User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2017
 | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2017. 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 |
|
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) 01:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Real Irish Republican Army
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Real Irish Republican Army. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Trying to add myself as user to Women in Archeology page
Hi Joe,
I am a new user/editor. I am interested in archeology and would like to help with the Women in Archeology articles.
How do I am myself as a participant?
thanks
MauraWen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi MauraWen. That's fantastic. You can just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Women in archaeology task force#Participants, then click the "edit" or "edit source" link next to the header and add this line
* {{user|MauraWen}}
Using Reference on Biographies
Hi Joe,
Please let me know if this is a a question I should take to the Teahouse instead of asking you.
I have been reviewing the red list of women archeologists and noticed that the webpage/book "Breaking Ground: Women in Old Archeology" has pdf biographies of many women on our list.
I have not seen inline citations in the pdf biographies that I have read and few references for biographical information. Should I be looking for more detailed references (primary sources) for the biographies that I will be putting together for Wikipedia or are these pdf biographies sufficient reference?
Thanks MauraWen (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi MauraWen. I think the online version of Breaking Ground counts as a reliable source. It doesn't use inline citations, but they usually contain a list of general references at the end and are published by a by a very reputable university. In that sense they're ideal because we usually avoid relying on primary sources. I've used them as my main source for a few biographies. – Joe (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for answering both questions
Thank you, Joe! Both answers are very helpful! MauraWen (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
SPA at AFD
Hi. I can see you were just trying to be helpful, but I want to point to that you are under no obligation to take a request for deletion by an IP/SPA making its maiden edit and turn it into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy King (2nd nomination). It can be just be left on the talk page. In this case, the fact that there is a previous AFD listed on the talk page as "closed as keep" is a clue that this might not be the sort of article that should be moved to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- @E.M.Gregory: I'm aware that I was not obligated to complete the nomination, but as Dorothy King is on my watchlist (along with all the other articles on women archaeologists) and probably few other people would have noticed the anon. IPs incomplete nomination, I decided I would. Besides, as you might have guessed by the fact that I initially !voted delete, I thought they had some legitimate points. The fact that an article has previously been to AfD does not preclude it being nominated again. In this case, as I mentioned, a nine-year old consensus on a figure notable for their public statements, who has apparently dropped off the face of the earth in the time since, is ripe for re-discussion. The result (it looks like) is a stronger consensus that we need an article on King and, thanks to you, an improved article. Win-win in my book.
- I would say that your comments here and in the AfD make me worry that you have misunderstood why we're cautious about SPAs. An IP with two edits is technically an SPA, but it's not really useful to describe them as such because by definition it's impossible to establish that they are actually editing with an single agenda in mind. IPs change frequently: the same user who used that one to nominate Dorothy King could well have years of experience editing under other IPs or account names. We have no way of knowing. As explicitly pointed out in WP:SPA, the label should be applied sparingly and never used to dismiss the contributions of inexperienced editors, anonymous editors or circumvent WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Unfortunately I think you were veering into that territory by suggesting the anonymous editor should not be allowed to nominate articles for deletion. – Joe (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That may well be true. I edit not only at AFD but in some controversial topic areas, and the IPs, SPAs, and banned editors reincarnated as IPs and SPAs I regularly bump into can make editing feel like one of those video games where new malfeasors keep popping up. King hadn't been on may radar at all until I found her on an AFD list. And ran a simple google search [1]. While I do quite a lot of WP:HEYMANN, I feel strongly that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. That editors should look at a topic pretty carefully before taking it to AFD, even when deletion is requested by an IP. Nevertheless, I came here not to say that, but because It occurred to me that you might have been unaware that helping an IP or other naive editor start a proper AFD is not necessarily the act of a Good Samaritan, that it is perfectly proper to ignore such a request, to point out at talk the steps that can be taken to improve an article, or to tag the article for notability or improvement. That said, some AFDs just get under my skin. The tone of this one did. I tend to forget how much easier it it to spot notability merely because I am blessed with access to powerful search engines. or perhaps it was just the mood I happened to be in, which I ought not to take out on fellow editors. I do apologize for my rudeness at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2017 (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) 00:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Gobleki Tepe
Hello Joe Roe, About my edit on the Gobleki Tepe article, the author Hancock is arguing with valid and reasonable logical arguments his point of view. Why can't the article reflect to the public that point of view? Especially since there is no consensus whatsoever on the origins of the site. Also i would like to add massive scientific opinion about the meteorite hypothesis,[1] that backs up the claim that ancient civilizations could be the authors of many megalithical sites. The edit i made was not suppose to make a definitve claim, just to reflect a rational and probable point of view in the midst of a lack of scientific consensus. Regards, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.126.13.182 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hancock has no expertise in this field. We also have as part of our policy WP:UNDUE, we present views " in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In this case it would mean academic sources discussing Hancock's view. Have you found anything. The 'meteorite hypothesis' you mention is the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis which we cover in detail in its own article, and I see no sources which discuss it in connection with Gobleki Tepe. As editors we aren't allowed to make such connections, see no original research and WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.126.13.182 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
February 2017 at Women in Red
 
| |
|---|---|
|
Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons  | |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| thank u for the information given to me. please see the question again.i will detail it more.please refer it more.
Thank you anyway. jordan (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
My talk page or my user page has unwanted messages from bot. i meant those .kindly check my user page u might understand. ... jordan (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
My talk page or my user page has unwanted messages from bot. i meant those .kindly check my user page u might understand. ... jordan (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jordan! Like I said at the Teahouse, we don't usually remove messages from our talk pages. Those notices from ClueBot NG are routine and nothing to worry about. However, if you really want a fresh start, I've gone ahead and "blanked" your user page. – Joe (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2017 (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) 12:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#"Under Construction". Your input would be extremely welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter No.2
- A HUGE backlog
We now have 812 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level 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!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
- Second set of eyes
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
- Abuse
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
- this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
- this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
- This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Paleo
Recieved a msg about a edit war. I do not believe that calling or citing an article claiming that the paleo diet is a fad to be accurate in any sense, thus why I keep removing it. Cookie, grapefruit etc.. are fad diets because they claim quick weight loss. That is not the goal of the paleo. Facts00 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Facts00: Did you read the message about edit warring? Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Disputes between editors (e.g. is paleo a "fad diet"?) do arise from time to time, but continually removing content you disagree with will never lead to a resolution. Instead, we use discussion and consensus to decide on the appropriate way to present a topic. Whether or not you are "right", edit warring is disruptive and will quickly get you banned from editing. – Joe (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- So lets discuss, because that claim needs to be removed and you simply reposting doesn't in anyway make you "right". And because the "fad diet" "arises from time to time" and i assume others have continuously tried to remove only to be threatened by edit war, again doesn't make it accurate Facts00 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Facts00: The place to discuss it would be at Talk:Paleolithic diet, as multiple editors are interested in the article not just me. However do be aware that here on Wikipedia were are exclusively concerned with how reliable sources describe the paleodiet, not our own personal opinions. – Joe (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- So lets discuss, because that claim needs to be removed and you simply reposting doesn't in anyway make you "right". And because the "fad diet" "arises from time to time" and i assume others have continuously tried to remove only to be threatened by edit war, again doesn't make it accurate Facts00 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Lady Jane Renfrew
Hello Joe Roe! Thanks for your interest on the draft, I am gladyou think it is in publishable state. I still have a few points to add once I have some free time but I can always do this in the published wikipedia article. As I am still not familiar with how to turn the draft into an official article it would be a great help if you could! Please let me know when you its transfered. Thanks and cheers KhoikhoiPossum (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, KhoikhoiPossum. I've moved it to Jane Renfrew. Thanks again for contributing it; it's rare to come across drafts that are so well developed. If you're interested in writing more articles, we have a long list of notable women archaeologists who don't yet have entries. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Graphics lab
Hi Joe. You kindly commented on 17 December on my request for correction of errors at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Corrections to map of Anglo-Saxon England. No one has replied and it is now about to be archived as stale. If you have time, I should be grateful if you could fix the errors. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Dudley. I suppose it shouldn't be too hard to find a way around the problem I raised. I'll try and take a look at it next week. – Joe (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2017 (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) 12:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Working on first article-- two questions
Hi Joe,
First question---I have been working on a draft on archeologist Dorothy Lamb. I am a bit confused on on how to list her name: Dorothy Lamb, Dorothy (Lamb) Brooke Nicholson or Lady Dorothy (Lamb) Brooke Nicholson.
I put that question on the Teahouse forum, It was recommended that I use the name she is known by-- "Dorothy Lamb". I noticed a new article today on archeologist Jane Renfrew. She is listed as Lady Renfrew. How should I list Dorothy in the infobox--Dorothy Lamb or Lady Brooke Nickolson? And how should I refer to her in the article? If there is a naming guideline for the women archeologists, I want to follow that naming guideline.
Second question-- I am finding footnotes and citations to be a bit of a challenge. Many of the women archeologists that I will be working on have the one Brown University reference. I am concerned I am going to list too many or too few footnotes with the one reference. Any advice on that, I have read the Help--Editing, but still a little confused about how often to use footnotes.
thanks Maura
MauraWen (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Maura
- Good choice! Guidelines for names in biographies are in MOS:BIO but Lamb is a trickier than usually. We always use the most common used name (without honorifics) in article titles, so that definitely should be Dorothy Lamb. But usually the full name, with honorific titles, is given in the first sentence in bold. Jane Renfrew is a bit different in that respect because there are special naming rules for the British peerage, but that doesn't apply to Lamb as both her husbands were only knights. With married women we again go with the commonly used surname, but I've found a few references to Lamb by both of her married names so I think that should be included. So, after some head-scratching, I'd go with:
- Lady Dorothy Brooke Nicholson, MBE (1887–1967), better known by her maiden name Dorothy Lamb, was a British archaeologist...
- And put Lady Dorothy Brooke Nicholson in the infobox, but refer to her as Lamb thereafter.
- With footnotes, the idea is to make sure it's clear where every piece of information in the article comes from, and that it will remain clear when other editors add more information from other sources, without unnecessary clutter or duplication. So my rule of thumb is to put a reference at the end of every distinct point piece of information (so usually at the end of every sentence), but then merge repeated references to the same source. E.g. I'd start a draft with:
- Smith was born in Aplace, Arbitrishire.[1] She attended Standard High School[2] and Humdrum University.[1] At Humdrum, she studied under Eminent Ologist and helped excavate Romano-British Humdrumicus.[1] Her dissertation was an analysis of the pottery from Humdrumicus.[1] Later published in the Annal of Arbitrishire Antiquities, it concluded that most of it was made from clay.[3]
- Which I'd then tidy up to:
- Smith was born in Aplace, Arbitrishire.[1] She attended Standard High School[2] and Humdrum University. At Humdrum, she studied under Eminent Ologist and helped excavate Romano-British Humdrumicus. Her dissertation was an analysis of the pottery from Humdrumicus.[1] Later published in the Annal of Arbitrishire Antiquities, it concluded that most of it was made from clay.[3]
- When you're working mainly from once source (which is fine – just take care not to paraphrase too closely) you usually just end up with a footnote at the end of every paragraph. Also, I'm not sure if you're already using it but the Visual Editor makes working with references a lot easier.
- Hope that helps. It looks like your draft is coming along nicely. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
March 2017 at Women in Red
Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red | ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
- Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 812 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Draft finished. Please advise on submitting it for review
Hi Joe,
I have finished my draft of Dorothy Lamb, but am not sure where to place it for review. Thanks for the information you provided in the previous post. It was very helpful.
Maura
MauraWen (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Good stuff! There's AfC but I wouldn't bother submitting it, it takes forever and your draft is fine. I'll just move it straight to mainspace. – Joe (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
finding and using images and a question about using census records
Hi Joe,
I am working on my next article: Myrtle Florence Broome. The Myrtle Broom pdf bio that is on the Breaking Ground website does not have a lot of detailed information on Myrtle's life. I believe I can access information about her parents and her birth date if I use UK census records from Ancestry.com. (A preliminary search found her father in London at the time of her birth) I put a question on the Teahouse Forum about using census records for articles and have not gotten a response. I later found a Cite:Census Wikipage, so I am assuming its ok to use census records from Ancestry.com. Please let me know if its not.
The photos I have found of Myrtle on the internet either have copyright protection or have no copyright information at all. I have emailed the Griffith Institute, where her letters are being archived, asking if there are any photos available to use for the biography. The librarian is forwarding my email to the archives dept. Please let me know if I should not be contacting other organizations for information. I am assuming it is ok.
I have also contacted the Ancient Egypt Foundation, which appears to have public domain photos of watercolors that Amice Calvery and Myrtle worked on together in Egypt. The response I received this morning in answer to my question about the rights to using these photos is as follows:
"How marvellous that you are writing about Myrtle Broome! I wonder where you were able to find enough information. The work of women in Egyptology has always been shoved to one side in favour of the men, with the posible exception of Amelia Edwards, who gets a lot of attention from the EES.
We do not ourselves have any copyright restrictions on those images. The original books, of which we possess a set, were published without any copyright notices of any kind, were funded by the philanthropy of John D. Rockefeller, and we regard them as being in the public domain. The University of Chicago seems to think it has some rights of some kind, and they apparenty wish to restrict the use of them if taken from their website. We do not believe that they have any legal basis for that. Before putting the images online I notifed Chris Naunton, then of the EES, that we were doing so and that we regarded them to be in the public domain. We cannot ourselves grant any permissions, and all we can do is express our view that none are needed."
Will the above information allow me to use these Images for my article? Are they considered public domain?
Thanks MauraWen (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- A census record is definitely a primary source, which we usually try to avoid, but if it's relatively obvious that the Myrtle Broome in the census is the same person and it's only used for uncontroversial information like a DOB I think that's fine.
- Images are a real minefield. The people over at Commons are really strict on licensing and will delete anything even slightly irregular if you haven't ticked the right boxes in the right way. I once asked an organisation give permission to use a photograph of their own building, that they had taken, and it was deleted by a Commons admin because they didn't have written permission from the architect to take the photo! So by all means contact people who might have photos, but be sure to make it clear to them that they have to irrevocably release the image under a free license (it's not enough to just give permission for Wikipedia to use it). They'll then either have to upload the image to Commons themselves (the simplest way), or if you upload it, contact OTRS to verify the license (which takes months).
- I'd be careful with the AEF. I'm no expert, but I know that copyright is automatic and doesn't require an explicit notice, so their logic in deciding the book is public domain sounds decidedly dodgy. If Chicago say they hold the copyright, I'd be inclined to contact them.
- Best of luck, anyway! – Joe (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of Stanley Leopold Fowler
Hello Joe
I have found your imput most helpful and explanatory. I am deeply grateful for all the constructive editing that most contributors have done on the article and I truly don't mind guidance in any sense - I welcome it! Firstly, half of the time I am not sure where to go to respond, even now I am responding with trepidation not knowing with confidence that this is the right way to respond to you as there are so many links within links within links to know what is the appropriate option. Nor do I know when suggestions come up on boxes how to fully implement them. Shame wiki cannot allocate a guide to each newcomer if not to make life a tad easier to contribute. The disputed recurring problems, in my humble opinion, seems to be notability and references. The fact is that Stanley Leopold Fowler DID build the Elizabethan Village in Armadale, he DID win the prestigious Sir David Brand Award for Tourism, he DID have three attempts to get permission off Dr. Levi Fox, the Elizabethan Village DID get a plaque commemorating him and the Elizabethan Village as a historic site, which he built. What some one personally thinks about the site pales into insignificance with the fact that it is there and standing as a historic site. I might not like the Stonehenge but it is there as a testimony to someone. I personally saw the blueprints at the archives at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford -upon -Avon. The references kindly given by his daughter, Sally-ann Fowler were from newspaper articles from the 70's (I provided images to this effect of the articles) and I have asked wiki permissions ([Ticket#2017012910007647] Stanley Leopold Fowler) if these can be used. The problem, as I see it, is that they cannot be used as permission needs to be sought from the authors of these articles (who are possibly deceased and cannot be tracked, although I have tried). When the article was initially proposed for deletion this issue, I thought was dealt with but it seems to have reared it's ugly head three times. I hoped that dealing with it once was enough! The issue of collaboration as I see it, especially with the last deletion proposal, was that there was no collaboration nor constructive guidance by the editor who deleted it. Albeit, I must apologize for thinking it was Theroadislong although he/she cited COI. I was fascinated by the man who actually created something tangible for prosperity, which is officially deemed a historic site, and there is nothing concrete said about him. Is he to fall into obscurity because of referencing? If my style of writing was the issue that can be changed, but no one even said it was to me for me to correct it, although it was called a 'hagiography'. Yes there are guidelines on wiki, but those seem to also be at the whim of individual interpretation. I question how many times can the same article can be up for deletion and feel saddened by this whole experience and wonder at the concept of cyber community...nothing different than the three dimensional world. Going back to the beginning, I cannot stress how grateful I am for constructive editors who have truly contributed, helped and guided this newcomer...so on a positive...there is always hope! Thewayweis (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Thewayweis. I'm glad I could be of some help. I see you've already followed the advice I would have given: listing the available sources in the AfD. Do remember that paper sources like newspapers are absolutely fine as references. You don't have to scan and upload them or anything, as long as you give sufficient information in the citation that someone with access to the right libraries could verify the information.
- To me it seems like the Elizabethan Village has more clear-cut notability than Leopold himself. So if the article is Leopold is deleted you might be able to reuse some of your work in an article about that? – Joe (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2017 (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) 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Taiwan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10
This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:
23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"Nope"
Please do not undo an edit with such an arrogant comment as "nope". If you disagree with something provide an actual argument as to why you disagree.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Batmacumba: You made a trivial edit based on an unsupported assertion ("surely the vast majority [of western countries are of predominately European descent]") and I undid it with an assertion to the contrary. I'm sorry you found my edit summary arrogant, but I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. Latin America is a sizeable chunk of the western world whose ancestry is not predominantly European. Arguing over a change that makes absolutely no difference to the meaning of the sentence is a bit of a waste of time though, no? – Joe (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Its not unsupported. It is a common sense edit. The Western world are Europe + countries settled by Europeans, and its obvious that most of these still has a majority of European descent (even more so at the time the sentence referred to), this includes Brazil and Argentina.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- While it may be a small matter "many" is unacceptably vague in this context. The point of the sentence is that research was dominated by scientists from "white" countries. That we usually call Latin America western nowadays isn't relevant. If you can not accept "most" (which is factually correct and the easiest way to say it), the term Western should be replaced with Europe and North America, which is basically what is meant.--Batmacumba (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2017 (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) 12:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Draft finished on Helen Thomas Waterhouse.
Hi Joe,
If you would like to review my Helen Thomas Waterhouse draft, that would be great!. If you are free to review all my drafts in the future, please let me know if your talk page is the best place to contact you.
Thanks Maura
MauraWen (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Maura. I've moved it to mainspace; congratulations on another fine article! And yes, I'd be happy to keep reviewing them for you, just leave a note on my talk page. – Joe (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
April events at Women in Red
Welcome to Women in Red's | ||
  .png)
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) ----Rosiestep (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Please comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2017 (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, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Draft finished on Ida Thallon Hill
Hi Joe,
I just finished the draft on Ida Thallon Hill. Next: the two remaining members of the "the quartet", Elizabeth Pierce Blegen and Bert Hodge Hill. An interesting group of archeologists!
thanks Maura MauraWen (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- @MauraWen: Awesome, good work. I'll have to try and catch up! – Joe (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Draft finished on Elizabeth Pierce Blegen
Hi Joe,
I put the Elizabeth Pierce Blegen draft on my user page. I have a few sandboxes/archeologists in progress.
thanks Maura
MauraWen (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:South Beach
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:South Beach. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2017 (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) 12:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
About becoming an administrator
 Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project. Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia. To receive feedback on your chances of successfully requesting administrative privileges, consider starting a poll: Thank you!
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2017 (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) 11:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
May 2017 at Women in Red
Welcome to Women in Red's | ||
.jpg)  
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Please review Marion Rawson and Eunice Stebbins
Hi Joe,
I have not seen any activity on the Women/Archaeology Task Force page recently. Are you still contributing? That is a long red list of women to get thru on my own. Is there a way of encouraging Wikiproject for Women members to contribute articles?
Thanks Maura MauraWen (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2017 (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) 12:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank You!
05:11:57, 29 November 2016 review of submission by Harrywind
Hi Joe,
I have added several more references/sources that describe Dee Dee Chan independently. If needed I can find more sources, please let me know what would help to improve the references/sources.
Thanks, Harry
23:56:01, 29 December 2016 review of submission by 70.95.2.88
- 70.95.2.88 (talk · contribs)
Added verifiable sources including CNN and the New York Times.
A page you started (Margarida Davina Andreatta) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Margarida Davina Andreatta, Joe Roe!
Wikipedia editor Dps04 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for this article.
To reply, leave a comment on Dps04's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Please comment on Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 812 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (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, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
June 2017 offerings @ WikiProject Women in Red
Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
 
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2017 (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) 11:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Rumicucho? Stub class?
You rated my article Rumicucho stub class. To be polite, that seems highly unfair for a 6,000 byte well-referenced article with info-box, map, etc. In fact, the guy who reviewed this new article commented that it was "well constructed" and suggested that I nominate it for a DYK.
I've created more than 100 articles and I've never had one rated as a stub. Please take a look at your work. Smallchief (talk
- My mistake. I remember I was tagging a few articles at the same time and must have mixed them up. Sorry about that. Do bear in mind that WikiProject ratings are not a form of peer review, though, just a way of keeping track of where we are with our coverage of certain topics. You can feel free to revise them yourself. – Joe (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate your reassessment. Smallchief (talk 00:15, 20 June 2017 (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) 11:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
July 2017 at Women in Red
Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
.jpg) 
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Please comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
"Pier paolo Calzolari "
Mister Joe Roe,
it's the second time my page dedicated to Pier paolo Calzolari is deleted en english. How come that a visuel artist that is such a celebrity has no recognition on the english wikipedia pages. He already has pages in italian, french and german !!! Please stop doing this ! Thank you e — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeyrat (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Nabeyrat. The English Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are explained at Wikipedia:Notability and in briefer form at WP:42. They are separate and distinct from any policies the other Wikipedias may have. If you think that Calzolari meets these criteria then you can ask an administrator to un-delete the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, I wasn't able to find many sources on him at all. – Joe (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2017 (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) 11:39, 5 July 2017 (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) 04:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Autopatrolled granted
Hi Joe Roe, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
- Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
Technology update:
- Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
- The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through
General project update:
- Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Badme
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Badme. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Now that the Founder is involved
You will be very interested in this and may wish to comment there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (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) 12:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Women in Red's new initiative: 1day1woman
 A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman | ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
August 2017 at Women in Red
Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
  .svg)
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --
A new WiR initiative starting in August
WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red | ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:Barcade
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Barcade. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2017 (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, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Oops
Hadn't realised you'd changed the lead to Coherent catastrophe. Am I right in my comments on the talk page? Doug Weller talk 12:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know, honestly. I replied on the talk page, but I can't figure out whether these are genuine areas of debate in astronomy or one-off books by outsiders. I still think the best option might be to blow it up and wait until there are enough secondary sources for a balanced article (that isn't written by someone with an obvious POV). What do you think, now the article has been tidied up a bit? – Joe (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry Joe, I've been swamped and sort of waiting for the AfD to close. I'll come back to this when that happens. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: No worries. Seems like the AfD is heading towards delete anyway, which is probably for the best.
- 82.38.215.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just commented on the AfD – another Sweatman & Tsikritis sock? – Joe (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry Joe, I've been swamped and sort of waiting for the AfD to close. I'll come back to this when that happens. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Rideau Hall
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rideau Hall. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2017 (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) 11:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ned Kelly
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
- Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
- Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
carrie ruggieri sent you an mailCarrieruggieri (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
September 2017 at Women in Red
Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
 
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
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) 12:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
question on resolving orphan status for five women archaeologist articles
Hi Joe,
I noticed this week that five women archaeologist articles that I created currently have an orphan status. I understand now after reading about orphan status why these articles need links.
Most of these women from the red list are pretty obscure, I am not sure if I can find any links. I am not sure what to do next, and I am now reluctant to create additional articles on the Women in Red list in archaeology, as most of the remaining women will probably be classified as orphans or may be later deleted.
Please advise.
Maura
MauraWen (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Maura: I wouldn't worry about orphans too much. It's not a big problem, and certainly not a reason that an article would be deleted. You can always de-orphan them by adding the person to List of archaeologists (or similar). After that I usually search for any mentions of the person's name (if you do it through Special:Search it won't jump straight to the article you've just written). Even if there are none, people may start linking to the article now it exists. – Joe (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
AEDP
Dear Joe Roe, I am contacting you because you reviewed the article AEDP, and so I am familiar with you. I was contacted by the person who developed aedp to ask about two separate emails she received from people claiming to be wikipedians. One offered help get her biography draft published (a draft I am working on) for pay, and the other just very strange but wanting a pdf from her files of an article referenced in the aedp article, claiming to give it more exposure? I will forward you these emails. I told the person not to respond to the emails. Can I somehow communicate about this with you that is not completely public? I'd like to foward these emails but in a more secure format. two concerns, 1 someone claiming to be a "wikipedian" offering work for money. 2. someone asking for a pdf from her download file so they can write an article on an article - and also giving links to how to make a particular article open access (which it already is anyway). Thank you How do I hear back from you? ON my user talk page? Carrie Ruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Carrie. This is unfortunately something we're hearing about more and more lately. As you know getting articles onto Wikipedia can sometimes be an uphill struggle but there is nobody who can get around the process for you, and anyone who offers to in return for money is trying to scam you. What they're offerring is completely against the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use (WP:PAID) as well as the Wikipedia community's policies (WP:COI), and needless to say really unethical in general. I'd be interested in seeing the emails, if you don't mind forwarding them.
- If you want to talk about it off-wiki, there should be a link on the left hand side of this page that says "Email this user", you can use that to email me directly. If you reply here I will too, to keep the conversation all in one place, but I'll "ping" you so that you get a notification. – Joe (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Excuse the intrusion, but if I have understood this situation based on the quick read I've had of the above, then the e-mails you received should probably be forwarded to info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org, Carrieruggieri. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. I'm sorry that you've had to put up with this scam attempt. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry ok I will forward the emails as you suggest. Carrie Ruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Balfour Declaration
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Balfour Declaration. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
No PhD or Dr.
Hello! I am happy to hear that this rule about omitting academic grades exists, but I could not find it at the link you provided (WP:MOS). Do you have a link to the relevant page? That would be most useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Hob Gadling. It's at MOS:CREDENTIALS. – Joe (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2017 (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) 23:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
- On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
- Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Moors
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moors. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Newly created page and need for name change
Thanks for the near instantaneous review. I intended to create a stub article, and then work on it to flesh it out after changing its name, but was prevented in doing so using the proper name, because there were dead Wikilinks at the 2017 Special Election article, and at the disambiguation page for James Thompson, which all just redirected to the Special Election article rather than the nonexistent article using what would have been the proper title. I figured I could just create a page with the James Thompson (Wichita politician) title, after removing the useless Wikilinks, and then rename the page, (Kansas politician) and replace what would have then been the usable Wikilinks. For reasons I don't understand, I was blocked. I made a page name change request and hope I did it properly at the technical move request section. If you're able to effect the name change, that would be a big help, and I can then go to it and finish with the pertinent edits. Thompson was virtually unknown in political circles before filing for the vacant seat and winning a close caucus vote for the Democratic nomination from a prominent politician, and finishing closer than any Democrat since 1996 in the April election for the vacant seat. That's the reason he didn't have an article. I have long shared your interest in archaeology, mostly focused on Meso and North America, have volunteered on digs, and have visited many of the countries of Southeast Asia, including ancient Cham temples on the coast of Viet Nam. Activist (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. I've been editing for eleven years and have made nearly 7,000 edits. Activist (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Activist: No problem. Always good to hear from a fellow digger. The reason you couldn't rename (move) it is that an article already exists at James Thompson (Kansas politician). It was an article about the same James Thompson, but it was turned into a redirect following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thompson (American politician). An admin will have to have to perform a history merge with the article you created to resolve the duplication, which I see Zawl has already requested. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artifacts in Philippine history, I have moved this article into your userspace to look at - see User:Joe Roe/List of artifacts in Philippine history Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ritchie333. – Joe (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Women in Red October editathon invitation
.jpg)  
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Please comment on Talk:Uma Thurman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Uma Thurman. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2017 (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) 00:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks or fixing and accepting this, tho I am going to shorten further find the description of Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy if we keep the article on it-- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy Even better, if you understand the subject, would be if you could shorten and rewrite that article--I see you did some work on an earlier version of it. (I'm particular concerned about section 4, which should at least not be a table. (just changing it to text is something I could do, but still it seems to both duplicate the text and be a little too much of a training manual. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @DGG: Yes I was planning to trim down the rest of it, too. As for the AEDP article – I do think there's an encyclopaedic subject hiding under the textbook chapter. I gave up on editing the rest of the article last year because I don't really understand the subject either, but I'll probably have another go now it's at AfD. – Joe (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Malta convoys
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malta convoys. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2017 (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) 11:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Re
I got "There is nothing wrong with interlanguage links when we don't have an article on enwiki.", and thanks you fix it.--O1lI0 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Incompetent editing
I want to thank you for catching and fixing my mistakes [1] [2]. However, with the context of this IP's edit history and the unsourced ethnic content of the addition, I rather quickly assumed vandalism. It's an easy conclusion to arrive at, especially given that I lack your knowledge of the subject. So calling my edits "incompetent" wasn't very WP:AGF of you. Otherwise, I've seen your work around here and think you're a great asset to the encyclopedia. Take care Joe. - GS ⋙ ☎ 03:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tulle massacre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulle massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
- Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
- The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
David Lowe (Historian)
Hi Joe Roe, thanks for rescuing the above article. I never realised that you could resubmit it yourself, I thought it would be the article owner only. I was suprised it was missed, particularly regarding somebody who is so well qualified for an article. I'm glad it has been resolved. Now that I know I resubmit myself, there is a couple of other ones available for article space. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah if you open the AFC Helper script on a submission that has already declined, it should give you the option to resubmit it as the original creator. Then you can review as normal and the templates etc. will all go to the correct places. I find myself doing it fairly often, what with AfC reviewing being a bit uneven! – Joe (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Turkey
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2017 (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) 11:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response in the Tea House
Hello, Joe Roe. Thank you for your response to my question in the Tea House regarding spacing after a sentence period - one space or two needed. Thank you for the reference to the article on the debate on sentence spacing. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, will do so in the near future. Best regards, Verbwright981 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Treblinka extermination camp
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Treblinka extermination camp. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Joe Roe
|
Hello Joe Roe |
| Hello Joe, It is Macedonian Snow Leopard. I believe
it does make sense. Advanced archaeological equipment or technologies will greatly reduce time consuming projects. Thats what i am trying to explain, after reading the authors book. Regards Macedonian Snow Leopard. Macedonian Snow Leopard (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC) |
- Source fails WP:RS. Donski's MA in history doesn't make him an archaeologist and see [2][3] Doug Weller talk 10:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked as a sockpuppet, master pushes this source. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Notice
Listen I know that my username is a reference to Lil Uzi Vert. Lil Uzi Vert is my favorite rapper. I mean, I am pretty sure that no one who has fame, diamond contact lenses, or Lamborghini Huracan (In which all of these Lil Uzi Vert has) would have a account for Wikipedia. Therefore, I see no "violation". Thank you, but try again. LilUzi25 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)LilUzi25
- LilUzi25, you'd be surprised how many famous and "influential" people create accounts in order to attempt to edit the pages about themselves. I concur with Joe that you should probably request a username change. Even something as simple as "LilUziFan25" would be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
- Oh, you think that deleting the crisis will solve your problems. I know these things. And for real, for real (Lil Uzi Vert reference) You'd be surprised by how many articles I've submitted for review that have been declined over and over by the same people even though I have all the things i should in them.LilUzi25 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Cucuteni-Trypillia culture
The pseudonim "Joe Roe": Why do you falsify the wikipedia data, and remove any corection placed by real historians? In your message to me you ask me not to correct the informations at the page mentioned above unless "I bring reliable sources" for it. Is wikipedia NOT a "reliable source", but a fake site? In this case, "fake informations" are best at home on this fake site. In case wikipedia is a RELIABLE SOURCE, and because following my correction I pointed out in very thorough details the RELIABLE SOURCES for it, including the very paragraph of the correction-title in question (paragraph title which says "Early period 4800-4000 BC", while the paragraph itself describe this Early period as the period between 6500-5000 BC), you puting back the WRONG information of "4800-4000 BC" at a paragraph talking about a totally OTHER/older period, proves that you premeditate falsify the info in wikipedia and keep it wrong/false, pretending that it's "right"😉, while your own paragraph there proves you WRONG. Can't you read your own page??? (or "the page you are protecting")?? I also added a link to the artefacts presented in the paragraph above, where the History professor at NY University confirms the same thing I say, you denying evrything, and insisting on mentaining the wrong information on wikipedia, NOT sustain there by ANYTHING*, not even by it's own text in it's own chapter/paragraph.
- You also pretend that "reliable sources" are needed to post data on wikipedia, while the paragraph title of "4800-4000 BC" does NOT have any proof attach (or "reliable source") of any kind.
Despite this, you insist in keeping this unsustained and wrong data there, amd sistematically remove correct & sustained data placed by specialist, thus contradicting yourself in your message to me about "reliable sources are needed", like you contradict yourself at the above culture where the paragraph "Early history 4800-4000 BC" is contradicted by the text/content bellow of it's own paragraph. Muntele (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Muntele. That is my real name, not a pseudonym, and I'm not in the business of falsifying anything. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia effectively it would be a good idea to drop the personal attacks.
- It's a Wikipedia policy that all information added to articles must be verifiable, which generally means it should be supported with a direct citation to a reliable source. I'll respond to the rest of your comments on the article's talk page so other editors can also join the discussion. Just please remember we are all here to improve the encyclopaedia. There's really no call to get so worked up about a couple of dates! – Joe (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the JMR article
Hi Joe, thank you so much for your help with the article. Now I'll try to improve it. Thanks.--SciFive (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
RfA
Considering that your ORCP went pretty well, would this be something you are up for? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Yeah you know what, the comments were encouraging and there's no time like the present. I was thinking about bringing some of my nearly-there articles up to GA (to address Ritchie333's comment), but at the end of the day that would be jumping through hoops just for the sake of it. Would you be willing to nominate? – Joe (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I'd be happy to nominate. Normally its best to have two (and Ritchie is probably the most prolific recent nominator, so maybe he would be willing given his comments? He could also speak to the content work.) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yup, I'm happy to co-nominate; I think your content work is acceptable, as far as I know. I would advise you not to rush for GAs before an RfA - I had to pull one once because the article wasn't reviewed properly and needed a re-review and rewrite, which would have caused pile-on opposition. Do make sure all the articles you have had a major hand with are up to date and properly sourced. Otherwise, I will do a thorough check of contributions and get back to you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- That would be great, thank you Ritchie. I do stand by my content work, I just have a habit of moving on to something else before I feel it's ready for a GA review. – Joe (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've sent both you and Ritchie an email. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- That would be great, thank you Ritchie. I do stand by my content work, I just have a habit of moving on to something else before I feel it's ready for a GA review. – Joe (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yup, I'm happy to co-nominate; I think your content work is acceptable, as far as I know. I would advise you not to rush for GAs before an RfA - I had to pull one once because the article wasn't reviewed properly and needed a re-review and rewrite, which would have caused pile-on opposition. Do make sure all the articles you have had a major hand with are up to date and properly sourced. Otherwise, I will do a thorough check of contributions and get back to you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I'd be happy to nominate. Normally its best to have two (and Ritchie is probably the most prolific recent nominator, so maybe he would be willing given his comments? He could also speak to the content work.) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not into splatting big blue templates on user talk pages, so I'll just say I've sent a follow-up email to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
- Hi JustaZBguy. It looks like Winged Blades of Godric has beaten me to reviewing Draft:ZipBooks, although I fully agree with him. The draft reads like a company's attempt to promote their product, not an encyclopaedia article. I am assuming you have some kind of connection to the company, so honestly I would suggest you just give up on this. While we can do nothing to prevent paid editing on Wikipedia, it is something that the community feels strongly is detrimental to our project; it undermines confidence in the encyclopaedia and quite frankly wastes a lot of volunteer time. – Joe (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I have a COI listed on my user page. I'm wondering if there is a way to show documentation that these are all legitimate references that were in no way paid for, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustaZBguy (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @JustaZBguy: Disclosing the COI on your user page is really the bare minimum we ask for. If you read the conflict of interest policy properly, it does ask you not to edit with a COI at all. This reflects the fact that a large portion of the community think that it is unacceptable, even if we can't technically stop people from doing so. – Joe (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe:That's great feedback. Would you say that the draft meets notability guidelines? @Anachronist: I'd love to go about this the right way. What do I do to meet the spirit of the COI policy? JustaZBguy (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @JustaZBguy: Based on a not-too-in-depth look at the sources, I would say no, it doesn't. You can comply with the spirit of the COI policy by giving up on trying to create an article about the company you work for. – Joe (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe:That's great feedback. Would you say that the draft meets notability guidelines? @Anachronist: I'd love to go about this the right way. What do I do to meet the spirit of the COI policy? JustaZBguy (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @JustaZBguy: Disclosing the COI on your user page is really the bare minimum we ask for. If you read the conflict of interest policy properly, it does ask you not to edit with a COI at all. This reflects the fact that a large portion of the community think that it is unacceptable, even if we can't technically stop people from doing so. – Joe (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I have a COI listed on my user page. I'm wondering if there is a way to show documentation that these are all legitimate references that were in no way paid for, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustaZBguy (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing Overwatch League Team: Dallas Fuel
Hi, I noticed you patrolled many of the OWL teams stand-alone articles and even reviewed Houston Outlaws. I was wondering, whenever you get a chance, if you could possibly review Dallas Fuel. Many thanks. Wiki nV (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Wiki nV. I actually didn't patrol them – they were automatically marked as "patrolled" by me because I have the autopatrolled user right and I originally created the redirects. Now the redirects have been turned into articles they need to be patrolled again, but because of a quirk in the software I'm technically unable to do so (because the software considers me the page creator). It's annoying, because I would have just gone through and patrolled them all otherwise. Sorry! – Joe (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
New Page Patrol thanks you.
|
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
| For being one of the top 100 reviewers of the past year. Thank you for your service! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC) |
WiR December highlights
  
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Ipigott (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Your RfA
 | Congratulations Joe Roe/Archives! Your RfA was successful. You are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I hope you have just as happy a time editing in the future as you did before your RfA. You may want to look at the admin guide to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with. |
| Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator!
|
One of us, one of us, gobble, gobble...
Seems unlikely that you'll cock up your RFA in the handful of hours that remain (if you're having second thoughts, now's the time to start replacing the Main Page with a slew of profanity, good luck...) so I'm here to extend my congratulations. It's not often that I'll support an RFA where I've never crossed paths with the candidate, but after I looked into your history I couldn't help but tick the box. I reckon you'll do fine, but if you ever need a hand with the new buttons, feel free to ask. Well done! Yunshui 雲水 12:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Yunshui, I appreciate the support. Happy to join the freakshow! – Joe (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Alia Gurtov, underground astronaut draft
Hi Joe,
I am not able to move my draft of Alia Gurtov to New Article Status. Would you be able to review the draft and move it for me?
Have I lost the ability/permission to move my drafts to New Articles? Whatever I was doing before, does not seem to work today.
Thanks MauraWen (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)@MauraWen: Unless the most unexpected disaster in RfA history happens in the next half hour, Joe may be busy munching on Twiglets and champagne as our newest admin, so in the meantime I have moved your draft. The reason you couldn't is because there was an existing article Alia Gurtov which was a redirect to Underground Astronauts, so somebody without extended permissions wouldn't be able to do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, I was thinking I'd do a move-over-redirect as my first admin action, but Ritchie snapped it from under me! Thanks for another fine article, Maura. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- You could delete Template:Infobox Student (unless another admin gets there first). And yes, thanks for these articles, Maura - I see you are familiar with Women in Red, which is good to hear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, I was thinking I'd do a move-over-redirect as my first admin action, but Ritchie snapped it from under me! Thanks for another fine article, Maura. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Precious
archeological culture
Thank you for quality articles around archeology and its people, such as Margaret Ursula Jones and British Institute in Amman, for Indigenous territory (Brazil), for {{Infobox archaeological culture}} and related images, maps and diagrams, for service from 2006, and now also offering admin service, - Joe, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gerda Arendt. I was embarrassed when I looked at the amount of unfinished articles I had before the starting the RfA, so I'm taking it as a bit of a kick up the backside to bring more up to scratch – I'll be trying to catch up to your GA count! – Joe (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I never counted GAs, it's just my initials ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although all admins are welcome to delete constructively on Wikipedia, at least one of your recent deletions, such as the one you performed on the Main Page, did not appear to be constructive and has been undeleted. Please use Jimbo Wales' user page for any test deletions or blankings you would like to make, and read about our main page deletion guideline to learn more about deleting things on this encyclopedia. Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- With all due respect, usernamekiran, that was a pretty obvious WP:CSD#G1. – Joe (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it; I see it was full of hoaxes, and fictional (made up/imaginative) stuff. Deleting it was a good call. That page really needs a lot of work. See you around Joe. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)- Don't delete the Main page today when I am so proud of a DYK that I decorated my talk with it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it; I see it was full of hoaxes, and fictional (made up/imaginative) stuff. Deleting it was a good call. That page really needs a lot of work. See you around Joe. :)
A beer for you!
|
Cheers! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
A cup of coffee for you!
|
Welcome to the admin corps, Joe Roe! My name is |
- Um... is it too late to change my mind? 😥 – Joe (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well done, do also have a look at Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school, never a truer word has been written... Ronhjones (Talk) 23:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
welcome to the mop corps
| Congratulations on your successful RFA! It's the holidays and your turn to get the gift you never knew you never wanted, the advice the puppy gave me after my RFA passed – ten long, sordid, you-have-no-idea-how-many-people-dread-this-blue-box years ago: |
|
| DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. If it did, it would be much, much better and they would have stopped me by now. All rights released under GFDL. |
A kitten for you!
Thanks for your kind words and the advice that you provided to me related to the doubts that I wanted to clarify about the redirects and page moves. You have made me cool and happy with your kindful efforts. Thanks a lot and happy editing.
Abishe (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Congrats!
Officially :D. I'm sure you'll do great. Remember to collect the free t-shirt that someone is sure to be offering you shortly :) Glad to have you on the team. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations and commiserations on becoming an administrator! Take it slow, and feel free to drop me a line if I can help in any way -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats, Joe! If you ever need advice on
IP-blocking half of Singaporehandling socking cases, you know where to find me
GABgab 17:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC) - Congratulations! Please take a moment to savor your triumph. Done? Great. CSD is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Great RfA. Now you need to enable 2FA. Please nag me if I haven't posted to Wikiproject archaeology about[4] - I think the project could help. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations and good luck. Donner60 (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys! – Joe (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
New Admin Job
Congratulations Joe!
Thanks for responding so quickly when you must be very busy today!
MauraWen (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, congrats Joe. Good luck. Onel5969 TT me 01:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well done, Joe. Welcome to the team. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Joe Roe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for signing up
Hi Joe,
Thank you for signing up our study to try out our recommender system! Right now, we are still waiting for more participants from other WikiProjects to sign up, so I will let you know when we are ready to provide you the recommendations (aiming at early January), and will let you know how to use it. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Golden record
I saw that you created dab page Golden record and redirected Gold record there. I have no opinion on the dab, other than Gold Record seems like it should be treated consistently, unless the proper noun is really a distinct case? Additionally, there is also the existing dab page Golden Record. Finally, the existing links to Gold record need to be disambiguated after the changed redirect. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Correction, I see that you only modified Golden record, and redirected Gold record there.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't actually create the disambig, I just came across it on new page patrol and cleaned it up. It seemed a reasonable creation at the time, but I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should remain or not. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Anatoly Shariy
Excuse me, but it was spelled "Kiev" since the article's very creation. Why change it? --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note that I didn't make the change in the first place. I just reverted the revert because the reason given wasn't valid ("English name is Kiev"). All other things being equal, I would use Kyiv in articles related to contemporary Ukraine, but it's not a big deal. – Joe (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection: – Joe (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer "Kiev", but it's not a big deal to me either. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see now: [5]. That's who started it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Bagshaw Museum
Hi Joe. I was just checking out your user page, and noticed you recently created a page on Bagshaw Museum. I just thought I'd thank you for that, and mention out of interest that the Bagsahw Museum was the first museum I was ever permanently employed in, way back in 1981. I took up the post of Junior Assistant Curator there at Kirklees, before moving to Tolson Museum before then being asked to return to manage the place in 1985. I remember it was a very big day whenever a very elderly Violet Bagshaw honoured us with a visit in her chauffer-driven car to spent an hour or so having tea with us all! I seem to remember there was a very curious story about either Walter Bagshaw or his brother who had died, but then the train carrying their coffin to the cemetery was involved in an accident and derailment, with his naked corpse being found on the trackside. Very disturbing stuff.
On a completely different matter I would really welcome the advice of an admin on a matter that has been concerning me, so I thought of dropping you or Cullen a note. I've been worrying about a response I gave at the Teahouse today to a young user to this question. They are an Indian 9th Grade student (I assume c.14-15yrs old) who has used their real name as well as naming both parents and their school on their user page. I felt it was appropriate for me to break a few rules and immediately delete these personal details and have recommended they choose a completely different account name. Obviously these personal details still remain in their user page history, which is a worry should they decide to continue using it. I'm not yet familiar enough to be confident of the most appropriate way to guide a brand new user on such a delicate matter. I had thought about referring my concern to WP:ANI or WP:OS, but thought this could just be an over-reaction on my part. I don't want to leave a new user floundering with complex instructions, nor worry them unduly, either. I've done my best, but would welcome a second opinion on whether anything further needs to be done to protect this user. Any help would be appreciated (and useful for me to know too). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Small world! Hopefully I didn't make any big mistakes in the article?
- I think you're right to err on the side of caution w.r.t. the young editor. I've deleted the old revisions of the page and emailed oversight about it. Other than that I think you've given them sound advice. – Joe (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Joe. - that's an immense relief. If they need further guidance on changing to a different username would oversight suggest that to them? Or do we leave it to the user to decide whether they ought to or not? I wouldn't want them changing to a new account name and then being accused of having a sock. I'll leave them a follow-up note to explain what's happened, anyway.
- Regarding the Museum, the only thing you missed out was the amazing and immense floor to ceiling diorama of seabirds - guillemots, razorbills and gannets from Bempton Cliffs - which filled one room above my old office. Seems like a lifetime ago, and I guess it actually was! I think it got stripped out sometime in the 1990s. Reading your article again, I'm wondering whether it was one of the Sheards whose corpse was exposed in that train crash. Couldn't find anything online at a quick search, though. I also remember working there at the time we got the most awful pea green 1960s paint stripped off the entire ground floor woodwork to reveal [https://kirkleestogetherblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/bagshaw-museum-e1432031059565.jpg?w=800 this] amazing Canadian pitch pine interior. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think the username is up to them. If they want to start using a new account it would probably be obvious why, and that they're not sockpuppeting (if checkuser ever came up).
- I'll have to visit the museum again and check out the building itself. I haven't been since I was in school – when I wasn't interested in much beyond the cool 'mummy'! – Joe (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination)
Given the highly controversial nature of this RfC and its interpretation, as you may know if you are involved in school AfDs, I am asking you to reopen these discussions or close them as no consensus. You cannot discount opinions on this sort of basis. If not, I shall take them to DRV. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I can't say I didn't see this coming, but I stand by my close and would prefer to get an independent opinion at DRV. I've seen your "per longstanding precedent and consensus" !vote copy-and-pasted into multiple school AfDs recently, and as I see it that is exactly the kind of circular logic that was discouraged in the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC. Its close explicitly stated that such arguments "may be discounted when the AFD is closed". Even if it didn't, I judged that the consensus in both of these AfDs was that there were insufficient sources for an article, and ultimately WP:V trumps ancient precedents. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review for The Quaid School
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Quaid School. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review for Ace School System
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ace School System. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Becca Peixotto
Hi Joe,
I submitted Becca Peixotto for review. If its possible for you to review and move the draft to new article status, I can start working on another underground astronaut.
Thanks MauraWen (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
- Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
- If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with:
{{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
- A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
- Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
- ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
- The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hannah Morris draft ready to be a new article
Hi Joe,
If you have time to take a look at the Hannah Morris draft and move it to new article, I would appreciate it.
There is another Hannah Morris listed on Wikipedia, so I was not sure how to list Hannah's name in the infobox.
A quick question: I would like to use the same paragraph I put together about the Rising Star experience for each of these women. I know I am not supposed to cut and paste, but the paragraph is my own words, a combination of facts and cited quotes. Can I do that?
I have been changing the paragraph slightly for each astronaut, but I am not sure if that is even necessary or if I should be writing a completely different paragraph for each scientist.
thanks Maura
MauraWen (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Maura. Sure thing, I'll move it now & disambiguate the other Hannah Morris article.
- Copying within Wikipedia is okay since everything has an open license; just make sure you link to the article you copied from (in this case Becca Peixotto) to maintain the proper attribution.
- Just a note of caution with these: I'm not sure that all of the "underground astronauts" are individually notable. They might be – but just make sure you're checking that there are a decent number of sources on each subject as an individual, if you're planning to continue. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Joe,
I assumed all six women were notable because they were on the Women in Red List. I will check the candidates more carefully in the future.
MauraWen (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
First review and request
Dear Joe, Thank you for your feedback. I am trying to improve it following your instructions. I have also one request. I made a page by mistake which has to be deleted. Can you please do it as an admin?
This is the page to be removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Alireza_Mashaghi&redirect=no
Thank you. Plectoneme (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, Plectoneme, I've deleted it. Thanks again for your contribution. – Joe (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
AfD
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stories set in a future now past – While there were a larger number of Keep !votes, the majority of them were WP:ILIKEIT or simply asserted GNG satisfaction without providing evidence. I believe the Delete !votes had the stronger policy argument, based on WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. James (talk/contribs) 19:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree with that assessment, James. In reading through I was struck that none of the participants actually mentioned WP:LISTN. The majority of the keeps were assertions of notability, whilst the deletes boiled down to an assertion that it was OR. Personally I don't think either of those are very compelling arguments, but the weight of numbers was clearly in favour of keeping the article.
- Even if I were to weight the deletes more (which I think would be a bit of a supervote), with those numbers it couldn't be more than a no consensus so the outcome would be the same. – Joe (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Marina Elliott
Hi Joe,
I submitted the Marina Elliott draft for approval yesterday and got a message this morning. Comment: I can't approve because it exists as a redirect. Sorry Eddie891 Talk Work 14:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)"
I am not sure if an admin like yourself needs to do something with my draft or I should just wait and the draft will eventually get moved to article.
Also, given your advice about notability, I won't be creating an article for L. Eaves-Hunter.
Is it ok to remove the underground astronauts from the Red List? The list is all blue now except for Eaves-Hunter.
Thanks MauraWen (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it just needed an admin to delete the redirect. Eddie could have requested it with {{db-move}}.
- Sounds good. I'd go ahead and remove them from the red list. Great work! – Joe (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Buffalo, New York
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo, New York. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
Hello Joe, could you give me any pointers for my short article?
Hi Joe,
I have a draft I've been working on and wanted to see if you had any suggestions to get it approved? [[6]]
Lloan (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Lloan. I'm afraid not; I don't spend my time on articles that have been paid for. My only suggestion would be to give up on the draft, because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Joe Roe, seems like a subjective view. The article is paid for in the sense that I work for the company. I wasn't given the task to write it, but I did have to disclose that I'm affiliated with the company. Would you then suggest the articles for OrangeTheory Fitness, Planet Fitness, etc. be removed from Wikipedia? These are big companies that people want to know about. Nothing in that article is promoting anything, its informational. Thank you for the helpful input though. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloan (talk • contribs) 15:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Lloan: Regardless of the notability of the subject (I have no opinion on FBBC or the other articles you mentioned), would you trust an encyclopaedia where the articles were all written by the subjects themselves, or their employees? I certainly wouldn't, and it baffles me that so many paid/COI editors do not see the issue there. That may be my subjective opinion, but the consensus of the community, very clearly expressed in WP:COI, is that paid editing is undesirable and discouraged. As you've chosen to ignore that and do it anyway, don't be surprised if you find a higher level of scrutiny applied to your edits, or if you encounter other volunteer editors like me who choose not to review or improve paid-for articles. – Joe (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Joe Roe, seems like a subjective view. The article is paid for in the sense that I work for the company. I wasn't given the task to write it, but I did have to disclose that I'm affiliated with the company. Would you then suggest the articles for OrangeTheory Fitness, Planet Fitness, etc. be removed from Wikipedia? These are big companies that people want to know about. Nothing in that article is promoting anything, its informational. Thank you for the helpful input though. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloan (talk • contribs) 15:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas !!!
.jpg)
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!
.jpg) .jpg) 
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Deletion of Joseph Vithayathil
Instead of deleting the article, wouldn't it have been better if you had reverted it back to my drafts and given me time to modify it? Request you to please give the content in my draft or tell me where would i get the content back.~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 04:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi ScitDei. The entirety of the article was copied from [7]. We can't host copyright infringing text on Wikipedia, even as a draft. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming AfD
Hi, Joe. I am contacting you because you closed WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming. I believe you made an error by closing with no consensus. By my count there were 7 votes to delete, 3 to keep, and 1 to merge or keep. The arguments to keep were also very weak with one editor opining that "New York Times obituary is a defacto mark of notability" (something clearly not based in policy). I believe the clear consensus was delete, please explain your reasoning. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Rusf10: I'm happy to explain my reasoning. Those in favour of deletion generally argued that the subject didn't meet WP:NPOL and that any coverage was routine. Those in favour of keeping generally argued that WP:NPOL was irrelevant because there was significant coverage. Both of these are good, policy-based arguments. I don't agree that the keep arguments were "very weak". RAN's point about the NYT is perfectly in line with policy, in that an obituary in an international newspaper is a strong indicator of notability under the WP:GNG. On the other hand, several (not all) delete !votes were weak—unsubstantiated assertions of non-notability—which is why I didn't put much weight on the numerical majority in favour of deletion. Overall, my assessment was that opinion on the notability of the subject was split, and that the discussants were unlikely to reach agreement on whether the available sources constituted significant coverage. Hence the close as no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review for Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rusf10 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Article (Company) Deletion
Hi Joe - I'm contacting you regarding the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Article_(company). All but one "Delete" arguments appeared grounded in emotional assertions of breach of policy without citing any supporting evidence. They generally asserted lack of notability and lack of independence of sources, but only one (the most recent by HighKing) involved real critical analysis of the article. In response to HighKing's latest argument, I believe the point regarding independence of sources was well supported with respect to the particular example cited. This example, however, was then extended to all remaining sources without similar rigor. The final argument in the response, regarding lack of notability, was similar to the rest, and lacked an objective argument and any supporting evidence other than opinion. The "Keep" arguments seemed, on the other hand, well-developed. Granted - they may have also been flawed, but other than the single example cited above, they were not proven inadequate, and remain mostly intact. I ask that you restore the article and suggest addition of: additional sources to improve the article content, and establishment of lack of notability with evidence. Given the significance of the company in the Canadian technology scene (E&Y emerging tech company of 2017, Macleans' next billion dollar company in Canada, etc.) it seems possible that a diligent attempt to establish lack of notability will in fact support of the opposite.68.148.116.80 (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't see how I could have closed that one any other way. Seven of the nine participants in that AfD were in favour of deletion. Of the two keep !votes, one (the IP's) was well developed, but the other one was a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The arguments for deletion were not lengthy but did cite policy and many were from experienced editors and AfD regulars with a proven track record of accurately assessing notability. I would not characterise them as emotional or unobjective. Sometimes there is just little to be said beyond "I checked and this is not notable". – Joe (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Two new articles for review: Griffin Tomb Warrior and Sharon Stocker
Hi Joe,
I had planned on creating a biography on archaeologist Sharon Stocker this month, and realized that no article had been written on the Griffin Warrior Tomb, the 2015 archaeological discovery and excavation that was led by Stocker and Jack L. Davis. I decided to write the article myself, my biggest undertaking to date.
I am hoping you get a chance to review both new articles. The writing is definitely a challenge for me being a non-writer by profession. I am always happy to get input that will help improve my contributions to WikiProject Women in Red.
thanks MauraWen (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Maura. Well you've certainly got the hang of writing biographies, given the rate you're completing them! Griffin Warrior Tomb looks like a fine article too, on a very interesting site. If I were to nitpick, I would say that you leaned a little too heavily on quotations, making it read more like a newspaper article than an encyclopaedia entry. But with a bit of polish I think we could easily get it good article status – what do you say? – Joe (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
AfC
Hi Joe. I certainly wouldn't accuse you of stoking up drama, but as we both know, a lot of other people can't resist commenting anywhere whenever they get a chance. It's a known Internet forum malady. That said, there's very little chance that ST will ever be back. At least not in any recognisable form and certainly not with with extended rights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- That is a shame. He does a lot for the project. – Joe (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Like socking on a AfD that you were recently accused of incorrectly closing two days ago? Even if his 'delete' vote were to be discounted, your closure was perfectly apt. As I mentioned, there's also significant off-Wiki stuff that we can't use and which was not needed for his block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Constant Cornelis Huijsmans
Hi Joe Roe, thanks for all your advice to improve the article on Constant Cornelis Huijsmans. However, the pop-up message that there is an issue with the site concerning inline quotations and sections keeps appearing on my PC, though not on the Ipad. Is there anything I can do about that? Another question I have is the following. In the article on Van Gogh (section: Life, Early years) Huijsmans is mentioned (spelt here as Constantijn C. Huysmans). This site has unfortunately been vandalized and as a result, quite understably, the article is locked. So I have not been able to correct the name of Constant Cornelis Huijsmans in this section. Is there anything I can do about this? I initially asked this question on my own "talk page", but later saw that it would be better to ask a question on your talk page. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by my asking the same question twice. Best regards, Hanengerda (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC).
- Hi Hanengerda. You're very welcome, it's a nice article. I hope you'll keep contributing material like this to enwiki!
- The inline citation message is a cleanup tag I added to the article. Once the problem is resolved, anyone can remove a cleanup tag by simply editing the page and deleting the template at the top. Since you've added a lot of inline citations, I'll remove that one now. There are still a couple of passages that ideally should have inline citations, though.
- You should actually be able to edit Von Gogh, as it's only semi-protected, so I don't know what's going on there. I've gone ahead and corrected it though. No worries about the duplicated message; my apologies for not seeing your reply on your talk page. If you have any other questions or anything I can help with in the future, please do leave feel free to leave me a message here or ping me. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your quick response. And thanks for the work you've done on the articles. I will have a look to see whether I can add some more inline citations. Hanengerda (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
New Years new page backlog drive
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
- The total number of reviews completed for the month.
- The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)