semi-automated notifications, the last time there was a conversation involving more than one person was last March and before that January 2022. I also saw that the project used to organise events, but hasn't done so since 2018. I wouldn't take banner tagging as an indicator of activity because it is mostly happens automatically, being performed by article creators or patrollers that aren't necessarily involved in the wikiproject itself. The banners exist to categorise articles for the purposes of coordinating collaborative editing, so if the tagging is happening without the collaboration, they're not really fulfilling their purpose.
Being somewhat active in this area myself, my impression is that collaborative editing on women's history and biography is in practice coordinated by larger projects like WP:WOMRED, WP:WIG, and WP:WOMEN. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I see a lot of people posting questions and asks in addition to the automated notifications. I'm not sure why there are no responses on the talk page. It's my understanding that WikiProject Women's History as a tag on an article Subject's talk page is important to notify folks that the subject was born between 1900-1950 per WikiProject Women's History - Criteria for Including Biographies. Women from this period often don't have the kind of in-depth coverage that women born later who have articles written about them.
My concern about having the inactive tag on the page is that people might think this topic is inactive when I think people are engaging but not necessarily "talking". As someone who has only been very active for about six months, if I'd seen an "inactive" tag I might have left the page before investigating further. Nnev66 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
But is there a benefit to people investigating further? The point of a wikiprojects is to build a group of editors interested in a topic so that they can work on it together. If people are asking questions on the talk page and getting no answer, for years, then it's a strong sign that there is no real collaborative activity there any more – even if a lot of individual people might be working on articles in its scope alone or in an ad hoc collaborative way. The latter is perfectly fine and the way most editing happens, but it doesn't need or support a wikiproject.
The purpose of marking wikiprojects inactive is not to brand them as a failure or anything, it's to a) communicate to people coming across them that asking questions or otherwise might not be productive, so they can try to find another, active project; and b) enable the community to look at the set of wikiprojects covering a particular area, see what's working and what isn't, and highlight opportunities to improve activity by merging closely-related projects that are struggling.
P.S. The thing about 1900–1950 biographies looks to be an old proposal that never gained consensus? As far as I know being born between 1900 and 1950 has no significance in accepted community policy. – Joe (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your responses as I'm now better understanding the intent of Wikiprojects and how community forms and is maintained in Wikipedia environs. Regarding the Women's History Project, personally I've found the "born 1900-1950" distinction helpful because it's much harder to find significant in-depth coverage for women who seemed to do notable things from the breadcrumbs in articles and books that I find. Thanks again for your time. Nnev66 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2026

Please stop not attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Do not comment on content; instead, comment on contributors. Try to focus on subjects like their age, weight, gender, and religion: the more profanity you use, the more it contributes to the discussion. Remember: incivility is not optional, it is one of the 0.20 Pillars. Please try to follow WP:YPA. jp×g🗯️ 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

en-paid email

Hi Joe, in your pre-proposal at WT:CSD you state the en-paid email is being actively monitored but that's not been my experience. Even when I note in SPIs I have sent an email it has taken weeks to over a month to get a response and only after someone with access to the queue contacts me directly via Wikipedia email to ask for additional details so they can find it. Well actually they want the ticket# but someone has to provide the ticket#. Given that, I assume it's backlogged? Can you shed any light? At the end of day, I would much rather send information to en-paid rather than an admin/functionary directly so it accessible to others but currently it's a hassle/inefficient. S0091 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@S0091: It's monitored—I try to do five or so a week and I'm not the only one—but like many on-wiki processes there aren't enough people to keep on top of it. Unlike most on-wiki processes, it's hard to get more people to help because the prerequisites are very high (until recently only CheckUsers, now CheckUsers and admins with permission from ArbCom). I hope the recent changes ArbCom made will help, but it will take time. I would say that, while I understand that waiting weeks for a response is annoying, reports send there don't tend to be time-sensitive. If anything, waiting a couple of weeks can be helpful because it either gives good faith paid editors the chance to disclose, or gives the bad faith ones enough rope to hang themselves. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not as much the wait because you are correct sometimes things can shake out within a couple weeks or so. It's more that they can't find it so they have to email me which then makes me wonder about non-editors who are reporting a scam. I wish it could send an auto-confirmation with the ticket# so folks would know their email was received and have the ticket# to reference. Anyway, thanks for the reply and helping monitor the queue. Like you, I hope Arbcom's changes help. I know UPE is not the most fun part of Wikipedia to say the least. They can really wear editors down to be honest. S0091 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
That's weird. You can also just search by subject, sender, etc. It would make sense if senders got the ticket number, though. Another significant difficulty with the queue is that the VRT software is very unintuitive and poorly suited to archiving and indexing information. I'm not sure if it's even maintained. – Joe (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Joe- I'm glad you initiated this. Kudos to you! On a related note, do you believe this article was also created in violation of the WMF TOU? --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Genocide close

hi Joe, thanks for closing. You say, "The main argument in favour of options 2 and 3 were that the unqualified use of the word 'genocide' in an article title...would violate...NPOV..." That seems to be a simple mistake as I'm sure you mean options 1 and 2, as option 3, Gaza genocide, is the one with unqualified use? Tom B (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I'll correct that. – Joe (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Joe, Regarding closure of the title move, I am asking how You evaluated WP:CON and WP:NOTNP. Shouldn't we have waited, keeping the old more neutral title ? --Robertiki (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Robertiki: Explaining how I evaluated WP:CON is the purpose of my closing statement. Did you have a specific question about it? I don't recall WP:NOTNP being a significant point of discussion. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank for your answer. And you are right: WP:NOTNP was not a significant point of discussion (I did not see the discussion until it was to late). But it should. --Robertiki (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

On the same topic, there was a clear majority against option 3. As you noted yourself "Few editors in favour of option 1 were strongly opposed to option 2 and vice-versa;... A fair number of comments in favour of options 1 and 2". Option 3 was clearly a minority one. As to the title being a neutral descriptor, this argument was countered by the analysis of sources which did not use this term (see @Cdjp1: and @FortunateSons:'s analyses). I believe that the move should be reconsidered. Alaexis¿question? 21:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Alaexis. I'm afraid that's not the case. Since participants weren't limited to supporting just one option, and some did for example support 2+3, it's not possible to calculate a simple majority. However, if you look at it just as a vote for or against option 3, then my count is 31–27 in favour of option 3. In other words, option 3 was supported by more participants than any other option. Of course that was just a starting point for an assessment of consensus based on the relative strength of arguments, as I explained in my closing statement. – Joe (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I misunderstood your closing statement ("23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3") thinking that these are all distinct votes and summing up 23 and 26, apologies for the confusion.
However I'm still not convinced the move was justified. The majority is really slim and so hardly represents a consensus. Also, there were several "non-policy based" !votes for Option 3 as well ("I have nothing more to add than what has been said", "This is in line with [another article]") so I don't agree that "A fair number of comments in favour of options 1 and 2, but generally not option 3, were not policy-based".
Finally, you disregarded the arguments based on sources which disputed the existence of the genocide or explicitly used terms like "questions" and "accusations". Alaexis¿question? 07:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't call either of those examples non-policy based. The first is just saying that you agree with the (policy-based) arguments of others, which is fine and not something to discount – there's no reason to type out an argument if it doesn't add anything new to the discussion. The second is an argument for consistency, which is one of the characteristics we should look for according to the article title policy. So while there are of course always exceptions, I stand by my assessment that the vast majority of arguments in favour of option 3 were policy-based, whilst a significant minority of arguments against it were not.
I did not disregard source-based arguments on either side and I'm not sure how you've drawn that conclusion. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Durova

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Principle 2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, Private correspondence, is changed from
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
to
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Durova

Just for information and record

@Joe Roe

A User:Louis P. Boog had approached this talk page to seek help probably out of confusion - probably you were busy or not interested there was no response from your side. Since I found that communication was being misconstrued and misrepresented more than once I added a statement for information and record at User talk:Doug Weller. No specific action is requested / expected as of today. Bookku (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting another extension to my IP block exemption

Hello Joe,

I wanted to ask if you could help me with extending my IP block exemption before it expires 3 weeks from now. I am a social scientist whose research in parts of Africa is of a sensitive nature, so I need to use a VPN at all times for privacy and research confidentiality concerns.

In years' past, I have emailed the Checkuser email, but last year I never received a response. I reached out to another admin who granted it, but that admin is no longer active on Wikipedia. I have since learned that it's ok to request an exemption via a CU's talk page and then found your account on the list of active CUs. Since we have edited similar articles over the past few years I hope to you I have demonstrated my ability to contribute to the project and thus can continue to receive the IPBE flag.

Thanks for your time.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: I'm sorry but although I am CU I've never been involved with IPBE and don't feel comfortable assigning it. I'd suggest simply emailing the CU list again; perhaps your first email just got misplaced. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I suspected you might not be because my experience last year also included asking an admin who it turned out didn't have experience with IPBE and also didn't feel comfortable processing my request. This is one of those things on the project that, for understandable reasons, has a rather opaque machination, so requesters largely have to make a shot in the dark and hope for the best. So I took one here. Happy editing! --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WP Project Activity

Hi @Joe Roe: I would like to draw your attention to five WP projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoga, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology. I made a few of them inactive by checking their talk page activity last 1 year. But other editor suddenly reverted my edits without giving a proper explanation. I am quite sure that in the last year or more, there has been barely any talk page discussion regarding these projects. I urge you to kindly check these WP projects and mark them inactive based on their talk page activity. Thanks 2409:40E0:1027:429:CD88:AE2F:48C5:F0A9 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted one, but it looks like Chiswick Chap and StephenMacky1 did explain why they reverted you on Yoga and Religion respectively, so you should engage in discussion there. – Joe (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmm! Ok I will engange with them on this isssue. Thanks--2409:40E0:1030:8675:947F:543B:13DF:2C17 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, and hope you will offer education

It seems to me to have been a valid draftification. It was moved to mainspace earlier today and draftified very shortly thereafter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

See point 6 of WP:DRAFTNO as well as WP:MOVEWAR and WP:NPPCON. You think it should be in draftspace, another editor things it should be in mainspace: surely it should be obvious that discussion is the next step? – Joe (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe I missed a prior draftification.
Of course, any editor assets it belongs in mainspace by dint of putting it there. That rather runs a coach and horses through the concept of draftification, doesn't it?
So I am struggling. I do not see this as an AfD candidate, which is why I moved it to Draft. It does need the citekill to be pruned, and many of the references are not at all of use in verifying notability. What do you suggest now? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
So point 6 is Another editor has asserted that the page belongs in mainspace, e.g. it has previously been moved there. It's not just about prior draftifications, but respecting a clear assertion from another editor that they don't want it in draftspace, whatever form that takes. If someone creates something directly in mainspace, there's at least the theoretical possibility that they did so because they didn't know draftspace was an option; that's not present if it's already been moved between namespaces.
If it's not an AfD candidate, then what else is there to talk about? WP:AFCPURPOSE: Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I will reflect on what you have said. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
While reflecting, I looked at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draftify diagram, which contains File:Notready.svg which I assume you agree with since you initiated the topic there.
This appears not to be congruent with what you have said.
I see this draft, then article, then draft, now article again as falling into the left hand segment of the right hand oval, being both the leftmost part of B: NoDelReason, and all of B: DraftReason at the point I Draftified it
I'd appreciate your further thoughts, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
No I don't completely agree with that diagram, and as you can see in that section several others objected to various parts of it. Obviously, when a written guideline conflicts with a diagram that's trying to explain that guideline, you defer to the written guideline. WP:DRAFTNO is a relatively recent formulation but if you scroll down to Wikipedia:Drafts#During_new_page_review you'll see the same point made there too (3b), and it's been there for seven years.
But for me it's not about this or that rule, it's the underlying principles of WP:CON and WP:EW. If editor A wants to do X and the other editor B wants to do Y, we stop and discuss it. We don't say no it has to be Y because editor A is a lowly newbie and editor B is a vaunted AfC reviewer. Anywhere. If you already know, before moving an article, that somebody else objects to that move, then why would you do it? – Joe (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
If you already know, before moving an article, that somebody else objects to that move, then why would you do it? brings us to the logical absurdity:
  1. It is in mainspace either because it was created there or moved there. I see that as "Someone else objects to that move" in this discussion.
  2. It is not ready for mainspace
  3. It is not a deletion candidate
  4. Draftification has been agreed by consensus as method of pushing it back to the editor for improvements
  5. If one draftifies it then that is against Another editor has asserted that the page belongs in mainspace... which is point one in this virtuous circle
At some point an attempt to break out of this circle will lead to one of several outcomes:
  • The creating (or moving) editor ["the editor] improves it such that it can be moved back happily to main space (with or without AFC)
  • The editor does nothing at all
  • The editor moves it back to main space unimproved
  • Another editor performs one the these actions
  • Some other outcome
Draftification is a tool I find difficult, simply because of the foregoing. That doesn't mean I will not use it. Are you saying that we ought not to use it (I am now generalising from "me" to "us"), or do you see circumstances where it can be used? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The problematic step of your circle is draftification has been agreed by consensus as method of pushing it back to the editor for improvements. It hasn't. People just started doing it, and other people who could see the inherent contradictions it creates weren't successful in stopping them. So the practice continued, and eventually the community agreed upon some limits to take the edge of the absurdity – one of them being that unilateral draftification is only acceptable once, for articles newly created in mainspace. But no one has ever, to my knowledge, being able to explain why on a wiki, we need a special holding cell in order to facilitate improvement.
Me personally, I don't draftify articles and recommend that others don't either (with very few exceptions). – Joe (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
As long as you and I do not come to metaphorical blows over it, and I think we will not, I see no real problem with divergent views.
This discussion has been collegial although we seem to differ in our views by a fairly wide gulf. Obviously you and I can spot the logical disconnect, and I am better educated that it is an implied rather than explicit consensus
All I can think is that we might re-hash this conversation in a venue which might make a decision. I am not averse to, for example, your locating that venue and copying this discussion thread there, if you feel it would help build a true consensus, for or against. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The logical place would be WP:DRAFT but honestly, I gave up on resolving the absurdities of draftspace a long time ago. I've settled for trying to enforce the rules we do have (bring us back to the start of this conversation) and trying to convince as many people as possible not to bother with it. – Joe (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Then when we coincide we will coincide well. You have not dissuaded me from using it. You have, however, succeeded in making me think hard about its use. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Das osmnezz, AP

Hi Joe. I noticed you granted the AP flag to this user, as I've watchlisted their talk after twice warning them about conduct at AfD. IMHO they are not a good candidate for this flag. They may be prolific, but their creations are extremely short pages supported by the bare minimum number of refs; and a considerable number have been flagged for notability concerns in the past. I think this is precisely the sort of profile where additional review is helpful. I've also seen numerous requests for AP from editors with higher average article quality be declined, so I'm also concerned we're lowering the standard for a prolific writer. Might I ask you to elaborate, or reconsider? Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC) PS: thank you for closing the genocide RM.

I know. I must have reviewed hundreds of his articles by now. I patrol a list of the most prolific unautopatrolled editors and his name has been at the top for years. Every few months I'll review his creations, see these issues, sigh and give up. But the thing is, NPP isn't helping. He creates hundreds of articles a month and an insignificant proportion of them are deleted (4 out of the last 1000). They sit in the NPP queue for months but eventually all of his articles get reviewed. Sometimes a reviewer will add a few {{citation needed}}s or a notability tag. Rarely they'll send one to draft, but it doesn't stick. What I take from this is that, on average, reviewers consider Das osmnezz' creations sub-optimal but acceptable. At this point, the community needs to either do something about them en masse, or leave them to it. Sending them one-by-one through NPP is just a timesink. – Joe (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I suppose the conclusion here is that the problem runs deeper: it's certainly not news to me that NPP needs more person-hours. Under the circumstances I suppose the AP grant is defensible, though I don't have to like it. I think the majority of his creations probably meet WP:N under our current definitions, but I suspect that if all of them received the scrutiny they should, the deletion rate would be higher than 3.6% (which appears to be the average over his career). We may have another Lugnuts situation on our hands. Thanks for the explanation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Issues with academic disciplines

Going by your the edits and comments in the past few days and also in the previous two weeks, I'm sincerely worried that you are letting some very negative personal opinions about world/global history getting the better of you.

I'm asking you here on your talkpage because I want to try to understand your view here rather than figuring it out in article talk.

My impression of the opinions you've voiced and the sources you've linked is that they're really not relevant to each other. The sources you've referred all seem to be quite normal internal discussions among academic historians about the strengths and weaknesses of various perspectives regarding world/global history. This seems like very normal discussion among academics within the humanities. World history is by far the only field that has internal disagreement and multiple different perspectives around which there is no unified consensus.

Do you have proof that there's a substantial part of academic historians who reject world/global history as irrelevant or even biased to the point of being unworthy of academic pursuit? Because that's how I understand your criticism of the topic. Peter Isotalo 11:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, you've severely misunderstood then. What I've said is that world history is a niche approach mainly concentrated in the United States,[40][41] and therefore that it is not appropriate for it to be the sole or primary viewpoint represented in broad concept articles like human history, as you have suggested numerous times. In support of this claim I've referred you to a source written by an American world historian (pg. XV) and cited in world history (field):

What the reader doubtless may also know about the field of world history is that it is very American. In fact, at this point, writing and reading about world history appear to be virtually American pastimes. Few of the books being produced are of interest in Third World countries or even in Europe.

I cannot understand how you have deduced from this that I have a "very negative personal opinion", an "axe to grind" or am engaged in tendentious editing.[42] I note you have simultaneously made similar accusations of AirshipJungleman29[43] and Phlsph7.[44] Your approach appears to be making extremely broad and scathing critiques of history overview articles and, when other editors point to the reliable sources that support these articles, snobbily accuse them of not understanding academic studies without bothering to provide any sources of your own.[45][46] I do not think this is conducive to reaching consensus on the issues that you (and so far apparently only you) see in our broad overview history articles. Once again I'd strongly recommend either editing the articles yourself (not tagging them), or proposing specific improvements, as a more productive approach.
It's of course completely irrelevant, but personally I like the world history approach a lot and much of my own work applies a similar approach in prehistory (we call it comparative or macro-archaeology). – Joe (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Your underlying claim is that the entire discipline of world history is flawed and therefore can't be use as the basis for an article like human history. That's an absolutely massive claim.
Do you have any sources that support the wholesale rejection of an entire discipline of history because it's too biased (for whatever reason)? Peter Isotalo 12:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think my "underlying claim" is different to what I've told you it is? Why would I need sources to support something that I've never claimed and that I've just told you I don't personally believe? – Joe (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
In your post here[47] you "strongly object to the suggestion that world history (field) should be the only or main field we look to for sourcing for this article".
No other field of history has a specifically global perspective which makes it the only really applicable field. So how can your objection mean anything other than rejecting world history as a discipline? This is an honest question and is based on what I know of historiography. Peter Isotalo 13:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I mean: it shouldn't be the only or main field we base such articles on. That's nowhere near "wholesale rejection" and has nothing to do with "bias", it's just a question of summarising all significant viewpoints.
I don't agree that world history is our only option when it comes to broad-concept articles like human history. For one, there are several other approaches to history with a global perspective, like comparative history, historical materialism, world systems theory, cliodynamics, historical ecology, and so on. But more broadly, there is no reason to restrict ourselves to fields with a global perspective. The vast majority of historians don't take a global perspective (I trust this is obvious enough not to require citation), and conforming to NPOV means reflecting those viewpoints too – primarily, in fact, since they are the clear majority within the field. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This editor is now complaining about unnamed editors, clearly including you, at several wikiprojects. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
My complaint has been about systemic issues and article content. If you're trying to make this about Joe specifically, you need to stop it right now. My impression of the conflict so far is that we have a very big problem on a systemic level regarding history coverage. Reacting to it as a matter of personal pride or prestige is completely missing the point. Peter Isotalo 13:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks for letting us know, I was not aware of these posts. As Joe has pointed out above, Peter has made various controversial comments direct at other editors while not accurately presenting their views. I'm not sure how to best respond to this behavior. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Gaza genocide

An editor has asked for a Move review of Gaza genocide. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikimania

Any chance you're coming to Poland next month? – SJ + 16:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sj: I'm afraid not, I'm getting married on the 10th :)
Maybe next year! – Joe (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah how glorious! Congratulations to you both, have a beautiful ceremony and hope to catch up on the other side (: – SJ + 10:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024

Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

  • TBD

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Joe Robot

Hi Joe, I hope you are doing great. I noticed that you have an alternate account named Joe Robot with a bot suffix, and it has edited mainspace pages without a BRFA. Also, the term "bot" has been used in the edit summaries. I am sure you are already familiar with the bot policy, but I just wanted to let you know in case there are any mistakes. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi DreamRimmer. Yeah, I was really expecting to have to make some sort of request too. I'm happy to be corrected if that's the case, but I read through BOTPOL carefully several times and as far as I understand it is not necessary (or desired) to make a BRFA or use a bot account for assisted editing. All I've used the account for so far is to correct incoming links to a page I disambiguated using pywikibot's inbuilt script, which is human supervised. The edit summary (which says bot assisted) is the standard one generated by pywikibot. For now I only intend to use the account for similar assisted edits with pywikibot and/or AWB. Maybe I'll use it for a proper bot at some point, at which point I'll of course go through BRFA. – Joe (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
From what I understand, bot accounts aren’t allowed to edit mainspace pages without a BRFA, whether they are using Pywikibot’s inbuilt scripts or AWB. Since your alternate account has the bot suffix, it needs to go through BRFA before making any edits in the mainspace. There is no issue with assisted editing using any alternate account, as long as it doesn’t act as a bot. Also, assisted or semi-automated editing is only permitted with on-wiki .js scripts and/or AWB/Huggle, and not with Pywikibot or other bot scripts. I may be wrong about this last point, so please feel free to ask other editors for clarification :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "act as a bot" here? Is it just the username? I could have made the same edits with AWB in the same way, it's just a pain to install on Linux, and I prefer command line interfaces. – Joe (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, just the username. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
So my understanding is that a bot account is an account that is used by a bot and has (or should have) the bot flag. I'm aware that the username policy advises against Usernames that could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" (which is used to identify bot accounts) or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes), unless the account is of that type but this account is "of that type" in that it is used for semi-automated editing (and in any case the word "robot" seems not to be understood that way). – Joe (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have any issues with this. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Please feel free to continue if no one else has any concerns, and you can address it later if anyone raises a complaint. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You have messages

Hello, Joe Roe. You have new messages at Help talk:Your first article#Ready, steady, ....
Message added Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2024

Delivered August 2024 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.

11:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Armeniansarebest is able to edit objectively in the Armenian topic area

He thinks Göbekli Tepe is an example of Armenian architecture for a start. I actually raised a related issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology. I posted to his talk page and he thought I was referring to your revert of his edit. He states that most information on Wikipedia about Armenia is wrong and I don't think he has much understanding of RS etc. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will follow up on their talk page too. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

File:The Goddess and the Bull cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Goddess and the Bull cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Stone tool: lithic analysis, ethnoarchaeology

Hi Joe- Sorry, I didn't realize it was your work that I was deleting in my edit today, else I would have worded my summary differently. That is to say, less in the manner of my favorite archaeology prof, whose comments on my papers, always constructive and valued, could nevertheless smart a bit. Four decades later, I still can see the red-felt-pen "Ugh!" that intro'd one of them...

All I had in mind was your revert of Epastore's edit, the version I preferred for being more restrained. Without yet having any sense of the very real peril that lurked within that paragraph -- a beast whose gob I now suspect was dripping with anticipation at sinking its dirty fangs into an OCD pedant -- I started out merely trying to vocab-smith some quick compromise, then got pulled into re-writing the sentence, then zoomed out and looked it it with the following sentence, and then in the context of the neighboring paragraphs, and finally decided the whole thing looked like a non sequitur wedged into the wrong niche, at which point I felt myself swirling around certain doom in a copy-editing maelstrom and hastily decided to euthanize the whole paragraph to end both its suffering and mine. All before breakfast, mind you. The fact that it is cited gave me pause briefly, but that on its own didn't for me warrant leaving the paragraph intact. I knew that if the material were re-added somewhere, the ref would be restored with it.

Anyway, just wanted to explain myself, but it somehow turned into the above fanciful essay for your possible amusement and/or spontaneous rejection. If you think the above warrants discussion, we could move it to the article's talkpage. Eric talk 15:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm still not sure what the problem with that paragraph is supposed to be. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Era style

Hi Joe, I read the Era style paragraph you directed me to, I couldn't see why the correction to BC from the link was incorrect, could you please explain.Halbared (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Halbared. The relevant advice is Either convention [BC or BCE] may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. Apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles with regard to changes from one era to the other. The linked page further explains, when either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for a response. I thought as there was a single use of the era, it would be appropriate to not change the form from the source.Halbared (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
When it comes to stylistic things like this we follow the MOS, not sources. – Joe (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris

Hello, Joe,

I was looking at a WikiProject category that became empty after this MFD was closed. I was just wondering what should happen to all of the articles and pages in, for example, Category:WikiProject Donald Trump, now that this WikiProject was changed into a redirect.

If, say, the WikiProject had become inactive, all of the article talk page banners would state that it was an inactive WikiProject. But that's not the case here. The talk page banners reflect an active WikiProject only the link to that WikiProject is a redirect now instead of a direct link. Closing down a WikiProject is more than just changing the main WikiProject page into a redirect and I don't think the closer realized this or perhaps they were not given proper guidance on what to do with all of these associated pages. What do you think should happen with them all, like article assessment pages or WikiProject invitations or templates? Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh that's annoying. I expected the MfD to be closed by someone who knew what to do. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects has the steps: the templates ({{WikiProject Donald Trump}}) need to be replaced by {{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes}}, which will empty these categories and allow them to be deleted. – Joe (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Unblockables essay

I decided that it would be more appropriate to discuss this at the essay talk page, rather than on your user page. I am moving my comment/suggestion over there. Sorry for the clutter!--FeralOink (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Mention in Arbitration discussion

Hey Joe, just wanted to reach out here as I've mentioned one of your closes (here), and was aware when I was making the post that I may have come across as hostile to you. While I opposed that close, I do not intend to come across as hostile, it's just hard to mention a discussion stemming from that close without mentioning your close. I also hope you don't feel I've mischaracterised the close by saying it was contentious (the discussion that followed would be my evidence for that). All the best, Domeditrix (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination

Hi @Joe Roe: please check this Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination project one user reverted your edit. You made this project inactive but another new user changed it to semi-active. Please check and revert it. Thanks 2409:40E0:1037:DB5F:E898:4D86:5853:EEFA (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Help if you want

Hi, i am a new editor in Wikipedia. I am very annoyed that the Armenian translation of names is not written in the articles of the Armenian kings. I tried to correct this because I think you agree with me that the Armenian language has existed since ancient times, although I agree that the Armenian alphabet was invented in 405 by Mesrop Mashtots. But despite this, I think you agree with me that this does not give the right to delete Armenian names, because for example, the kings of Georgia have a Georgian name written, although the alphabet was also invented by Mesrop Mashtots. I hope that you will help in this matter, but this is your desire, Thanks in advance. Nakhararakan (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Jewish Journal

I expected you'd seen this reference to yourself, but couldn't find it in your archives. In case you haven't: [48], Tom B (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This[https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/ is supposedly by a Wikipedia editor, linked in the article mentioned. I see it mentions User:Number 57, User:Nableezy,User:Nishidani, User:Huldra, User:Black Kite, User:Sean.hoyland, User:Rosguill, notes that "Only a technique called "semi-protection" (prohibiting people not logged in from editing) can stop crazy people from coming onto user pages and threatening editors. Huldra's Wikipedia user pages are not semi-protected. "
I think ArbCom needs to know about this. Post a link at the case page? Doug Weller talk 11:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I did, but thanks for letting me know. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Good. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Apologies but I can't find that. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, edit conflict – that was a reply to Tom B. I hadn't seen the blog you linked, Doug. Looking at it now. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I've posted it to the case. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It's reasonable to infer that it is the handiwork of a permabanned editor. I read some days back, analysing its rhetoric. It's not worth rebuttal, but it is a palmary example of how expressions of genuine good will can be spun as humiliation, if some 'radical pro-Hamas' editor has a record of lending a hand to a strong pro-Israel editor who has landed in trouble.

Things are so bad, Nableezy has such power as "boss" of the Wikipedia Flood, that an Israeli editor actually went to him to ask for permission to make an edit! Nableezy graciously granted permission. I understand this is due to an insane "mentorship" arrangement in which the Israeli editor, as a condition for not being topic-banned, must humiliatingly grovel before Wikipedia's number-one Hamas advocate and defer to his wisdom and experience. That is how bad things have become. "Ownership" of articles is prohibited by Wikipedia rules, but the rules don't apply to the Wikipedia Flood.

That alludes to User:Davidbena, who repeatedly got into trouble for both POV-pushing, and when sanctions were applied, for ignoring them (perhaps through an inability to understand both the rules and the status of his infractions). 'Wikipedia's number-one Hamas advocate' here is User:Nableezy who has repeatedly intervened to moderate David's sanctions, in recognition of his value as an extremely hard-working and very erudite contributor on Judaism. See here, here, here and here where the 'domineering anti-Israel mafia' (Huldra, Zero, Onceinawhile) asked arbitrators to be lenient in recognition of David's indispensable value.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
That offline site is the idle crapping of a vindictive and obsessive manipulator, and has zero worth, except for the fact that it does provide one with a sense of the mindcast behind so many socks that afflict the area, and distort it beyong recognition by ludicrous caricature that assumes the reader won't do their legwork but take the blogger at his word.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

<- I've been a fan of their investigative reporting professionalism and rigorous methodology for a while now. It's always nice to recognized for one's contributions. The statement "...has presented charts and tables that he offers as evidence that our lying eyes deceive us." is accurate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

More indication of their "nvestigative reporting professionalism and rigorous methodology": †heir statement about it being only the second blog focusing on the "pro-Palestinian" editors, (after the "Israel Group" is false. I believe isrellycool.com was the first with a post from a "guest poster". He -eventally- took it down, but not before it was saved to archive.com. They (tried to) out Zero, Nishidani, me, Nableezy, Onceinawhile and Sean.hoyland who they "outed" as, wait for it......Sean Hoyland(!) Huldra (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, my clever encryption scheme of mutating ' H' to '.h' apparently didn't work and my cover was blown. Still, it's been nice hiding out here in the mountains of Afghanistan. Surprisingly good internet access. I don't know what happens to some people, something that can detach them from reality. No joke, I knew someone with schizophrenia who was more grounded in reality, even when they were off their meds. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Thank you for your "pattern" comment about banning a new editor! - I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one the topic of my story today, like 22 July but with interview and today's music at the Proms -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extrordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! – Joe (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for getting rid of the TFA tag. I tried but was not understood ;) - I have two items on the Main page today, a DYK that I find completely inadequate to portray the subject, and a woman among the recent deaths who made it in the last hour before it would have been too late, - that French violinist, in the ensemble of Pierre Boulez, winner of a US competition, had only an article in Russian when she died, imagine! See my talk for music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2024

Delivered September 2024 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.

21:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
  • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
  • We plan to use the following schedule:
    • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
    • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
    • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
  • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
  • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

problems with an editor with privileges

Jo, I hope you can help. Not knowing the complexities of Wikimedia I have turned to you. There is an editor with privileges called 10mmsocket. He keeps banning me saying I am someone else called Wisdom. I am sure he hunts me out.If I amend an article he will always reverts with no justification. If I revert he then bans. He is clearly a bully abusing and needing his privileges removed. How do I get rid of him? Yours. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Not an Admin, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdom-inc. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdom-inc. This is a repeat offender who knows *exactly* what the complexities of Wikipedia are. He/she is simply playing games and wasting people's time with block evasion. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Southern African Music & Sound

Hi there, I've left a message for you on the talk page of this archived project. Can you please advise on how to proceed with reinstating this project? Viljowf (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Joe Roe. You have new messages at Talk:Desert kite.
Message added 07:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello Joe Roe:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you on the NPP discord?

Just wondering. Hopefully you can guess the reason, because I don't think I can give a summary without being oversighted. And, on a more practical level, because it would be hard for you to verify anything I said because, even if I could post evidence , you'd have no way of confirming it hadn't been altered.

So changing the subject utterly and completely, I find myself to me a person who sometimes crosses the line about discussing other people behind their backs. But if I accuse somebody of specific policy or guideline violations (picking an arbitrary example out of nowhere, say WP:BITE?), I do it to their face, on wiki, with diffs to back it up. And if I did it on an unofficial discord, I'd expect moderators, or any current Wikipedia admins (including, say, very new ones) to call me out and not do a "+1" emoji react. How about you? What are your feelings on this issue? Again, I'm just sharing my thoughts with you on the world for absolutely no reason at all. It has no relation to the above paragraph. A complete non-sequitur. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Joe and @GreenLipstickLesbian, pretty confident this is about me. As I mentioned, as a part of my comments, everything on the NPP discord is public and everything I've said has been said on wiki by me as well. In the future, you are more than welcome to approach me directly if you feel my behaviour is inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, Joe is actually listed as a member of the server and is a green name (Wiki admin) on the server. He's not active there, but the logs are available if he wishes to read through them. After reading this post I further reiterated that all comments on the server are public, as anyone, even non NPPers can join and lurk. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
In the interest of further transparency, I reached out directly to GLL about this comment. I said "I don't appreciate the post to Joe for what it's worth. Also, yes, Joe IS on Discord and is green named. As mentioned, I say what I say knowing that." What followed was essentially a confirmation that this is about me. So, to clarify further since they're my comments, it was about my strong view on draftification which is opposite to that of Joe's. I don't believe the bite mention is arbitrary, since I specifically mentioned, and have been mentioning on wiki and in discussions on Discord, I believe AfD to be far more bitey than draftifications and a lack of draftifies = more AfDs = worse editor retention since editors may struggle to grasp our notability guidelines within 7 days (AfD tagging). I further stated draftify = work on it, while AfD = delete your work (I understand Joe may say why draftify at all, but that's part of our disagreement). I also discussed why I believed Joe's statement about SL's draftification rate to be misleading (something I directly discussed on Wiki during the RfA) as part of the general discussion on draftification. I also called out that draft space is incredibly useful and valuable, but draftifies need to be done properly and for good reason, and that we need to coach those who's draftifies are not ideal and coach those who write articles which should be draftified in the interest of editor retention. We began a discussion after this post on Discord, but you've since gone off line as of a bit over an hour ago (directed at GLL) and if you wish to continue it then I'd be more than happy to do so. I always want to improve based on criticism given and, based on how much we've communicated directly in Discord direct messages recently, I'm disappointed you went here instead of to me directly. So, to round it out, I believe Joe knows my view and stance, everything I say on Discord I do/can/am absolutely willing to say on Wiki, draft space is very useful when utilized correctly, and I don't believe trying to initiate drama is productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I did not confirm that, or state that, and if I implied that they were your comments, it was completely unintentional. Miscommunication, for which I take responsibility for because I typed the message in a hurry. I should have proofread it, and looked for alternative ways it could have been read as.
And, for the Wikipedia archives tape, here was my response to Josh's message:
"Somebody explained to me the backstory. And good to know
[13:35]
FWIW, you say things you don't mind saying publically, and that's okay. People accusing other people of wrong-doing, without giving them the chance to respond, is not something I'm cool will."
By "will", I meant "with". The message. And my spellcheck is informing me I misspelt "publicly" as well. I wish I could blame that on external factors, but I'm just bad at spelling.

And, by "backstory", I meant somebody dm-ed me to say that you (Joe Roe) have historically displayed strong feelings about Discord, which, after reviewing stuff, is actually something I should have known because we talked about off-wiki communication once before, at an RfA. Which, if taken in isolation, would be evidence that this was stirring. But it wasn't, a statement for which I can provide no other evidence than my word. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I'm really meant to be doing something else right now, but to clarify: not about josh's comments or actions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian: That's VERY confusing given you essentially confirmed this was about me in our direct communications which followed this. Especially because I was the one saying it all and mentioning Joe by name. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
So, even if this is about a different admin, looking back through the discussion, the "+1" mentioned would have been to my comment(s). Hence, directly or indirectly, this does appear to involve me as the person making the statement. I'm also one of the server mods and an admin, so if anybody should be criticized, it's me, not anyone else. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, this kind of silliness is exactly why I think Wikipedia Discord channels are a bad idea. – Joe (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
So had a quick look at the conversation you're talking about. It reinforces my opinion that Discord is a rather sad place where people with grievances bitch about others behind their backs. @Hey man im josh: We've had productive discussions on- and off-wiki, so I'm disappointed you felt that this was the best way to accuse me of faking statistics (feel free to recalculate them yourself?) and disrupting an RfA to make a point (maybe I just didn't have time to bring the concerns up beforehand?) I think you are a good admin, great NPPer, and I've never seen any problems with your use of draftify – and I believe I've said all of those things publicly before. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh and incidentally, since you happened to be included in one of the samples I used in the RfA: you don't actually have a high draftify rate. You draftify half as often as the population mean and twenty times less often than the RfA candidate. – Joe (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2024

Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2024

Delivered October 2024 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.

11:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
  • The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Please see Talk:Namık Kemal Pak TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw it, but I don't want to get involved right now. I suggest you seek uninvolved input via WP:XRV. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles November 2024 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 2024 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.

  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
  • Remember to tag your edit summary with #NOV24, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

SerAntoniDeMiloni

I'm frankly baffled by many (all?) of the pages you chose to tag as potential COI/UPE issues by this user:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andes_Chocolate_Mints

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speidel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwilling_J._A._Henckels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZF_Sachs

"The pages I’ve written reflect many of the eclectic interests I have. For instance, Speidel and Vulcain were written in 2020 when my school classes were cancelled. I’m an avid watch collector, and had bought a Vulcain Cricket from the 50s, which came on a 50s Speidel band, on eBay. I got quite interested in the history of both, so I delved into writing their pages. I had little else to do. Other pages like ZF Sachs were written by transcribing from German language pages. Here, a relative worked for the company in the 1800s, and the company had been defunct for a decade or so I believe."

How would either of those represent a conflict of interest? What am I missing? The user in question admits the problematic articles they created are about startups - all the stuff you moved into Draft space. Cool. That part makes sense. But not hundred year+ old candy, watch, and knife makers. You can't seriously be asserting that a relative from 200 years ago having worked somewhere is a present-day conflict. Where's the conflict, or, what made those pages any different than hundreds of other pages the editor interacted with? Vertigo Acid (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by Vertigo Acid. You're perhaps missing the fact that I added the {{UPE}} tags before SerAntoniDeMiloni offered that explanation. Do feel free to update the articles as you see fit. – Joe (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2024

Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Joe Roe! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Roe/Archives/2024&oldid=1259319396"