User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2019

Happy New Year, Joe!

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , Joe,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2019

Delivered January 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.

20:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

what to do about BMK's accusations against me

Hello Hello there, it's Nahom Now yes, at Talk:Caucasian race I did say that one of your arguments was bad due to it being a similar reason why the name of the page should change, namely it being a modern term while the article appears to be about the historical classification. User:Beyond My Ken accused me of insulting editors on that page, something he/she does all the time, accusing people of things with no explanation of where they get it from or what proof they have of these supposed evil motives, as was done on their talk page where they call me a racist. Yes the section at the talk page for Caucasian race where I proposed naming it "white race" could be a mistake, and had BMK have said, "it looks like you're being racist by doing this." rather than assuming that it's obvious, perhaps I wouldn't have had the upset reactions I do towards him/her. BMK has made it clear that he/she doesn't want me to interact with him/her despite him/her replying to various posts of mine at Talk:Caucasian race with some admittedly valid points in some cases. What should I do going forward should BMK accuse me of extream things in the future? I don't want to have to tag him with the AGF thing because that is over-used, even though we should assume good faith, as I do with him/her and everybody, even when I disagree with them. Also, while I got you, is it wrong that I am asking for more non-American perspectives on the discussion at Talk:Caucasian race so that more people from a position similar to mine in terms of not speaking American English can weigh in? thanks. Nahom 23.151.192.180 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nahom. I find it's best to let go of these things. It's easy to get offended online but, whether the offence was intended or not, it's more productive to focus on the substance of an argument rather than the person making it. But if you really want to take it further, concerns with user conduct are usually discussed first at WP:ANI.

There's nothing wrong with calling for a broader range of perspectives but I'm not American and neither are many of the other editors who have commented. Regardless, I don't think this is an North American usage vs. other usage. I'll comment further on the article talk page. – Joe (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Joe. I'm just so tired of being labeled thigns by this user. I admit I can be a bit crude at times yes, but it looks like BMK does not assume I mean the best as I assume for them. is an/i's protected status done? I went to go after him during the first accusation on an/i but it was protected. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC) I would appreciate if you just let Beyond My Ken know maybe to go easy on the whole accusation thing, sexpecially with things like accusing me of insulting editors and of being racist. At the talk page for Caucasian he's even raising doubts that I was born in Eritrea. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you should be able to edit it now. ANI has to be protected often because of vandalism, but as a general rule anyone should be able to edit it.

I would prefer not to get involved directly, but I'll ping BMK so he's aware of this discussion. – Joe (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Well apparently I'm a troll now in his eyes. I'd request that he ither retract or leave me alone from here on out. If he has a non-smartass type comment to make I am more than open to hearing it. There are a few articles o nWikipedia I am really passionate about but I don't dare touch because I know I'd have a strong viewpoint on such as articles like this that I dare not even think about touching. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a Page for Daphney Sanasie

Hello i will Like to request an article for Daphney Sanasie. Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi: Please see WP:RA. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proto-Indo-European homeland

"The Armenian hypothesis is older" - the exact words I had in mind. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2019

Delivered February 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.

01:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Autism quackery - category for discussion

Hello :) I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do something re: this category discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Category:Autism_quackery), as it's been open for more than 7 days now and it seems that most people suggested renaming it from Autism quackery to the marginally less opinionated Autism pseudoscience. I had a look at the options for requesting a category name-change (I'm the category's creator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#C2E:_Author_request) but as the cat has been applied by other people it looked like I probably shouldn't do that. It's currently in use but languishing under a pink banner. Thanks :) JoBrodie (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello JoBrodie. There's nothing that you, as the creator, can do right now. The discussion will be closed by an experienced, uninvolved editor (usually an administrator) who will decide if there is a consensus and if so implement it. It looks like there's a backlog at CfD so it might take a while. In the mean time the category can still be used as normal. – Joe (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you :) JoBrodie (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Overwatch League logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Overwatch League logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Pbroks13 (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

New entry

Hi Joe, thank you for clocking my rookie mistake. I've made a new entry in my sandbox. Let me know if there is any further mistakes I have made? Will any article in my user sandbox be renamed upon approval of the subject title Howardjdavis (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Howardjdavis. No worries, no damage done. You need to be careful about copying text (as Diannaa has said on your talk page) and you still haven't declared whether you have a conflict of interest with regard to Hinton, but other than that the new draft looks fine. – Joe (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joe Roe. I appreciate your insight. Peter Hinton is a colleague of mine. Diannaa The photograph you've mentioned is my photograph which I give freely to Wikipedia. I am not being paid to do this work I just think Peter is a viable candidate for a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardjdavis (talk • contribs)

Okay, I'll note that on the talk page. We discourage editors from writing about people they know, so your article will need to be checked by an independent reviewer at some stage. – Joe (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Blaine Trump page

The page Blaine Trump had already been through two nominations for deletion and deleted by you. You deleted it on Sept 14, 2018. It is back. I just wanted to share that with you. I'm not sure how to proceed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blaine_Trump_(2nd_nomination) P37307 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know P37307. I would have said just restore the redirect, but that's complicated by the fact that Emir of Wikipedia did a round-robin move around the redirect that was the result of the last AfD. At this point I would say it would have to go back to AfD. It isn't eligible for G4 because it's a wholly different article. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I make no comment on if it should be kept or deleted. The page had been reviewed and as I saw no obvious BLP violations I made the necessary page swap. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

Autopatrolled

Hello, I'm thinking of applying for Autopatrolled but do you think I would be successful? If not, what would you advise I work on? I'd appreciate your guidance. Just as an aside, noticed you read ArcAnth - first person I've met to have done the degree in years JamesMatthews01 (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi JamesMatthews01. You've only created 25 articles and most in the last few days, so I don't think you need autopatrolled. It's not a right that affects your ability to edit in any way. Why do you want it?

Yes! It was a good course. It's rare to be able to study such a broad subject this side of the Atlantic. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well I do intend to continue at the same pace, so at some point I suppose the NPP will begin to get clogged with the biographies -- so far my metier on here -- that I've been creating. It would also be nice as an affirmation of sorts that I'm not completely screwing this up. So would your advice be to keep creating articles and sit tight?JamesMatthews01 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we really try to discourage the idea that it's an affirmation or mark of an established editor. Its only function is managing the NPP queue and you don't have an appreciable effect on that unless you're creating dozens of articles a month over a sustained period. If I were you I'd ignore it: if you create at that rate, somebody else will probably request it for you.

There's nothing wrong with wanting some recognition for your contributions of course – but WP:DYK and WP:GA are better places for that. – Joe (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Appreciate the pointers. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions relating to an an unblock on behalf of the arbitration committee

I see that nine days ago you unblocked Couiros22 on behalf of the arbitration committee. I realise that sometimes the committee has to act on the basis of information that cannot be made public, but I am surprised that the committee did not at the least do me the courtesy of telling me that they had decided to overturn my block, even if they decided that there was no need to hear my opinion before doing so. I am not aware of any policy that says that the arbitration committee has to inform anyone whose actions it decides to over-rule, but doing so seems to me in line with the general principles on which we operate, and in line with the spirit of policies regarding administrators. However, granted that the committee has clearly decided that it was neither necessary nor desirable to inform me, let alone consult me, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the following questions for me, by email if necessary to maintain confidentiality.

1. Another administrator told me that he forwarded to the arbitration committee a copy of the evidence which I emailed on two separate occasions to two different administrators, both of whom agreed with my conclusions. Can you confirm that arbitrators did receive and read that before coming to a decision?
2. If you did see that evidence, then can you tell me why you disagree with the conclusion I drew from it? I think it is really important for me to know that, because I found the evidence convincing way beyond all reasonable doubt, and if the arbitration committee has decided that my judgement was faulty in coming to that conclusion then I need to know why, in order to avoid making similar mistakes of judgement again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson. We were forwarded your detailed evidence and understood that you were aware that we were considering an appeal, so I believe the policy requirement to consult the blocking admin was fulfilled. I'm sure you can appreciate that we couldn't involve you in the subsequent discussion directly, as would happen in an on-wiki block appeal.

I apologise for not notifying you of the unblock. I was following the normal unblock procedure and assumed you would be watching their talk page, but given the circumstances, you're right, a direct notification would have been courteous. That's on me; the rest of the committee weren't involved in actually implementing our decision.

I'll respond further on why we disagreed with your findings by email. – Joe (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. For some reason I didn't get a Wikipedia notification of your email, so it's just as well you told me here that you were sending it. I have read your email. I understand everything you say, but I see it as misunderstanding some significant aspects of what I had said, as well as simply not addressing most of the points that I raised. However, I am grateful to you for letting me know your reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The email notification has just arrived. It just took a little while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2019

Delivered March 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.

00:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Smith-Wintemberg Award recipients has been nominated for discussion

Category:Smith-Wintemberg Award recipients, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblock of Couiros22

Hi Joe. You unblocked the user apparently as a result of an AC determination that they are not a sockpuppet. However, sockpupetry was not the only reason the user was blocked. I have not been able to find the AC discussion, so I cannot tell whether any consideration was given to these other issues. Please advise. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick. It was a private appeal. We're aware that there were other conduct issues but as the block was initially and primarily for sockpuppetry, and we determined that there was no basis for this, we lifted it (noting that at this point he has been blocked for more than six months). We've warned Couiros22 that our decision is not an endorsement of his disruptive conduct and that he will likely be blocked again if that continues. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, I guess we'll see. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, well it didn't take long. Have a look at their recent contribution here. They've restarteed their idiosyncratic re-categorisation program, making many edits each day with nary an edit summary in sight and no apparent consensus for the changes. If they have in fact obtained a consensus somewhere then they should be referring to it with a link in the edit summary. Not happy, Jan. Can you please fire a shot across their bows and remind them that the block was also for this sort of behaviour, not just the allegation of sock puppetry. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: I'd prefer to leave further interactions with Couiros22 to other admins. I'd suggest talking to them about their categorisations and, if that doesn't find a resolution, taking it to WP:ANI. – Joe (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So you choose to wash you hands of the matter. The editor was blocked both for the sockpupetry, which the Arbcom overturned, but also for long term disruptive editing. Which disruptive editing they have simply continued with since you lifted the block. The editor has steadfastly refused throughout this whole sorry saga to own up to the disruptive editing. I never had an opinion on the sock issues, leaving that to others, admins, to decide. However, I am very upset that you chose to overturn both blocks, when the Arbcom only considered the sock. What should have happened is the terms of the block should have been changed from "Abusing multiple accounts, and long-term disruptive editing" to just "long-term disruptive editing". Until the editor faces up to this issue we will continue to suffer their disruption. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Like most arbs I try not to get involved in day-to-day conduct disputes because there's always the chance they will end up with ArbCom, and then I would have to recuse as WP:INVOLVED. There are plenty of other admins that are very experienced in handling this sort of thing at WP:ANI. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea

Hi there. I noticed the draft article did not have the AFC template, so I added it in. But then I realised that you had inserted the AFC template in this edit, which seems to have been removed in this edit. I am not sure what to do at this point, and whether to simply leave it as is or return your original timestamp, etc. --Caorongjin (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Caorongjin. It was only draftified because someone said they would work on it, and they haven't, so I don't think it's appropriate to submit it to AfC. I left an unsubmitted AfC template on the article specifically so it wouldn't hang around in draft indefinitely. Since there haven't been any significant edits in more than six months, I am going to delete it under WP:CSD#G13. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that.--Caorongjin (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedure question

First, sorry to be popping around to different arb talk pages so much recently with questions. As I mentioned at the case request, I had originally planned to file an AE case against FeydHuxtable, but they "superseded" it procedure wise with their filing from my understanding. Combine that with me likely being on a very limited schedule today and I'm just trying to get details figured out when I can.

You mention considering a motion for topic-ban, etc. Is that something you arbs can do at the current case request, or does someone need to formally file an ammendment request over at WP:ARCA, etc. when you all close the request? Normally a violation of the GMO aspersions principle like that would go straight to AE and result in a topic ban, but the only relative certainty I have on procedure given the out of the norm sequence of events is that an AE thread shouldn't be opened while a case request is open. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as the case has been declined without other discussion, I went ahead and filed at AE. Not something I absolutely needed to notify you about, but I figured I’d do so in case the procedure question comes up related to what was declined versus what’s open for request. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response Kingofaces43. I think that could have been handled equally well by us, at AE, or at ANI. As the other arbs didn't pick up on my suggestion, I agree AE was the best way to go. – Joe (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Assamese people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assamese people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD deleted article re-instated

Greetings, Joe Roe. Please be informed that the article "Manjinder Singh" that you just deleted, has been immediately re-instated. And this redirect is still up. Do you have any salt in the kitchen? -The Gnome (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gnome. It's a different Manjinder Singh, moved from Manjinder Singh (Indian cricketer) after the main title was freed up. Thanks for letting me know though. – Joe (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in (EN-WP) / Opt-in (international) / Unsubscribe

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)

Please comment on Talk:Fascism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fascism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Your revert at Göbekli Tepe

It wasn’t that hard to cite, since a ref was handy just below, and the intrusive tag has now been removed, again. I find those types of tags most disruptive as a reader, don’t you? There were some changes that had to be made, since we now mention Schmidt in the second paragraph, instead of the third. I also found it helpful to create a fourth paragraph from the material already there. Do me a favor and discuss it either here, or on the article Talk page, if you feel further changes are warranted. I’ll watchlist your Talk page and check back. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: I reverted you because the tag was justified and your edit didn't fix it. I'm not sure what needs to be discussed? I think those tags are very useful when the draw the reader's attention to potentially misleading statements, until they can be fixed. – Joe (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, we disagree on the use of tags in Wikipedia articles. No matter. My goal here is to to remove that one by answering the tag’s question and improving the article, which I have done. I assume you approve? If not, how can we work to do so, rather than leave it as it was? Jusdafax (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: Sure, it's fine without the tag now. I think the article still puts too much weight on Schmidt's interpretation (especially his interpretation filtered through journalists), but that's not an easy fix. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I’ll look into your concerns further, since the article’s subject is of such importance. Best wishes! Jusdafax (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2019

Delivered April 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.

19:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hide IP address ASAP

Hi please hide my Ip address: [REDACTED - Oshwah] from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Juffali without removing content added if possible. Expunge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantom122 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Note

Oliebol.

A highly disparaging comment about you was placed a while ago, and remains in place. See diff. Just a note to bring this to your attention, in the event that you were not aware of this personal attack. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL! I understand why the editor in question semi-retired. Also means Dutch doughnut, "oliebol," according to vertalen.nu. Last year, I baked them for the first time in my life. Kind of "olie-beesten," actually, according to my sister. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Yeah I saw the reply at the time. Quite ironic really! – Joe (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Faisalabad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faisalabad. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Dana Lepofsky

On 9 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dana Lepofsky, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to research led by Dana Lepofsky, some clam gardens on the Pacific Northwest Coast are up to 3,500 years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dana Lepofsky. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dana Lepofsky), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for permission of Autopatrolled

User:Shahidul Hasan Roman

• Shahidul Hasan Roman (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I'm fairly experienced with Wikipedia guidelines, i created 80+ articles to date. Most of my past work has been reviewed and passed successfully. I also have Autopatrolled, Rollbracker, New Page reviewer right in Bangla Wikipedia. I try to edit or create page in both English and Bangla wikipedia. --Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please use WP:PERM/A to request autpatrolled, Shahidul Hasan Roman. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I requested there in 19 march. But still don't get any reply. That's why today i request here --Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:PERM requests are looked at by administrators, who are also volunteers, as and when they have time. Please be patient. – Joe (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"...being far laxer with the supports..."

Hi, Joe. For better or for worse, that is the accepted tradition from time immemorial. It would take an RfC to change, I believe. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well aware of that, Avi, although I think it's an extremely undesireable state of affairs. – Joe (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But that means your issue is with the tradition, yet you clearly aspersions on the bureaucrats: "I feel strongly that this was a poor close by the crats, essentially supervoting away valid opposes because they were not convinced by them, while, as usual, being far laxer with the supports." when the very concern you have are the bureaucrats upholding a Wikipedia tradition as old as RfA. The proper mechanism to change that is RfC, not to tar and feather the bureaucrats. If anything, ignoring tradition would be a greater example of WP:IAR than upholding it. As I've said before, I'm thick skinned enough to weather the slings and arrows thrown at Wikipedians who volunteer in contentious areas. However, you are an arbitrator; your words carry more weight, de facto than other editors, and I would hope you hold yourself to higher standards of civility, clarity, and accuracy. If you believe that our decision was "a poor close," by all means, please explain how in the context of current accepted Wikipedia policy, guideline, and tradition. I am always open to receiving constructive criticism as to how I may better serve. However, I'd ask that you do not conflate your frustration with what you believe to be an archaic and ill-considered tradition in and of itself with valid application of that tradition in context. Thank you for listening. -- Avi (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Avraham: My primary 'issue' is the dismissal of the oppose votes, which in my opinion is clearly contrary to policy per WP:SUPERVOTE. And in general the absurdity of declaring an outcome that at least a third of participants opposed a consensus. I brought this up on the crat chat talk page before it was closed (twice), as did other editors. I don't think the fact that I'm on ArbCom makes my opinion more important than other's, but as we were asked to comment on the matter, I think I'm entitled to share it.

But yes, while we're on the subject, I also think this 'tradition' is unfair and unsupported by policy. As a crat you're supposed to judge consensus. You're not doing that properly if you adopt one rule for one side of a debate and another for the other – especially when the position you deweight is actually the harder one to make, practically and socially. We don't do this anywhere else on the project. We also don't carry on doing things that are contrary to common sense because they're 'tradition'.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm throwing "slings and arrows" but, at the end of the day, you hold the highest position of trust in our community. You should expect scrutiny. – Joe (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Responding in anti-chronological order, first, as I said, I'm thick-skinned and thick-headed. As long as those arrows are cast with EnWiki's best interests at heart, feel free to pincushion me. Second, I'm sure you are aware, but for the benefit of any jaguars, the reasoning behind the tradition is that every RfX comes with a nomination, which is usually detailed. Blank supports are considered per nom. Blank opposes don't have that fallback. Oppose per X where X lists arguments against the candidate are treated like X. lastly, and most importantly, in light of your particular concerns about the process, how do you believe bureaucrats should gauge the "strength of rationales presented" and how should they implement that in their decision process? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Avraham: The same way I would close any other type of discussion (where, for example, I have consistently ignored every single "per nom"): by considering the extent to which they're in line with established consensus, their context, and the strength with which they were expressed. – Joe (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So you are suggesting we change the 15 or so year old process and no longer treat naked supports as per nom. That's fine, but there needs to be a consensus to change than and thus an RfC. Furthermore, I believe well established consensus is that the ranges are not sharp; if they were, strength of argument would be irrelevant. Strike all policy violations and then just tally, and that isn't how RfA/B has behaved, at least since 2006. I have to log off now, it's late in EDT. Thank you for your time. -- Avi (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm saying that you should judge consensus at RfAs the same way we do everywhere else. Including giving "per noms" (explicit or otherwise) practically no weight. And more importantly, not dismissing fellow contributor's opinions because you personally don't find them persuasive.

I fully agree that tallying and percentages are a naive way to gauge consensus. Incidentally, that's another aberration unique to RfA/B. – Joe (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). I'll just repost here what I posted a couple of hours ago at WT:RfA, (FYI Avraham):

• The 'crats don't evaluate on a score card points system. They each have their own way of examining the evidence for support or oppose as objectively as possible and that's what we pay them for, but it would needlessly prolong the process if, for example, a unanimous verdict were to be insisted upon, a minimum quorum, or laying down some strict formula for consistency, or a firm numerical cut-off.

Thus comparing the RexxS and the JBHunley RfAs is comparing apples with oranges - the only similarity was that they were both in the discretionary zone and both went to a 'crat chat. There was actually far more drama surrounding the Hunley RfA than the RexxS but nobody saw fit to re-debate the RfA system or the role of the Bureaucrats. The community needs to wake up to the fact that we have the Bureaucrats, a user group with the highest level of trust within their sphere of remit (even higher than that of Arbcom) and we have conferred on them the responsibility of adjudicating on close calls.

Anything else that may be wrong with RfA is the fault of the voters themselves: vindictive voters, clueless voters, trolls, vandals, socks, general drama mongers, and those who always resent the role and existence of admins. Biblioworm's reforms lowered the bar and doubled the voter turnout, but none of them addressed the core issues or led to an increase in the number of candidates coming forward. It's time to put an end to this drama and look for ways to address the real problems with RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vietnam War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vietnam War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2019

Delivered May 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.

23:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Johannes Gutenberg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johannes Gutenberg. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Solomon's Pools

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Solomon's Pools. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Gibmul clear up

Did you leave Katrin Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) live intentionally? SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smartse: Yes, but only because other people had edited it since Gibmul. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. Good point. I've done some more tidying. I see despite how long they've been around, they were still consistently adding unverifiable information. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of India. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Shad White: Page Deletion Because Of Banned User "05/25/19"

Hey Joe, it has come to our attention that you have deleted one of our client's (Shad White) Wikipedia page. Our client is the current State Auditor of Mississippi.

We contracted this project out using an online freelancing tool - we have no experience with building a Wikipedia page and quickly realized that we did not have time to figure out the process. I'm not sure how we would have figured out that the freelancer we used was a banned user, however, we provided him accurate information with correlating documentation. Shad's article successfully went through the approval process and was live until recently deleted by you.

Is there anything we can do on our end to get his page back live? Is there a way for me to claim the page instead of the freelancer we used or some other solution to this? It's unfortunate that our client is being penalized when the information provided is accurate with documentation to back it up, just because we used a vendor who we do not know personally (and had no inkling or anyway of finding out that he was in bad standing with Wikipedia).

Zgregory3 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zgregory3: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. It is a neutral, volunteer-written encyclopaedia. The Wikipedia community strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest and very strongly discourages editing for pay. In that sense all paid editors are in "bad standing". That Gibmul was not honest with you about this is not surprising given he also attempted to deceive the Wikipedia community to circumvent these and other rules.

Our policy is that edits by users evading a ban are deleted, so I will not restore Shad White. The page doesn't belong to its creator or its subject, but to the Wikipedia community as a whole. To be clear, the rules I linked above mean that you or any other representatives or employees of Shad White should not make edits about him. Thank you for understanding that encyclopaedic coverage is not for sale here. – Joe (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Santa Claus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Santa Claus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2019

Delivered June 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.

18:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Domenico Losurdo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domenico Losurdo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14

Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please comment on Talk:Virginia Beach shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Virginia Beach shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The statement

3 Arbs (AGK, Courcelles and Callanecc) did not sign on it. Will it be possible to state, as to whether this stems from inactivity or non-alignment of views? ∯WBG^converse 09:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Courcelles and Callenecc have not been active on our mailing list recently. I won't speak for AGK. – Joe (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! ∯WBG^converse 09:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

• Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

• In the media: The disinformation age

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

• Technology report: Actors and Bots

• Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

• Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

• Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

• From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

• In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

• Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

• Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2019

Delivered July 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.

23:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	A Gorilla told me you wrote most of an open letter. Thank you. GRuban (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I saw the same accreditation from Worm. Impressive. You're kind of a "new blood" or "freshman" arb, yet during the election I remember a lot of resounding confidence that you'd bring something very important to the team. It's good that you took the initiative to write the statement you did. You proved the endorsements right. You bring something special to the committee. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you so much for the kind words GRuban, Swarm. But credit where credit is due, the whole committee was behind the letter, and GorillaWarfare wrote a large chunk of it with me. – Joe (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Independence

I recommend that ArbCom not create the appearance that they are taking marching orders from T&S. Otherwise, your action won't end the controversy. You should act independently of T&S, based upon our established traditions. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: It's certainly not my intention to create that impression. But realistically, T&S have already banned Fram and we can't take on the case without them passing us evidence, so they have to be involved in some way (essentially as a party to the case, in my view). – Joe (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The current state of play is that Fram will be away July 15 to July 30. You can’t do much of a case without his input. Since the case can’t really get very far before he leaves, I now think it best to wait until Aug 1 and let Fram make a case request. By then you’ll have been briefed and be able to respond to questions without long delays. I recommend you follow the standard process for taking cases. I’d also like you to look at the behavior of people complaining anonymously about Fram. There may be an issue of off-wiki collusion, and a pattern of head hunting. Wikipedia is not a game where editors try to get perceived opponents banned. Jehochman ^Talk 00:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rusyns

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rusyns. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in Red

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2019

Delivered August 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.

01:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Max Blumenthal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Max Blumenthal. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:NYC Pride March

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:NYC Pride March. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese history. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2019

Delivered September 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.

21:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:U.S. state

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. state. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For you and Arbcom’s dedication to this project. Don’t take the heated words to seriously, this has been going on for weeks. Keep on making tough but fair decisions. Thanks again.BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been a rough few months on ArbCom, so it's really appreciated. – Joe (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been a rough few months to us whom you (committee) put in distress. I don't want to repeat what I told Katie, Eric and the notice board, but please take some to heart. I read to myself "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this" (from my talk) again and again, but it hasn't worked yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerda I make no apologies for acting to remove people who are abusive to other editors from the project. I'll continue to advocate doing so for as long as I'm on the committee, no matter how good their contributions or how many friends they have. – Joe (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree! But can you please show how Fram was abusive after his last warning, to the extent that he needed to be banned, precluded from commenting on his own case, and then desysopped? So far no diffs have been posted, and nobody has explained why Fram was locked in a cage and muzzled. That's not a nice way to treat a volunteer while their case is being heard, at least not until they start misbehaving on the case pages. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Request

You said, Enough doubt has been cast on Fram's conduct in this case that, at the least, another RfA is appropriate. Could you please add a finding of fact stating this clearly with a few representative diffs? Additionally could you add a second finding that "Contrary to our customs, Fram was not unblocked to participate on the case pages, due to restrictions placed by the Wikimedia Foundation." Maybe that reason isn't correct. See? A finding would be helpful to document this unusual condition and clarify the reason for it. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is what the PD talk page is for, Jehochman. A FoF on ADMINCOND has already been suggested multiple times (including by arbs). We're working on it. You really don't need to repeat the same point on all our individual talk pages. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you answer the other point please. Each of you got a differently framed set of questions based on your specific statements. My other question that you didn’t answer was what are you going to do about Fram having been banned improperly and not having been allowed to comment on the case pages. This was highly irregular and at minimum should be noted as a finding with an explanation of how it happened. As for the PD talk page, it seems like these questions were asked multiple times and no answer was given. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, thank you for your work. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WTT's answer to the same question on GorillaWarfare's talk page. Finding of facts are supposed to be observations that directly inform our decision. They're not a complete record of the evolution of the case; for that we have the request, evidence, and workshop pages too. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

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

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Given all that you have going on with Wikipedia I am truly appreciative that you not only took the time to participate in my RfA but to do so with a thoughtful personalized comment. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Valrico, Florida

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Valrico, Florida. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Machiavellianism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Machiavellianism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Joe, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you valereee, I appreciate it. It's the job I signed up for! – Joe (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Portal:Nanotechnology

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 15

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.

Regards,

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

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

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 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2019

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 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

An explanation

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)

Proposals regarding AfC & NPP

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)

Greenman

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. –xeno^talk 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 Hutchens

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)

COI

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. –xeno^talk 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 undo

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 Undelete

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.

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

References

New Tenzing Energy Drink Article

@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)

Please comment on Template talk:History of Christianity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:History of Christianity. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Shinhan Bank Canada

Joe Roe, If you strike Carajou's invalid vote and completely irrelevant comment, consensus is unanimous to delete this stub-class, non-notable Canadian bank subsidiary. I'd argue relisting doesn't serve a useful purpose.--Doug Mehus (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: I disagree. Carajou claiming there are sources is neither irrelevant nor an invalid vote. With only three participants, no consensus has emerged; there needs to be more discussion to see whether others agree with you or Carajou. – Joe (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, Did you look at the sources quoted, though? They aren't even relevant. They link to a spammy site CoinDesk, and have literally nothing to do with Shinhan Bank Canada. At the same time, Carajou is the subject of an active WP:COI case related to his or her participation in the NewtonX deletion discussion, for which one or more admins raised eyebrows at the listed users' coordinated involvement. I suspect this was a case of WP:SOURGRAPES on Carajou's part, so figured he or she would just vote counter to emerging consensus on a number of articles when the NewtonX discussion wasn't going his or her way. At any rate, I think quality of arguments should be considered—for which there was zero put forth by Carajou—and it makes sense to at least strike his or her spammy, irrelevant links from the record. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL, there was already a WP:SOURGRAPES wiki shortcut link. I just guessed. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: It's not a closer's place to decide on the quality of the sources. We judge whether there's a consensus – and there isn't one yet. Please assume good faith of your fellow contributors and remember that everyone gets to participate in discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, I have assumed good faith, and always do except when demonstrated, habitually, otherwise. But still, do you not at least admit that the sources provided were completely irrelevant? Doug Mehus (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've relisted the discussion. I don't intend to participate it. – Joe (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing populism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing populism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Brigades

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Brigades. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Dick Willebrandts, jazz band leader

Dear Joe Roe, you have helped me in the past with new English articles such as the one on Constant Cornelis Huysmans. Now I would like to request once again your assistance. I have submitted as a draft a new English article on the Dutch jazz band leader Dick Willebrandts. The Dutch version of this article which I also wrote is available on the Dutch Wikipedia. Now the Engllish article on Dick Willebrandts seems to be accepted as a draft, but I am not sure how to submit it for review, link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllPages&from=Detlef+Schuppan&namespace=118 Please help. Best regards, Hanengerda (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello again Hanengerda. You just need to click "Submit this draft for review" in the grey box at the top of the article. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I just clicked on the grey box which I initially was afraid to do and it is now a draft for review. Thanks again, best regards, Hanengerda (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2019

Delivered November 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.

14:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 811 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Map projection

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Map projection. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Peder Mortensen

I , by this, dicussion cite that the year regarding the book was correctly cited but this book was published and influenced only due Mortensen's views based on the research on web.

But I too consider your advise.

Regards SHISHIR DUA (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your help - great to e-meet you! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: Thank you for writing so many nice articles in such a short time! If you're interested, we have a small working group working on biographies of women archaeologists at WP:ARCHAEO/WOMEN. It's not been particularly active lately, but you might find some of the resources there helpful. – Joe (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RFAR

TY for acknowledging and responding. I remember it was done once, but I couldn't tell you what year, so I can't give you details. (I'm sure NYB will know). I think maybe a pause between evidence and workshop during the week between Christmas and New Years? IDK. Anyway - good luck with a difficult case, and I know I don't say it nearly often enough - TY to all for serving. (it will be my NY resolution to be more appreciative of you folks) — Ched (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, I appreciate it. To clarify, I do agree with you that it would be helpful to have the new arbs' help on this, I just think it will happen anyway without an explicit suspension. I certainly don't plan on doing an arbitration work over the Christmas holiday! – Joe (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147 Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red... Online events: New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November 2019

Do not simply delete others valid talk page comments. Thanks. It's not your page. There is nothing wrong with the query. It is there for all to see, not just you. I don't care what the nature of it is, don't delete others input and nobody will ever be upset by it, right? ~ R.T.G 17:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact, now that I read the enquiry, it is a request not to be ignored. Deleting this enquiry was inflammatory indeed. You know not to do this. Thanks. ~ R.T.G 18:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi RTG. That page is not a talk page. It's an arbitration case request, which is there for the sole and specific purpose of helping ArbCom decide whether to accept a case. Arbitrators (like myself) and clerks have the full remit to maintain pages in arbitration space, for example by removing comments that are not directly relevant to the case request. Usedtobecool's question was a perfectly valid one, but it was misplaced – it should have been on the talk page. As it happens, I was able to answer it in my edit summary, so there was no need to move it. And judging by their "thanks" for my revert, I don't think Usedtobecool minds. – Joe (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are another editors words. You cannot predict thanks for questionable actions. If you deleted a comment from me saying please don't ignore this comment, I'd be infuriated. There was no need to delete the comment. It was an expression that arbitration is not needed in this case. I have no opinion on that. I have an opinion though about deleting others comments or changing their meaning, or preventing discussion. You know you shouldn't do this. I am inclined now to watch out for you and when you upset someone like this annoy the s*** out of you. There is absolutely no need or valid reason to delete that comment. The fact that arbs have the power over that page does not lift them above simple things like this, as you well know. A statement asking you not to take a case on the requests page is not for the talk page. Sorry to challenge your comfort but you are going to confuse somebody, they are going to get upset about it, edit war their comment back onto the page or, go away with the idea they shouldn't make that comment on that page. You could just leave it there. Instead you edit warred it off with me. There's not much I can do to make you do anything but I am proposing something here that you, as a dispute settler, should be agreeable to. Sorry about getting all up in your station here but that really is an infuriating thing you just done whether Usedtobecool cares, or rolls over, or whatever basically. ~ R.T.G 18:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

With respect, RTG, are you sure you've understood Usedtobecool's comment? They asked why there has been a delay in accepting the case, and I pointed them to a comment from another arbitrator that explained why. They didn't say anything about being ignored, and in the immediately preceding paragraph said I think this case should be accepted. I don't think anyone is upset here except you, and I'm scratching my head as to why you care so intensely about another editor's comment which, at least initially, you didn't even read? – Joe (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool asked you to close the request and move along. It includes words to the effect of what is the point of making comments if they are not allowed to stand. Removing, and changing the nature of another editors comments, is the most inflammatory thing you can do with them. There was no need to delete the comment. There is no need to try and shuffle around the point I am making here, like as if I didn't make a point, like as if you just deleted it. ~ R.T.G 18:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Do I have to start quoting guidelines about this? I know you know about not to delete others comments. There is no need to try and game your way around accepting it if indeed the action was innocent enough. If you want to respond to Usedtobecool, you should use the arbitration area and the notification system, as is standard. ~ R.T.G 18:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: In fairness it is a bit hard to parse, but Usedtobecool actually said ...if comments disregarding the point aren't not allowed to stand, i.e. they're asking why we've allowed off-topic comments to remain on the page (@Usedtobecool: please correct me if I've misunderstood). Your point, as I understand it, is that removing others' comments can be seen as inflammatory? My response was that removing off-topic comments is a routine part of clerking arbitration pages. I think most reasonable people understand that and don't get upset by it. It's particularly banal in this case since I answered the editor's question at the same time, apparently to their satisfaction. I don't have much to say beyond that. – Joe (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence was in fact directly relevant to the case at hand. Usedtobecool said, "and I think I've words to spare". They weren't interested in being deleted. They just said they weren't going to press very hard for a response. Deletion was not very encouraging was it. ~ R.T.G 19:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @RTG: The clerks are currently opening the case, and will have completed that process in the next few hours. This seems to supersede the question of restoration. AGK ■ 19:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing superceeds deleting comments pertinent to discussion. Here is Joe about my complaint, "actions aggravate people simply because they come from an arb/clerk". I've made the point. Let's just see what happens then. ~ R.T.G 19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2019

Delivered December 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.

02:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Dak To

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Dak To. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry merry !

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	I wish you a quieter year ahead! Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはJoe Roeたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

From my family to yours, wishing you a very Happy Christmas and a wonderful New Year. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor, Miraclepine, Cameron11598, SilkTork, Lightburst, and Wikaviani: Thank you all for the Christmas greetings! Hope you're also having a restful holiday. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, Joe! I hope that you are having a restful one as well . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

• From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

• News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

• Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

• In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

• Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

• Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

• Technology report: User scripts and more

• Gallery: Holiday wishes

• Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

• From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

• WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)