Open main menu

Women in Red World ContestEdit

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talkcontribs)

April editathons at Women in RedEdit


Hi Joe

I see that you closed the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 10 of Portal:Nanotechnology as "relist", and relisted it at MFD. You also, rightly, restored the page Portal:Nanotechnology.

However, the baroque way in which a portal like this are built involves a forest of sub-pages, without which the portal is just a shell. IN this case, there were 130 sub-pages, listed in the deletion log of the MFD closer User:MER-C.

To allow editors at MFD to properly examine the portal, those subpages need to be restored. Please can you do that, or arrange for it to be done? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Baroque indeed :/
Do you (or any friendly TPSers) happen to know a quick way to restore 130 pages...? – Joe (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know of any quick way.
BTW, just for the record, I disagree with your close as relist, but I didn't come here to argue that. I just want to ensure that if we are to have a renewed debate on a page which gets only 20 views per day   ... then editors should be able to examine it.
My evil twin is mumbling that another 130 manual restorations is karma for your decision to exercise your discretion in this way, but I couldn't possibly comment on that  .
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought the consensus was pretty clear, and my rule of thumb is that more discussion (almost) never hurts. Still, I closed it, I'll take my 130 lumps. – Joe (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I count 9 explicit endorses, 4 overturns, and 6 relists. A 9—10 split is not a clear consensus in my book. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I counted 11–8, but it comes down to the balance of arguments as usual. There was a lot of regurgitating the MfD arguments in the endorses, when DRVs are supposed to be about the deletion process. Also several bold-endorses said they didn't object to relisting as a compromise.
Anyway, I think I've finished restoring the subpages. Thanks again for pointing out the oversight. – Joe (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That must have been fun doing manually? :) Next time, use Twinkle's batch-undeletion tool. SD0001 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@SD0001: Ah, I knew there must be something. Thanks! – Joe (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15Edit

Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.


-— Isarra 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SingaporeEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2019Edit

Delivered October 2019 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.

10:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Joe Roe. 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 16:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

An explanationEdit

Hi! Can you explain me why have you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crunchball 3000 (2nd nomination) again? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stacia_Pierce had the same situation, yet it hasn't been closed the same way. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: There isn't a strong consensus in either AfD, since only one other person participated. The difference is that Crunchball 3000 has already been through an AfD, so the barrier for deletion is a little higher. – Joe (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about riversEdit

Proposals regarding AfC & NPPEdit

You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR).

This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Joe, I am concerned that your hardline (and in my view, unreasonable) interpretation of WP:PAY may have helped to sink the RfA of a good candidate. Unless they were actually paid to edit Wikipedia, it is simply unfair and untrue to call Greenman a paid editor. You can argue that they have edited with a conflict of interest, but by levelling this accusation of editing for pay, I feel you have crossed a line. You seem a very reasonable person, so I thought I would just clarify this with you :) Best — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ. I acknowledge that there is some room for interpretation in the COI policy and that mine is on the stricter end. Making a sharp distinction between "paid editing" and a "financial conflict of interest" seems to be important to some but I just don't see that as a hair worth splitting. I very much agree with Lourdes' view: his continuing engagement with the MariaDB article (his part-time employers) makes it impossible to differentiate what is paid editing and what is not. If you're editing your employer's page, even if you are not getting paid for the edits but are being paid for any other work, the differentiation is but so little. So while I'm sorry that Greenman is having to suffer a bad RfA—they're an unpleasant experience even when they go well—I did vote oppose so I obviously can't claim that I'm unhappy with the outcome. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Only (watching), but: I think it's fair to say that the only guilty parties for the failure of this RfA are the candidate themselves and their nominator: the former for not getting their ducks, as they say, in a row, and the latter for not ensuring that they were watertight. Indeed, a good nominator would have alleviated many of the opposes with a well-crafted nomination. While it's not necessarily the fault of the candidate who their nominator is (that is, the faults of the nominator are not and should not be confused with those of the candidate), it's hardly the fault of the RfA reviewer that they did not do so. And it is not JoeRoe's fault that the nom has taken the trajectory that it has: sixteen editors opposed before them, and it was no more doomed after one particular !vote than it was previously. Except Lourdes's perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 11:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Another tps: I was determined to just let the RfA go without a comment, but "doomed" has alerted me. Too bad, I really don't have the time to investigate a candidate I don't know yet, but I am defiant ;) - will vote support or not at all. - Could someone else please deal with "my" referencing problems for a GAN, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply at the RfA. The reason the semantic difference is important is because one is a TOU violation, while the other merely a local policy violation: different disclosure requirements and enforcement paths, among other things. –xenotalk 14:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If policy violations have become "merely" violations, then by that logic we would welcome back most of CAT:BLOCKED. ——SerialNumber54129 15:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill HutchensEdit

Hi Joe. I saw you closed this. I'm not sure whether User talk:Marchjuly#Please remove deletion notice from Bill Hutchens would affect your close, but I'm also not sure why the creator never posted something similar in the AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly, I hadn't seen that. I probably would have relisted the AfD if that comment had been made in it. @Superstars8547: would you like me to reopen the discussion? Note that there's no guarantee that it will change the outcome, but it might. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I disagree with most of your interpretation of COI at BN and RFA. Consider this - you state on your user page that you are employed as an archaeologist, specifically using computational archaeology. Most of your listed selected contributions are articles falling somewhere in that field. I'll pull one - Digital archaeology - where it is written that computational archaeology is a subfield of digital archaeology. According to how I understand your understanding of COI, you've not been editing in accordance with the policy. You are paid to utilize computational archaeology, and here you are writing articles that seek to further that field and it's applications. You need to recuse yourself from the topics where you have a financial incentive to edit. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I resent that accusation, Mr Ernie. Archaeology is a field of academic study. It doesn't pay me – because it's not an organisation and has no money. The idea that experts can't contribute to their area of expertise is a tortuous misinterpretation of the COI policy that would shoot the encylopaedia in the foot. There's even a passage in WP:COI about it, subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise.
I've always been very careful about potential professional COIs in my field. My employer is the University of Copenhagen which of course I haven't edited. I don't cite my own papers, even though that's permitted by WP:SELFCITE. I don't directly edit articles on sites I've worked on, even though again that is allowed by policy and there are tonnes of red links in that area. I don't edit biographies of colleagues I've ever been in contact with, even though I'm one of the main contributors to biographies of archaeologists.
It's fine that we disagree about the interpretation of the COI policy. It's not okay to throw around absurd accusations. That is the issue at BN right now and a recurring problem at RfA recently: legitimate disagreements over policy are used as excuses to badger and cast aspersions on the competence of fellow editors. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly it could be argued that you have an ongoing financial interest in keeping these articles up-to-date, well-written, well-cited, and showing your field to be producing useful or interesting discoveries even if not your own. Having these articles up-to-date may impact future funding that is accreted to you, your department, or your field in general. If you find this line of argument to be ridiculous, surely you can understand why some feel that your line of argument that updating version numbers raises a financial conflict concern is ridiculous as well. I agree that a disagreement over policy was used to cast aspersions on Greenman, which was unfortunate. –xenotalk 09:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You cannot be serious. The field has existed for 200 years and will almost certainly get along fine regardless of my Wikipedia edits. There is no comparison to editing the article on the company that pays your wages.
To be honest xeno, I'm sick of you hounding me and deliberately misrepresenting my words over this. It's totally inappropriate for a bureaucrat to so doggedly badger oppose voters in an RfA. Please do not ping me or post to my talk page from here on. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRV condense undoEdit

I undid the condense at DRV. I think we are getting to the heart of the issue. which is why the whole thing needs to be seen. See here:User_talk:Hut_8.5#"I_suggest_you_contribute_to_it..."_Comment I hope this clarifies my undo. I'll offer up a condensed comment a bit later. Thanks Johnvr4 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: I don't think that was a good idea. It was still there for anyone to read, but uncollapsed the sheer length makes the discussion (and by extension the whole DRV page at the moment) cumbersome to navigate. This isn't helpful for other participants who have already read your comments, or whoever eventually closes it. Collapsing extended commentary is a pretty normal thing to do. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: My apology, It all seemed very relevant to the issue per the linked discussion. Feel free to reverse my undo or offer your two cents at the discussion. I won't edit war but if you could please trim it sparingly, I'd appreciate it. I just can't believe there is all grief over one sentence with enough RS Citekill to literally kill something. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

OnBuy Article UndeleteEdit

Hi There Joe_Roe! I hope that you can help me to restore a page that you once voted for deletion which I feel was very unfair given that the company was very notable in the UK. I had performed some updates for this company as I took a very active interest in their development as a brand. They are now even more notable and soon launching overseas according to a press release I read this Am, so I am surprised to see that since your deletion they have not been back on Wikipedia. I think this was a mistake, if I am honest and I hope that you can assist with the undeleting. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

UKBizMan (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC) UKBizMan 13:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi UKBizMan I had deja vu reading your message and, sure enough, we have had this same conversation last year. Back then I agreed to restore the old article as a draft (Draft:OnBuy), but you didn't make any improvements to it and it was deleted again. I'm not willing to restore the draft again. There is nothing stopping you writing a new article on the company but it will probably just get deleted again. – Joe (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I will give up on Wikipedia I took an interest in this company because I believe what they are doing is right - but having wasted my time for you to come along and delete it because you feel superior is just a waste of my time entirely, and I was simply doing what I felt was right after seeing a company regularly on the news but having no page. I will bow down to your obvious superiority and retire from Wikipedia. Be well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKBizMan (talkcontribs) 12:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@UKBizMan: I'm sorry to hear you are giving up on editing. As I tried to explain before, I don't personally decide to delete articles, Wikipedia admins like me only implement what other editors agree should be done. – Joe (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: I've given it one last go. If it works I'm going to spend the next six months of my retirement reviewing marketplaces as it's where I have an active interest. I've kept the page very short Draft:OnBuy what do you think? Is this better? If so I'll leave it for others to contribute. But if this isn't enough for notability (I listed the UK government site which advises customers where to sell online!) then none of my interested marketplaces that I wanted write about will work. 13:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@UKBizMan: In the interests of fairness, I'll leave it to others to look at your draft. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


New Tenzing Energy Drink ArticleEdit

@Joe Roe: I have created Draft:Tenzing so before I start working down my list of things I wanted to either create or edit, I hoped you could share a small bit of feedback from your experience - is it acceptable to create small draft pages from the outset and grow them over time, or is it more likely to be published if pages are comprehensive from draft stage? Much appreciated. User:UKBizMan 14:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again UKBizMan. It's perfectly fine to start small and add material over time – that's what drafts are for. The key thing is that before you hit "submit your draft for review", you've put in enough references to independent, reliable sources to show that the subject is notable (specifically a notable company in this case). That is the main thing reviewers will be looking for. If you're unsure about whether a subject is notable or if a draft is ready, the Teahouse is a good place to ask. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Joe Roe".