User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2016
 | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2016. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
|
Archives: |
|
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 |
|
Talkback
Message added 16:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
331dot (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8
This month:
In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.
Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)
With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!
The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.
If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.
WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.
And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.
Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!
- The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
- The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.
Until next time,
Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Yuan dynasty
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yuan dynasty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/British Institute in Amman at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
DYK for British Institute in Amman
On 11 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article British Institute in Amman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British Institute in Amman was founded by archaeologist Crystal Bennett in 1975 to provide a base for British archaeological expeditions to Jordan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/British Institute in Amman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, British Institute in Amman), 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.
— Maile (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Oh, crap. There is even a Nobel Prize about the self/non-self notion in biology[1]. Too bad : a non-biologist declined this.
- Sorry to hear that. However, I can see where the review is coming from. It's impossible for a nonspecialist to verify that "self" is a significant and notable topic in biology from the references you provided, and because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone it's important that all our content is verifiable by anyone.
- You really needn't give up, though. The AfC process is supposed to be iterative: almost all submissions are declined a few times before they're ready. Joe Roe (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, I needed to give up because fighting a Bart Simpson type decision would at best exhaust me and at worst just feed a troll. As for non-competent to realize how is it or not notable ? Just go for National Center for Biotechnology Information and make your own opinion about the references. Nothing hard to do but a Bart Simpson would just mess up "just because" or whatever the fallacious "reasons". Dunno if you read the reasons to decline the article but so far, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi_%28biologie%29 exists since 2009 on the french Wiki and yes : there are plenty articles like the famous HLA, organ transplantation and so on which are mostly about the self/non-self. Doesn't it trigger question about what would be this "self" ?
- Nevermind. Maybe someday someone else in an alternative universe will write/accept/resurrect/whatever a/nother Self (biology) article, coz the rushed declining decision didn't let time for any biologists around to put the slightest peek on it.
- If you feel sorry for real for this article, you may want to talk to that guy. I'm just IP, I'm nobody and don't intend to seek any "accreditation" for myself. So long :-)
- 176.140.80.25 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, I needed to give up because fighting a Bart Simpson type decision would at best exhaust me and at worst just feed a troll. As for non-competent to realize how is it or not notable ? Just go for National Center for Biotechnology Information and make your own opinion about the references. Nothing hard to do but a Bart Simpson would just mess up "just because" or whatever the fallacious "reasons". Dunno if you read the reasons to decline the article but so far, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi_%28biologie%29 exists since 2009 on the french Wiki and yes : there are plenty articles like the famous HLA, organ transplantation and so on which are mostly about the self/non-self. Doesn't it trigger question about what would be this "self" ?
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Barbara Robb
Hello! Your submission of Barbara Robb at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Barbara Robb
| On 31 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara Robb, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Barbara Robb (pictured), a campaigner for the well-being of older people, was described by a Cabinet Minister as a "terrible danger" to the British government in 1969? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Robb. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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. |
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9
Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!
Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Indian massacre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indian massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:McCarthyism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:McCarthyism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Cave template
Hi mate! i had a little chat with a few technical guys yesterday. You might want to read it: HERE ATBWikirictor (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Southern Levant
You forgot to sign your comment: [1] --Deryck C. 16:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
3 barn caves for 3 creative wikiminds
| Three barn caves for the three initiatiors and creative minds behind Template:Navbox prehistoric caves; User:Joe Roe, User:Doug Weller, and User:Wikirictor! Not archaeological though, but wow... Tisquesusa (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks very much! But most of the credit should go to User:Doug Weller, whose idea it was, and User:Wikirictor. Joe Roe (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Help with Southern Levant article?
I was wondering if you'd like to help with further development of the Southern Levant article? I have access to some scholarly sources, but given your background and experience, perhaps you'd be willing to help expand and solidify the article? Drsmoo (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I definitely would like to. I think maybe adding a bit of geography etc. would help, to balance out the archaeology? Joe Roe (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- We must be careful not to duplicate or fork the subtopics here, as many are already covered in the overlapping articles. This area is already full of duplication, since noone can agree on the use of "Palestine" vs "Israel", most subtopics are already covered twice in wikipedia. We need to take care to avoid having the same information shown three times. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Considering the number of overlapping articles is already well over three, and that Southern Levant is its own unique region, I don't see any issue. As far as I'm concerned, the objective is to write a detailed and comprehensive article about the Southern Levant, no more and no less. Drsmoo (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your offer to help. We're currently having a discussion on the Southern Levant talkpage regarding the direction of the article. Your expertise would be very helpful Drsmoo (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I'd like to revise the terminology section, as it's kind of a mess right now (it seems to be mainly dealing with Biblical Archaeology currently, for example). Do you know of any good references for the cultural/geographic/linguistic features that define the southern Levant and cause it to be it's own unique region, or specifically, why that region's boundaries are where they are? I've gathered some reliable sources as well, so if you don't have time I understand, but you're knowledge/experience would be really helpful! Drsmoo (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
there are some very weird project ideas
since when does a project have importance/class for a category that is most projects have NA or cat ?
interesting if someone can sort out the coding, but there should be something in the actual template that alerts editors of the issue... JarrahTree 10:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The template has the functionality to mark the importance of categories (the class is still "Category"), so why not use it? Some categories are more important and worth keeping an eye on than others. Joe Roe (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- unless it is established by consensus at a project with everyone agreeing, I'd never have such a loose as a goose approach, I would have to be convinced the massive amount of articles by quality and importance system could cope with such a weird one on the whole framework of assessment in the whole wikipedia project... I have spent 8 years or more staring at NA and CAT on cat pages, and must say I find the idea very odd, unless there is s specific page/designation about it not throwing other aspects of the project or assessment system awry, but then there may be some good rational explanations somewhere as to why it doesnt cock things up. JarrahTree 11:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I had no idea it was weird or that I was overturning a consensus, since as far as I can tell it's not mentioned in any of the template documentation that you shouldn't assess the importance of categories. So I just threw in an assessment when I happened to tag categories for WP Archaeology. But if you think it will cause problems, I'm happy to undo them... Joe Roe (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Just as a point of interest, though: the WP1.0 bot seems to parse them no problem, e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Assessment.) Joe Roe (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- If it works and you dont have anyone else in archaeol project take umbrage, suppose its ok, I know that in the old days, youd get slaughtered at the altar of conformity, but who knows where the warriors have gone, perhaps they are what is happening at the very very weird stub metric obssessives who have recovered the conformity to metrics, when in the view of a whole range of changes over time, perhaps should be creating content rather than terror in the world of stubs... JarrahTree 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Map
Nice map; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was planning of doing variants for the other hypotheses, too. Joe Roe (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- See User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Map; could you help there? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Dersim massacre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dersim massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
04:44:41, 14 August 2016 review of submission by Imbwiki
Hi Joe. I take your point regarding links rather than direct references and I will re-do the page over the next month or two to fix that.
I find it amusing that you say that an article in Wikipedia can't reference another article in Wikipedia. Surely almost every article ever published on Wikipedia does so. Believe me, I would much rather rely on an external source than a Wikipedia article written by someone with unknown qualifications.
Finally, the two example authorities you quoted were both written by Peter Hore himself. What I have attempted to do is find external sources to verify the statements he makes in those articles. I have now included them in my draft as 'authorities' because I know Peter Hore as an honest man and prolific author and do not doubt his word.
Time is not on my side but I will get back to this draft as soon as I can. Thanks for your prompt review.
Imbwiki (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Imbwiki. When I say "Wikipedia can't reference Wikipedia", I mean in the context of our verifiability policy. Of course, all Wikipedia articles extensively link to other articles to point the reader to related, further information. A "reference" in this context is a citation to an external, reliable source that substantiates the information in the article – the superscript numbers. Reading your draft I don't think you've quite got the hang of our referencing style yet, so I'd advise you to read Referencing for beginners before resubmitting it. For example, in your draft you say:
- He is also a Chartered Member of the Institute of Linguists. Institute of Linguists
- You could add a link to Institute of Linguists here so readers could learn more about that body if they wanted to, but that is not a reference to Wikipedia. The existing link to the CIOL's website is another type of "further information" link, not a reference (and unfortunately this sort is not allowed under Wikipedia's Manual of Style, so will have to be removed before the draft is accepted). Neither actually say that Peter Hore is a member of the CIOL, so this statement is unreferenced and liable to be removed.
- I hadn't realised those two sources were written by Hore. In that case, you'll need to find some other sources independent of Hore that establish his notability. This is vital for any article to be included in the encyclopaedia. Joe Roe (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Do not use both date= and year= in citation templates. Other than that, great work at Archaeological record! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks ... and a question about sources
Hello, Joe Roe. Thanks very much for correcting my "correction" to Archaeological record regarding the page number of the article referred to. I was obviously way too quick to correct what was not incorrect. I extend my sincere (and embarrassed) apologies.
In the summary of your edit you also noted "surely the official eprint of an article is better than an unauthorized (and poor quality) scan on a blog?". I agree with you. An official eprint is better than a low quality scan. However, the official eprint to which you've directed the reader requires a payment of $25.00 to read anything more than the first page of the article. The low quality scan, however, makes available not only the quote being cited, but also the context of the entire article, and requires no payment at all. In this case, wouldn't you agree that the low quality (but still very readable) scan is preferable to an official eprint? Thank you for your attention and thanks again for having corrected my error. Akhooha (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's alright, these things happen.
- I agree that it's deplorable that scholarly texts, especially classic and important texts like that paper, are still locked up behind paywalls. However, my concern with linking to a PDF hosted on a Wordpress is 1) it seems more susceptible than most to link rot, 2) it's almost certainly a copyright violation, which we shouldn't link to.
- Having said that, I've just noticed the citation template says the url= parameter should only be used for free links, so I'll go ahead and remove that (the link to the official eprint is provided by the DOI). Up to you whether you want to add a link to the PDF back. Joe Roe (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick reply. As for your concern about link rot, I suppose that could be easily remedied by archiving the site in advance on the Wayback Machine. As for the copyright concerns, well, that is a different kettle of fish, isn't it? As much as I disagree with the application of the copyright laws to academic articles (such as the one under discussion), I'll hold off on adding the link to the PDF, just so WP can't be held responsible. If someone is interested enough and balks at the $25.00 fee, it'll be easy to google around and locate a free link.
- I find it interesting that WP says the url=parameter should be used only for free links --- that seems to be in conflict with WP's promotion of limited editorial access to paywall sites like JSTOR, Brill, Elsevier, etc, access given presumably with an eye to directing readers to those paywall sites. Thanks again for your reply. Akhooha (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Margaret Ursula Jones
On 17 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Margaret Ursula Jones, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Margaret Ursula Jones directed work at Mucking, the largest archaeological excavation ever undertaken in Britain, for thirteen years, while living on site year round in a small caravan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Ursula Jones. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Margaret Ursula Jones), 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.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Anne Bartholmew article
I thought I was editing the article that was in wikipedia. I put it in my sandbox and then I thought I was done editing and thought it was ready to be updated. I went to a meeting tonight and maybe some people I met there will help me with editing and then updating on the site. Thanks for your interest. Lotta Little (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- You submitted your sandbox to Articles for Creation, which is a process for creating new articles. To update an existing article, you can simply edit it directly. You might want to try the Wikipedia Adventure, a short interactive tutorial on how to edit. Thanks for contributing! Joe Roe (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
02:28:29, 18 August 2016 review of submission by JCTH2015
Hello, thank you for reviewing the revisions to my Wikipedia submission. It's been a great learning process.
When I put together the citations of this article I modeled them after the wiki citations from another similar company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidrick_%26_Struggles
The citations used for Heidrick and Struggles look very similar in nature, the exception being is that Heidrick citations include various Press Releases which I understood were against guidelines. Russell Reynolds Associates looks, at least to me, like they are a notable company in the executive recruiting space as they are in the top 5 according to this list: http://www.northlinepartners.com/pdf/2014_Top40_NorthLine.pdf and ranked just above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Zehnder who also does have a Wiki entry. I would like a re-review based on the revenue generated by Russell Reynolds Associates and the quality of citations relative to other wiki entries for other similar types of firms.
Thanks!
- Hello JCTH2015. You're welcome to request another review – just click the re-review button on the AfC template. However, be aware that the existence or quality of other articles is irrelevant; our policy is to review each article solely on its own merits. As I said in my review, there are not enough independent sources in your draft that substantially mention the company and your submission is unlikely to be accepted unless that changes. Joe Roe (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks
Just a quick note to say thank you for taking the time to review my article on big rocks over at GAN! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hindupur
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hindupur. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Joe Roe 2013.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Joe Roe 2013.jpg, which you've attributed to Stuart Johnson. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
clumsy English
Hi Joe, Hi Doug! Please go through my text of Tam Pa Ling Cave and correct. ATB Wikirictor (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done! It's a nice little article – are you going to submit it to DYK? Joe Roe (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot - structure is very much to the point now. DYK - never did that, though. But don't you think the article should have more content for DYK? BTW i made a few more articles recently. Have a look if you like: Boomplaas Cave, Cocev Kamen, Laang Spean, Gueldaman caves, Zengpiyan Cave, Pair-non-PairWikirictor (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Margaret Ursula Jones
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Margaret Ursula Jones you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you understand Wikidata?
Because I've messed up the wikidata for Marsoulas Cave which should be linked with [2]. But I carelessly edited Magdalenian Girl thinking I was editing Marsoulas Cave, creating this. I don't seem to be able to undue it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Took a bit of head-scratching, but I think I've fixed it? [3] Joe Roe (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, do you remember how? Should we link Magdalenian Girl to Cap Blanc?[4] - which maybe should have an article rather than be subsumed into the article on the skeleton's, or maybe a redirect. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the problem was there was a duplicate entry for Marsoulas Cave (Q25053921) so after you changed the other one to Magdalenian Girl that's what showed up under Marsoulas Cave. So I reverted all your edits to the original Marsoulas Cave entry (Q3117147) and then merged Q25053921 into it.
- I think there's enough material to have separate articles for Magdalenian Girl and Abri de Cap Blanc if anyone cares to translate the latter, so I'd hold off on linking them. (And, if I understand it correctly, Wikidata might rebel at having "[instance of] a skeleton" and "[instance of] a cave" under the same entry.) Joe Roe (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I tried to revert my edits at the Marsoulas Cave entry but nothing happened. Odd. I think you're right about MG and the cave. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm creating an article for Cap Blanc. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I tried to revert my edits at the Marsoulas Cave entry but nothing happened. Odd. I think you're right about MG and the cave. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, do you remember how? Should we link Magdalenian Girl to Cap Blanc?[4] - which maybe should have an article rather than be subsumed into the article on the skeleton's, or maybe a redirect. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Triggering notifications
Hi Joe. Just to let you know that this edit won't have triggered a notification for that user. Pings only work if they are added at the same time that you sign the post. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks for letting me know. Didn't know that. Joe Roe (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neither did I until I made the same mistake and someone pointed it out to me, so I now like to pass the message on! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Review of submission by Bruce2605
Thank you for being willing to review the Bank of Utah article and provide feedback. I obviously need some direction on adding third-party references to the Bank of Utah article. I have been reviewing other banking institutions similar in size and geography, and many of them have less third-party references than the Bank of Utah article, or the links are broken - but they are published. I have also reviewed the other links provided and suggested by Wikipedia to find 'linkable' content, and much of what is available either outdated, isn't relevant, or comes from their corporate web site.
Any direction you can provide to make this article clear for publishing is very much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce2605 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce2605. Unfortunately looking at other articles can be misleading as in the past things have slipped through that don't meet the standard. At AfC, we have to review each article on its own merits according to Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines.
- That said, here are some examples of similar articles that satisfy the the golden rule: Advanta, First National Bank of Layton, State Bank of Southern Utah, Ally Bank. As you can see we aren't asking for the earth: just a few independent sources, like news articles, with significant mentions. But at the moment your draft has zero sources that fulfil that criteria: they're all trivial mentions in directories.
- I would have thought it would be possible to at least find a couple of local news pieces related to a bank of that size. If not, perhaps it simply isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not everything is. Joe Roe (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I found third-party sources and made the appropriate changes to the article. Bruce2605 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:TPG
Just a friendly reminder per this edit summary. User's are generally permitted to remove or refactor their own comments when they have not been replied to. Obviously this one had been, so it was still inappropriate. The spirit was right, but the explanation could have used a bit of tweaking. TimothyJosephWood 21:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. If only you could edit edit summaries! Joe Roe (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- IKR. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
following on from our last messages (User DCM18395)
Firstly I would like to thank you for accepting my submission. I would also like to ask if you removed the services section because it was not suitable for a wikipedia page or if someone else has done this? Furthermore, is there any way of keeping track of the changes that are made to the page because I am aware anyone can make these changes?
ThanksDCM18395 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)DCM18395DCM18395 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed the services section and some other passages that were overly promotional. You can see a full log of the changes to made to a page by viewing it's history (the "View history" tab at the top of the article). The usual way to keep track of articles you're interested in is adding them to your watchlist, by clicking the star icon on the tab bar. If you don't think you'll check back very often, there's an option in your preferences to "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". Joe Roe (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists
   | |
|---|---|
|
Women in Nursing editathon & Women Labor Activists editathon | |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
Please comment on Talk:1
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Margaret Ursula Jones
The article Margaret Ursula Jones you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Margaret Ursula Jones for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Expand
Hey, I tried to expand existing article. but someone removed it, That's why I remove redirect and give some article there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawsar9161 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I understand it's frustrating when somebody removes your contributions, but the way to deal with it is to talk to them (usually via the article's talk page, e.g. Talk:Night vision device) and find out why they removed it and what can be done to address their concerns. If we created new articles every time there was an editing dispute, we'd have hundreds on every topic! Joe Roe (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Your Teahouse response
I guess this counts as "almost always", but Chinese people tend to have their "second" name before their "first" name. I'm not sure what you call those names, but for most of the world, I think first and second would be correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, "first" and "second" would work better with the Chinese. What we call the last name if we speak English would be first, and it would go first. And what we call the first name would be the second name.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what response you're talking about? Joe Roe (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- This one. And I believe you've come up with an ideal way to word it, as long as "first name" doesn't mean what it normally does for those of us who speak English. I would have responded there but it was archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh right. I wasn't really thinking of global naming practices (try getting your head around how Mongolian names fit into MOS:NAMES!), only trying to explain why the author's idiosyncratic "S.KUMAR ISC" wasn't going to fly. Joe Roe (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think those other names would qualify as rare exceptions.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh right. I wasn't really thinking of global naming practices (try getting your head around how Mongolian names fit into MOS:NAMES!), only trying to explain why the author's idiosyncratic "S.KUMAR ISC" wasn't going to fly. Joe Roe (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- This one. And I believe you've come up with an ideal way to word it, as long as "first name" doesn't mean what it normally does for those of us who speak English. I would have responded there but it was archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what response you're talking about? Joe Roe (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 3 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Vera Markovna Karelina page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Eritrea
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eritrea. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joe Roe (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Talkback: you've got messages!
Message added VarunFEB2003 06:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:51Degrees
Apologies for the deletion. I thought that, since I was at liberty to edit and improve the article, the reference in your comment needed to be amended too so that it made sense. Kiwiprof (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You apologise, and yet you've just edited the same comment again. I said what I meant to say. It is really not your place, and quite rude, to "amend" other editors' comments in this way. Joe Roe (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the timings, you will see that the edit was made before I read your talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 11:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Luis Cabral AfD
Wanted to let you know that I withdrew the AfD for Luis Cabral (economist) after reading through your reasoning to keep. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:New York
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Chronological dating: an inconsistency
Hi Joe. You certainly remember the merge of "Dating methodologies in archaeology" within "Chronological dating". I'm returning to the latter because I just noticed that, now, after the merge and after some of your edits, there are sentences like "If one looks at the sequence in fig A"... but the fact is that all figures and images have been removed from the page, which causes an obvious inconsistency. I wanted to talk about it, just tell me what you think. Kintaro (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I must have overlooked that section when removing the material to be merged into Stratigraphy (archaeology) – fixed now. Joe Roe (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:David (Michelangelo)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David (Michelangelo). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Gala Wilton F.C.
Hi Joe,
The article I created on Gala Wilton F.C. is being contested for deletion. After reviewing the rules, it seems the club have only played at step 11 of the FA tiers, the Gloucestershire County League. I would have thought this level of competition was high enough especially since Stonehouse F.C. are at the same level.
Will this page now be deleted?
I was considering creating an article on Gloucester Rowing Club, founded in 1846, and have an Olympian Beth Rodford as a member:
www.gloucester-rowing.org
Do you think this page would be worth creating?
Norman777111 (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Norman777111: Apologies for not replying sooner. There are few hard and fast "rules" on Wikipedia, so Gala Wilton F.C. didn't necessarily have to be deleted, it depends entirely on the outcome of the discussion at AfD. However, it appears there's a consensus amongst editors that regularly edit football-related articles that only teams that have played above step 11 should be included.
- I don't really know anything about our coverage of sport (or sport in general!) so I'm not sure about Gloucester Rowing Club – perhaps ask @Number 57:. Joe Roe (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Joe,
- County league standard is a fairly high standard for football. If it is not considered worthy, why is their Wiki page Gloucestershire County Football League not selected for deletion?
- How will I know the outcome of this? I don't want to update the Gala Wilton page if there is any future chance it will be deleted. Norman777111 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Norman777111: I honestly couldn't tell you anything except that, unfortunately, guidelines and decisions are not always consistently enforced, so sometimes articles are deleted whilst other very similar ones stick around simply because nobody has noticed them. This is really outside of my area of expertise.
- I'm afraid Gala Wilton F.C. has already been deleted, because the consensus reached in the AfD was that the club is not notable. Joe Roe (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Joe Seger
Hello,
I went over to WP Archaeology and saw your name. I think I have also encountered you at a couple of recent AfD discussions. Anyway, this very poorly written archaeologist BLP about Joe D. Seger does not indicate notability as there are no references. I found a biography Curriculum Vitae at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University [5]. I also checked Google Scholar here and here. As you can see, some of his work is listed there. I am wondering if, in your view, you consider this person to be notable. Just from the small amount of info I have gathered, he appears to be marginally notable, but sometimes it is difficult to tell.Steve Quinn (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I am going to add that bio from Cobb Institute just to verify he exists and to hopefully verify some of the statements in the Wikipedia article.Steve Quinn (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yeah, I think Seger is notable. He's a well known Near Eastern archaeologist and heading up the Albright Institute probably meets WP:PROF#C6. I'll see if I can dig out any more sources and expand the article. Joe Roe (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent. I had a feeling this guy is notable, just from looking at the biographical facts available. Thanks, Joe. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
 .jpg)
| |
|---|---|
|
Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons | |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ARBPIA 3 Clarification
I've asked for clarification here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=741124764 Epson Salts (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the notification. I don't really have a dog in this fight but you misquoted me there so I've added a short clarification. Joe Roe (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line importScript("User:Another_Article/workflowstudyclient.js"); to your common.js. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Federal Union title page.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Federal Union title page.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion
I like your revisions however the second one you proposed today is much more accurate. The first wrongly presupposes two things; that there is any such scientific bases for "race" and that his comments had any shred of scientific legitimacy. The point of fixing this wording is so that readers in no way will be left to believe that a nobel prize winning scientist was in any way scientifically justified to make the comments he made. Another reason I prefer your second suggested wording is that is specific on who the scientist was speaking of. His words were in no way applicable to all people only to the ones he very clearly denigrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Landerman: The idea was that linking to race and intelligence (although it's not a great article) would give some context on how devoid of scientific validity his claims were, but really I'd be happy with any wording other than the current whitewash. Those suggestions aren't ideal but were a last-ditch attempt to get Collect to engage in meaningful discussion; predictably, he stonewalled it. Let's hope the RFC is more productive, but I have to say this dispute is really sapping my faith in the project. Joe Roe (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you completely and for awhile I was the only editor attempting to correct this and they used those filibuster and misinformed admins to try to silence me. I will be back shortly so please continue your efforts for discourse. I think another week or so and we go ahead and correct this article if this small group of editors continue to stonewall and refuse to engage. The current wording is and has never been the result of a consensus. Landerman56 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC) My advice is not to get sidetracked by claims that somehow you are misunderstanding some Wikipedia policy. Suggest a wording and ask for a replies consisting of yes, no, or an alternate wording. In either case the current wording is not acceptable to anyone except someone who has other motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration clarification request archived
Hi Joe Roe. The Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 #Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (October 2016) at the direction of the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
RfC for page patroller qualifications
RfC for page patroller qualifications Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line importScript("User:Another_Article/workflowstudyclient.js"); to your common.js. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:England (disambiguation)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:England (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
An invitation to November's events
 
| |
|---|---|
|
Announcing two exciting online editathons | |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Please comment on Talk:Diego Maradona
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diego Maradona. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:National Hockey League
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Hockey League. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review for Vugar Ismailov
Hello. I have asked for a deletion review of Vugar Ismailov. Because you participated in the deletion discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, I think, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thank you. Writer278 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of France
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of France. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers
Hi Joe Roe/Archives,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Wrong place
Your notice at [6] did not go to a real user. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- That was left automatically by the AFC Helper Script. I assume the submission template was filled in incorrectly. Joe Roe (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Review needs your help
Hi Joe Roe/Archives,
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Joe Roe. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ronald Reagan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ronald Reagan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Joe Roe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi Joe Roe/Archives. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
December 2016 at Women in Red
| |
|---|---|
|
Two new topics for our online editathons | |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Please comment on Talk:Operation Castor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Castor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter
- Breaking the back of the backlog
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
- 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. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
- Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
Developing Dual Inheritance Theory page
I have the opportunity to develop the dual inheritance theory page as part of an assignment, and I see you've previously worked on the page. What areas do you think need particular focus? Are there any areas which you think should be added which aren't covered already? ChristiannM (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for the late reply, ChristiannM, but if you're still planning to work on it I'd suggest a priority would be refocusing the article on DIT specifically over cultural evolution broadly construed. At the moment it contains a great deal of background information that should ideally be moved to the new article on cultural evolution. That leaves an opportunity to devote more space to DIT as a specific model of cultural evolution; i.e. discussing its development, theoretical positions that distinguish it from other models of cultural evolution, and specific applications to studies of human culture. Best of luck! Joe Roe (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Corded Ware Culture
Kindly refrain from gratuitous accusations of "original research" about things that are heavily referenced in the immediately following section of the article, and do not revert to a version that explicitly endorses a POV that has later proved false, and which you admitted to be so.
Per WP guidelines, I'll assume good faith, regardless of how rare that seems to actually be, and how typical your misbehavior is among passive-aggressive self-appointed guardians of policy. Such rude and unwarranted snark and casual vandalism is a major reason why longtime editors are leaving WP for less politically-policed alternatives with less hassle from foolish, cliqueish, rules-lawyering dullards.
Thanks, though, for noting that Anthony's false assertion was only proved so after it was published. Enon (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Enon: Regardless of whether you think that recent genetic studies disprove Anthony's assertion, to my knowledge we have no sources that actually make that link, making the rewording original research by synthesis. As encyclopaedia editors it's not our role, nor are most of us qualified, to provide original commentary or synthesis of new research. This isn't wikilawyering, it's a central pillar of Wikipedia that stops the encyclopaedia devolving into a pseudo-academy of layman theorising. Recently several editors have been forgetting this pillar and treating a handful of recent, high profile genetic studies as if they overturned a hundred years of archaeological and linguistic studies of Indo-European origins. To put it briefly, they don't. We need to wait for qualified experts to reassess the archaeological evidence in light of the new information from genetics in peer reviewed, academic literature to and then summarise the new consensus. It's not our role to editorialise Anthony's 2007 critical review (reflecting a longstanding consensus in prehistoric archaeology) based on our interpretations of primary research published just last year.
- If find your message totally unnecessarily aggressive, by the way. If you think dropping by someone's talk page to imply they're a "foolish, cliqueish, rules-lawyering dullard" is WP:AGF, then I would respectfully suggest you take another look at that guideline. Joe Roe (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nonsense. You're being intentionally obtuse. Anthony's thesis that the transformation to Corded Ware was primarily or all a cultural phenomenon was obviously disproven by showing that there was a massive migration wave, which pretty clearly wasn't peaceful. I understand that a lot of the archaeological and linguistic community had long been invested in assuming peaceful, cultural change rather than the war and genetics that are the usual real course of events. There's no original research there at all. On the other hand using words such as "Anthony noted" when referring to his thesis is POV endorsing it, so isn't appropriate either. Do not revert when you can improve the article, give an alternate edit. Do not camp out on articles, you aren't the one who gets to be the arbiter of any article, or of what mainstream or expert opinion is. "We" do not need to wait to interpret the evidence, nor for experts to do so, when the conclusion is quite clear. That some experts want to pretend their life's work hasn't been demolished is understandable, but clearly they can't be considered reliable sources on this matter. You're just pushing a refuted POV and blowing smoke to cover. Your aggrieved amour propre is neither here nor there, you set out to insult and now you complain when I send it back with topspin. You are the one who is out of line with your frivolous reverts and catty, passive-aggressive accompanying comment, for neither of which have you apologized as you should. Enon (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I apologise if you found my edit summary passive aggressive or insulting, I didn't intend it as such. It was a good faith attempt to preserve the neutrality of the article by removing what I judged to be original commentary. As someone with a professional interest in this subject I could happily talk all day about the relative roles of demographic and cultural diffusion in language shift (and by the by, my POV is not the one you've assigned to me), but as Wikipedians we're all limited to what has already been published in reliable, secondary sources. Respectfully, you need to be mindful of the fact that what is the "clear conclusion" of primary research to you may not be so clear to everyone else. I'm not the arbiter of what the mainstream view is―the community of editors is―but if you think a reliable, widely cited source has been disproven then the burden is on you to provide sources that back up that assertion, not on me to argue against it.
- My personal view is that the new genetic results probably will prompt the return of migration and warfare into the narrative. David Anthony's recent publications certainly hint at that. But that hasn't happened yet and the narrative as presented in those genetics paper is certainly not without flaws. We'll have to wait for the dust to settle. It's not a bad thing for Wikipedia to be conservative in its coverage in areas of ongoing research. Joe Roe (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I also feel like I should point out, since your edits seem to be motivated by the perception that Anthony is pushing a peaceful, cultural diffusionist orthodoxy, he's actually always emphasised the role of migration and warfare in prehistory. He was writing about it over 25 years ago, when basically nobody else was entertaining the idea that migration could be a major cause of cultural change. His 2007 book contains lengthy sections on the role of migration, warfare and genetic descent in spreading the IE languages. Joe Roe (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that "That some experts want to pretend their life's work hasn't been demolished"; on the contrary. Haak and Anthony respond to Renfrew (see Mallory (1999), In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p.177), who argued that language shift needs mass migration. Anthony has carefully sought for explanations where no mass migrations seemed to have happened, yet in the case of the Yamna migration north-west he did argue in 2007 that there was a folk migration into the Danube Valley. So, the findings of Haak et al. (2015) are a big deal, and definitely not a demolishment of his life's work; on the contrary. I'd rather say: applause for the breathtaking debt of his work,a dn his contributions to the research on Indo-European migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nonsense. You're being intentionally obtuse. Anthony's thesis that the transformation to Corded Ware was primarily or all a cultural phenomenon was obviously disproven by showing that there was a massive migration wave, which pretty clearly wasn't peaceful. I understand that a lot of the archaeological and linguistic community had long been invested in assuming peaceful, cultural change rather than the war and genetics that are the usual real course of events. There's no original research there at all. On the other hand using words such as "Anthony noted" when referring to his thesis is POV endorsing it, so isn't appropriate either. Do not revert when you can improve the article, give an alternate edit. Do not camp out on articles, you aren't the one who gets to be the arbiter of any article, or of what mainstream or expert opinion is. "We" do not need to wait to interpret the evidence, nor for experts to do so, when the conclusion is quite clear. That some experts want to pretend their life's work hasn't been demolished is understandable, but clearly they can't be considered reliable sources on this matter. You're just pushing a refuted POV and blowing smoke to cover. Your aggrieved amour propre is neither here nor there, you set out to insult and now you complain when I send it back with topspin. You are the one who is out of line with your frivolous reverts and catty, passive-aggressive accompanying comment, for neither of which have you apologized as you should. Enon (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
BBC editathon
I noticed your name popping up in a few places when I was following this. Would you be able to look at this list and see if there is much missing (am still looking in various places, but I think a fair amount is still missing). Currently working through this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth: Good idea. I added one I accepted at AfC but I think you're on the right track with the hashtag search, most people seemed to have used that diligently. Might be worth also checking the list of transclusions for {{WIR-BBC 2016}} (if you haven't already). Joe Roe (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth: Oh, if it helps, I can automatically generate a list of edits in that hashtag search that are page creations, rather than you having to go through them one by one? Joe Roe (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK. It was not that tedious, but will be quicker. I'll take a break for a bit, and then check back. Thanks! Are you also able to look through the draft namespace. I am not sure that hashtag search is picking those up. Also, would it be possible to detect successful speedy deletion nominations? Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- All yours for a while :) - sorry about that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tagishsimon: I am impressed you managed to assess 23 articles. Hopefully all of them (probably around 150?) can get assessed over the next few days. Some real shockers in there that need work. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yup. I'm just doing quick triage, asking the question "is there anything that makes me think this could be nominated for deletion", and checking the orphan / wikilinked status. I'll keep rattling through them all to this end. Another 60, eh. Oh good ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Tagishsimon, all done. I added 60 or so more, which should be all of them from the list. I'll try and do the same with drafts now. Not sure about detecting speedied ones, presumably they don't show up in the public recent changes log at all? Joe Roe (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay so I think the hashtag search was actually picking up draft creations, it just didn't include the namespace in the output I got so they show up as red links on the list. Joe Roe (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, some of those userspace drafts were submitted to AfC and ended up in the mainspace, so some careful sorting is needed there. I can do some more checking now if you want? Carcharoth (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- That would be great. There are userspace drafts and drafts drafts that may have been moved to mainspace, and also still a few redlinks in the main list that are actually drafts. Joe Roe (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think I got most of them. Thanks so much for expanding the list from the hashtag edit summary search. Is it possible to compare the number created here with the total number of articles created (or maybe just created and not yet deleted) on 8 December? What should be done with the userspace drafts - should they be blanked or something done to indicate that they've been moved to mainspace? Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well according to this there was a notable bump in creations between the 6th–8th. The 158 on our list would account for 13.7% of the articles created on the 8th, so it seems quite plausible to me that the BBC event is responsible for the increase. Hard to be sure, though. Joe Roe (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. I am going to bring this up on another user talk page (where lots of people might weigh in with comments of varying utility). Feel free to comment there if you want. Maybe this is the brave new future? (I have a bit of a jaded view of editathons, and how good the followups are, but maybe this will be different). Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well according to this there was a notable bump in creations between the 6th–8th. The 158 on our list would account for 13.7% of the articles created on the 8th, so it seems quite plausible to me that the BBC event is responsible for the increase. Hard to be sure, though. Joe Roe (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think I got most of them. Thanks so much for expanding the list from the hashtag edit summary search. Is it possible to compare the number created here with the total number of articles created (or maybe just created and not yet deleted) on 8 December? What should be done with the userspace drafts - should they be blanked or something done to indicate that they've been moved to mainspace? Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- That would be great. There are userspace drafts and drafts drafts that may have been moved to mainspace, and also still a few redlinks in the main list that are actually drafts. Joe Roe (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, some of those userspace drafts were submitted to AfC and ended up in the mainspace, so some careful sorting is needed there. I can do some more checking now if you want? Carcharoth (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tagishsimon: I am impressed you managed to assess 23 articles. Hopefully all of them (probably around 150?) can get assessed over the next few days. Some real shockers in there that need work. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- All yours for a while :) - sorry about that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- OK. It was not that tedious, but will be quicker. I'll take a break for a bit, and then check back. Thanks! Are you also able to look through the draft namespace. I am not sure that hashtag search is picking those up. Also, would it be possible to detect successful speedy deletion nominations? Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Gibraltar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter #2
- Please help reduce the New Page backlog
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
- Getting the tools we need
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
Loona Wikipedia Article
Hello.
I was going to make the Loona Wikipedia Article but I saw that it had previously been deleted.
"Band does not meet the WP:BAND criteria they haven't been launched yet and the project does not seem notable as yet."
"Delete Clearly promotional, no evidence of notability."
Loona is a project girl band based in South Korea. The article would be informative as a lot of people have been curious about Loona and how it'll all work. They're releasing girls every month and they'll be having their own solo debuts as well as a group song with the other members until all 12 members are revealed, which means they'll be formally debuting in September of 2017. This is a never-before-seen tactic, and lots of people are confused as to what is happening with the group, they are launching their 3rd member this month and I feel as if people would like to know more about them, and wouldn't be promotional, yet properly informative.
Could I please re-create the article?
Haseul (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Haseul
- Hello Haseul. You are free to re-create the article but it's usually not a good idea so soon after the community has decided to delete it. Unless the previous reason for deletion no longer applies it is likely to simply be deleted again. Our criteria for whether bands should have an article are given in the music notability guideline. You would need to provide reliable sources that demonstrate Loona meet those criteria. Joe Roe (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Solodev
Solodev is one of the fastest growing enterprise software companies in the country right now and I read your note that some "local news coverage" doesn't demonstrate notability. Clearly you didn't read the article or even Google Solodev. How about making the Inc. 5000 two years in a row? How about winning the global award for Best Cloud CMS? How about the half a dozen articles written by Amazon about our partnership or Solodev's Amazon Web Services Marketplace listing? All due respect, your field of expertise is archeology so how do you have any frame of reference to decide what is or is not notable about a software company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmclaren (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving a message, Mattmclaren. I hope you don't mind but it's been moved to this section at the bottom to make easier to reply.
- I do actually have a background in software development but that's besides the point, you don't need expertise in a field to review Wikipedia drafts (though it certainly helps), only a familiarity with our policies and guidelines. Our frame of reference, as it is in any field, is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
- I did of course read your draft and do a bit of research on the company. I declined it because, as previous reviewers had noted, the company does not appear to be notable and since the last review you'd only added a couple of extra references to local newspapers and an Amazon press release, which in my opinion did not amount to notability. Please don't take this as saying the company is not important or successful, which I'm sure it is. But as I'm sure you can appreciate, as one of the world's most trafficked websites, we see attempts to use Wikipedia to promote people's businesses etc. hundreds of times a day. In order to retain our status as an encyclopaedia rather than a yellow pages or LinkedIn surrogate, we have to set a relatively high bar for companies such that only ones that have been the subject of significant coverage at a national or international level are included. I don't think Solodev satisfies this criterion, but you're free to seek a second opinion by submitting your draft for review again.
- To address your specific points:
- An award given out to five thousand companies annually in America alone can hardly be seen as selective or an indication of notability.
- I assume this is the award you mean? (It's not mentioned in the draft.) This is more the kind of thing we're looking for but I haven't been able to find evidence that it is considered a highly selective or prestigious award or that it has led to Solodev being the subject of significant coverage in the press.
- Amazon is a retailer with a vested interest in promoting companies it does business with. Its press releases and documentation pages can't be considered independent, reliable sources.
- You seem very keen to see Solodev included in Wikipedia. Do you work for the company? Joe Roe (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone in the world of technology would consider Solodev more than notable considering it's the only CMS platform built in conjunction with Amazon Web Services, the largest cloud computing provider on the planet. This isn't some product you can just sell on Amazon like a DVD or Book, the team at Solodev spent three years working hand in hand with AWS engineers to build their software specifically for the AWS Cloud. That, in and of itself, is more notable than 90% of Solodev's competitors - all of which have Wikipedia pages.
- Secondly, Solodev had a Wikipedia page since its inception in 2007 and has only grown since then so why was it randomly taken down, not to mention rejected by the same people on Wikipedia who removed it?
- What I find most interesting is you do not believe being listed on the Inc. 5000 for two years in a row is notable. This nation has a population of 325,000,000 people and roughly 30,000,000 businesses. So out of 30,000,000 million businesses, being included in the Inc. 5000 list of fastest growing private companies is - without doubt - very notable.
- As far as coverage in the press, it's everywhere. I found some articles about Solodev and despite the assumptions of Wikipedia reviewers, a bit more reading and research would lead only to the conclusion that Solodev is indeed a notable company.
- As to your last question, I am a blogger and I cover CMS companies, Solodev happens to be at the cutting edge of the space I cover and ironically, the only one without a Wikipedia page which makes my life difficult when trying to communicate the notability of a company I cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmclaren (talk • contribs)
- @Mattmclaren: It wasn't "randomly" deleted, it was deleted by an administrator after an editor proposed it be deleted for lack of notability. We have a lot of articles that don't really belong here, especially from the early days, and cleaning them up is an ongoing process.
- If you really feel the judgement of the AfC reviewers is off on this one, I can accept the draft and then nominate it for deletion again through the articles for deletion (AfD) process, which will give the opportunity for a wider pool of editors (including yourself) to come to a consensus on whether or not Solodev is notable. – Joe (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do feel the judgement of the reviewers if off on this one, perhaps because lack of domain knowledge. I simply ask that a wider range of reviewers take a look. Going by the rules that got Solodev's page deleted, you'd have to delete 50-100 CMS companies that barely have more than a couple references to their own website. I appreciate you giving them the opportunity to have a wider review of the topic and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmclaren (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that's done then. You can find the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solodev and a short primer on how to participate in AfDs at WP:AFDFORMAT. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do feel the judgement of the reviewers if off on this one, perhaps because lack of domain knowledge. I simply ask that a wider range of reviewers take a look. Going by the rules that got Solodev's page deleted, you'd have to delete 50-100 CMS companies that barely have more than a couple references to their own website. I appreciate you giving them the opportunity to have a wider review of the topic and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmclaren (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
|
Thanks for your help in the Teahouse.
Regards from the Netherlands Amin (Talk) 13:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
Yo Ho Ho
Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
- Thanks, Doug. Merry Christmas (etc.) to you and yours too. – Joe (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata lists on mainspace
Hi Joe. I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to undo all the constructive work on these undertaken by Nikkimaria. There were clear improvements which will be undone by the Wikidata listeria bot which you apparently want to restore. I think all this needs to be more generally discussed. Editors are normally entitled to make improvements to any article.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it's regrettable, but in making those improvements Nikkimaria negated the work of all those previous editors that had worked on the article as a Wikidata list, and prevented any future improvement and maintenance of the article by ListeriaBot. It would have made more sense to update the individual Wikidata entries, but as she was simultaneously removing the Wikidata list template from half a dozen other articles (without making any improvements), I suspect she didn't do so to make a point. I do plan on redoing the changes she made in Wikidata, but it will take a bit of time. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't assume my motives. I made improvements to most of those articles, and per my comments at the AfD planned to do more today. It's a lot faster and easier to update locally when you can do it all in one place. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies, I missed that in your "convert" edits you also made alterations to the body of the table. I really do think more expressive edit summaries might have been helpful here.
- I'd also politely suggest that your editing preferences don't take priority over the contributions of other editors. You may find it easier to edit it in one place, but in doing so you make future bot-assisted improvements to the article impossible. The bot can continue to maintain and add new entries to these lists forever – can you commit to the same thing? – Joe (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I can commit to editing a lot more appropriately than the bot does. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Will you find new articles and add them to all these lists? How promptly? How long until you stop doing it and the list becomes yet another permanently outdated and incomplete list? Can you add redlinks based on new articles from other languages? Can you copy your additions and improvements to parallel lists on 291 other Wikipedias? Can you copy them to infoboxes on enwiki and all the other languages? Can you simultaneously maintain your list as an article and as part of the world's largest, open machine readable information source?
- I'm not saying it doesn't have it's downsides compared to manually maintained lists, and of course in an ideal world every one of our lists would be lovingly curated by meticulous, constantly available content experts, but there are clearly significant benefits to Wikidata-generated lists that many editors seem to be ignoring because they don't like changing their editing habits. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Can I do that alone? No. But as you pointed out, the burden is not on any single editor - and we have already seen that editors are trying to update/correct the list, only to be overridden. And the bot will not copy those additions and improvements to parallel lists, nor to infoboxes, nor even to Wikidata itself. Nor do we know whether the additions and improvements it does make are correct (and we have seen often they are not), because the "world's largest, open machine readable information source" is largely either unsourced or sourced to Wikipedias.
- Now, is manual curation perfect? No, of course not. Does that mean it should be discarded entirely? No, of course not. There are benefits to both approaches, and what we are disagreeing about is whether the benefits outweigh the costs - and how best to combine the two. For example, it would be possible to start an article using the bot, and then manually curate the output - that's effectively what I was doing by removing the template and then editing what's on the page, rather than blanking it entirely. But we're not at a point yet where solely bot-maintained articles are "good enough" for what we need. And to ignore editing habits is foolish, because the bot doesn't come up with new associations out of thin air; if you can't either pull improvements over or make Wikidata editing easy enough that people can and will do it, then the bot-maintained article will be as permanently outdated and incomplete as any human-created one. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- We do obviously disagree about the cost/benefit of this approach, and I don't expect to convince you otherwise. Fundamentally what I object to, and the reason I reverted your edits, is that you could have made all these improvements within the framework the article was already using (as I am now doing), even if it wasn't your preference, but instead you decided to scrap it and do it your way. That at least merits some discussion on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the use of Wikidata in this way should have been discussed prior to being implemented. And no, I couldn't - I don't have the technical ability to do what you're suggesting on the talk page, nor do I assume that the policies and practices of this project should be applied to another to suit our local needs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- We do obviously disagree about the cost/benefit of this approach, and I don't expect to convince you otherwise. Fundamentally what I object to, and the reason I reverted your edits, is that you could have made all these improvements within the framework the article was already using (as I am now doing), even if it wasn't your preference, but instead you decided to scrap it and do it your way. That at least merits some discussion on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I can commit to editing a lot more appropriately than the bot does. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't assume my motives. I made improvements to most of those articles, and per my comments at the AfD planned to do more today. It's a lot faster and easier to update locally when you can do it all in one place. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, Joe, but may I suggest that for the time being at least the Wikidata lists on women be moved to WP Women in Red (e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation) along with all the other lists which serve as a basis for creating and improving articles on the mainspace. (They could be introduced with explanations that they contain blue links to articles on the EN wiki rather than red links created from comparisons with the other languages or could be adapted to display both red and blue links.) That would allow further improvements to the lists while providing a Listeria-updated source for future improvements. I think it would be a pity to cause further confrontations with editors who set out to save the lists from deletion by making the necessary improvements. Perhaps Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl would like to comment on this approach.--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Ipigott that Wikidata lists are better served in other areas on wiki rather than to generate a list page. List pages should include references and cite relevant research. Wikidata lists don't provide that. However, they are very useful. At Women in Red, we use them all the time. They are useful for identifying individuals who are notable on other language wiki's which can then be translated into English over here (or vice versa, of course). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be my preference – if it isn't obvious by now, I really like Wikidata lists, and I don't think we have to discard the Wikidata element to improve or save them from deletion. But if the AfDs do come down to delete, or there's a consensus to convert them into normal lists, I do think this would be a good way to salvage the effort put into them. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the bot is edit warring with me now. I am not totally opposed to Wikidata lists, but I think that there also needs to be a mechanism to at least flag parts of the list which don't have citations. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- You can't directly edit anything between the two bot templates. It would be impossible to have the bot preserve edits there and still consistently update the table from Wikidata. I realise it's a change from our usual habits to make changes at Wikidata instead of directly on the page, but to be fair it is clearly stated at the top of the list that any edits won't last. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the bot is edit warring with me now. I am not totally opposed to Wikidata lists, but I think that there also needs to be a mechanism to at least flag parts of the list which don't have citations. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be my preference – if it isn't obvious by now, I really like Wikidata lists, and I don't think we have to discard the Wikidata element to improve or save them from deletion. But if the AfDs do come down to delete, or there's a consensus to convert them into normal lists, I do think this would be a good way to salvage the effort put into them. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Ipigott that Wikidata lists are better served in other areas on wiki rather than to generate a list page. List pages should include references and cite relevant research. Wikidata lists don't provide that. However, they are very useful. At Women in Red, we use them all the time. They are useful for identifying individuals who are notable on other language wiki's which can then be translated into English over here (or vice versa, of course). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
January 2017 at Women in Red
_Anna_lehrt_Maria_das_Lesen.jpg) 
| |
|---|---|
|
Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons | |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging