Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2020

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2020

Delivered January 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

22:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Arbcom

January
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for your reasoned vote not to desysop BrownHairedGirl. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing negation?

In your vote to desysop RHaworth, you write "Based on the volume of bad deletions and incidents of bitiness, and the fact that multiple commitments to adjust his approach have borne fruit." I think you mean the commitments haven't borne fruit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. – Joe (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2020

Delivered February 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

21:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Getting In Contact

Hey Joe can I have your email to get In touch about some edits of mine you removed, regarding a family member of mine. My email is ianmoriarty33@gmail.com if you decide to reach me first. IanJMoriarty (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi IanJMoriarty. You can email me using the "Email this user" link on the left-hand side of this page. Or, preferably, just use this talk page. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 at Women in Red

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Discussion on the Draft namrespace

As a user who has expressed an interest in the Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC, you are invited to join a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rethinking_draft_space. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tanner Buchanan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tanner Buchanan. 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. Mikeyshaw (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv

Here we go again, this is a discussion that one often has with Ukrainian nationalists and it has been going on for years, see Talk:Kiev/naming. You are welcome to join the discussion rather than revert or make a request for comment if you are unsure but to this date there is little support for your opinion. Anyhow use the talk to explain why the article should be an exempt from the WP:P-NUK who explicitly overrides the general MOS:VAR and why it should not use the common spelling which is also used in the sources. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shellwood. I assume you are talking about this edit from last November. WP:P-NUK is not a policy (it says so at the top of the page) and cannot override the manual of style. I'm not a Ukrainian nationalist. My edit simply restored the consistent use of Kyiv in Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, which I have helped maintain for many years and which has always used Kyiv and other Ukrainian spellings. It has nothing to do with the discussion of what to call our article on Kiev.
As far as I'm aware there's no consensus to replace Kyiv with Kiev in every article so please do not do so. Inconsequential changes of one accepted spelling to another can be seen as disruptive (MOS:VAR). If you have a specific reason why this particular article should use Kiev not Kyiv, the article talk page is a better place to discuss it. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
First of all don't just read the nutshell part on pages about policies and guidelines, you miss out a lot then and end up wrong in your arguments. As I said before it is not helpful to the reader to encounter different spellings through article, MOS:VAR does not apply in this situation. And when a user comes to correct this for the sake of consistency do NOT accuse them for edit warring!!! I will give you some time to reflect on this, form a sincere apology for not assuming good faith in the first place and most importantly self-revert. We cant have an article with mixed spelling just because you want it so.Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Shellwood: There aren't any mixed spellings in Cucuteni–Trypillia culture. Kyiv is used throughout the body of the article. This is an acceptable spelling in English and there is no substantial reason to change it, so MOS:VAR certainly does apply. – Joe (talk) 07:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay but that's according to you. Ask an adult (whom you trust!) to interpret WP:P-NUK and read through the article. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

j'accuse

I find the complaints lodged against Kudpung to be so weak that they're laughable. I also find your assessment of Kudpung's behavior unreasonable and your decision to remove his mop unmerited. While I have great respect for our admins that remain polite and unflappable in every circumstance, I think that attitude is neither required nor reasonable for all admins. While you may think that you protected this project by punishing Kudpung or preventing personal attacks, your actions today have only played into the hands of a certain clique of editors who took advantage of this opportunity to remove an obstacle to their plans. I can only assume that you've joined the "hasten the day" crowd. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2020

Delivered March 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

19:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For making Winifred M. Crompton's page so fast! You deserve a nice cuppa! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Lajmmoore! If I see someone mentioned on twitter I always like to check whether we already have an article on them. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Recycled wool

Hello, Joe Roe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Recycled wool".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 13:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Botai Culture

On 12th March you reverted my edit which involved among other things reinstating the era setting on the article. Looking at the article history, possibly you have on several occasions reverted other edits due to watching this article. However, this article was set up and has been a BC article until recently. Therefore you were incorrect to overrule me. Until April 2019 the article used BC not BCE when [edit] was used to alter the era setting without discussion or explanation. One instance remained of BC and on 13th January [edit] was used to alter that one, again without discussion or explanation. Nobody watching the page objected even though this is contrary to WP:ERA.--Polyssotsky (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Polyssotsky. I wasn't aware that the article was originally created with BC. The April 2019 edit might have been against policy, but given that the article has been stable with BCE for nearly a year, I can't see the point in changing it back now either. But as you like. In future an edit summary briefly stating the rationale for changing the era would be helpful (though really, there are much more useful things to be doing!) Thanks. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you CAPTAIN RAJU. Fifteen years already! – Joe (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2020

Delivered April 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Very cool! Reciprocater (Talk) 07:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Help for the Neolithic period

Hello Joe. As you have already seen, I am working on an article for Abu Zurayq (it was initially called Tel Zariq but then I realized there is no need to have two different articles. I have written about the Wadi Rabah site which was described by Garfinkel in 2002, so I generally trust this source, but other sources are from the 70s and from my limited understanding of the Stone Age, setting the framework for periods and and cultures is constantly changing and there are many conflicting views.

So in Garfinkel's article from 2002, the prehistoric findings from Perrot's excavation are all described as "Wadi Rabah", preceded by Epipaleolithic (to my understanding, the Mesolithic in the Levant) and followed by the Early Bronze Age. These finds are from the 5th millennium BC. Garfinkel writes that there are two approaches to distinguish sites in 5th millennium northern Israel: Middle Chalcolithic (Wadi Rabah), Late Chalcolithic (Beth Shean XVIII), or having two contemporary cultures: Wadi Rabah and Wadi Rabah variants. So what should I write in the article? I quoted what written in the Wadi Rabah culture article, that it is a culture of the Pottery Neolithic, but the sources say otherwise.

Another article by Emmanuel Anati from 1972 describes his excavation in a nearby site to Perrot's excavations. He distinguishes between two phases: Middle Neolithic and Late Neolithic. Among the Late Neolthic finds are finds from the "Coastal Neolithic" culture, which Garfinkel's 2002 article states is linked to the Wadi Rabah culture. Anati also says that the "Late Neolithic" site in Abu Zurayq existed during the 5th millennium BC, so it seems it roughly corresponds with Perrot and Garfinkel's Wadi Rabah settlement.

Questions raised: Will my awful original research to say that the Late Neolithic of Anati is Garfinkel's Wadi Rabah? Should I even trust the dates and periods appearing in Anati's article or is it completely outdated? And when exactly happens the transition between Neolithic and Chalcolithic? Now the article says the Wadi Rabah is late Neolithic, but Garfinkel says it is actually Middle Chalcolithic! If you have access to JSTOR, here are the articles: Garfinkel, Anati.

Ok I did more reading and figured most things out. I'll be more than happy if you"ll check the Abu Zurayq article to see that I am not writing bullshit. So I understand that the site in Abu Zurayq had two Neolithic cultures, one in the 6th millennium and one in the 5th millennium. They are called "Middle Neolithic" and "Late Neolithic" by Ananti. Garfinkel and others refer to the second period as "Wadi Rabah".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

With that said, I would like to offer my assistance as well if you have any projects in mind for archaeological sites.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bolter21: Glad you sorted it out! The Late (Pottery) Neolithic chronology of the S. Levant has been very confused until recently. I found this source useful for getting my head around the current scheme. The 6th millennium "Middle Neolithic" could be what's now referred to as the Lodian culture, but in articles it's probably better to stick closely to the original source. Ananti was writing before the typochronology was well-understood and before reliable radiocarbon dating so it's unfortunately not the most reliable source on chronology.
Great work on these site articles, by the way! I've been wanting for a long time to improve some of the "core" articles, e.g. Prehistory of the Levant, which are trickier to write but get more traffic than individual site articles. But I also have a list of sites I'd one day like to get to at User:Joe Roe/sandbox#Epipalaeolithic/Neolithic sites. Let me know if you want to work together on any, I always find that a good motivation to actually start on these lists... – Joe (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, my knowledge of any period prior to the Early Bronze age is very limited. Frankly I finally began understanding the Neolithic research properly only yesterday when writing about this site. But I've also wanted to work on the core articles and I found several problems. There are no clear geographic frameworks. There's "Levant", "Near East", "Israel", "Palestine", "Middle East"... All of these mostly talk about the same topics and sometimes have either mirrored information or worse, two different stories for the same thing. See Prehistory of the Levant, History of the ancient Levant, Levantine archaeology, History of ancient Israel and Judah, History of Israel, History of Palestine... All of these create such a mess. I think the first thing that needs to be done is to plan out these articles and define exactly the scope of each article. What do you think?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems my attempt to solve this issue has just created another small war in the I/P field. I am taking an interest in Prehistory of the Levant to try to improve this article. I have two archaeology books, one from 1982 (the prehistoric section is written by Ofer Bar Yossef and David Ussishkin) and another one from 1992 (Ofer Bar Yossef and Rivka Gonen). Should these be treated as outdated?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bolter21: Yeah these overview article really are a mess, with lots of duplication. I think for prehistory, the topic should be treated at a regional level. Prehistory of the Levant sounds about right, since "Middle East" is very broad and e.g. "Southern Levant" or "Palestine" gets us into I/P disputes. The later periods are trickier... I am not sure about the value of History of the ancient Levant over having national overviews. – Joe (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Badon

See [1]. I don't want to discourage them, but besides the problem of the joint account and self-citing, I can't find any mention of their article in Popular Archaeology anywhere, so I don't see why this should be included. But it would be nice if they got their own accounts and started helping with archaeology articles. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yeah it's a little awkward. I see they've been active again today. I wouldn't know how to even start tracking down a Popular Archaeology article from the 80s, but either way I wouldn't consider it a very reliable source. The local history stuff seems more valid. As long as they stick to sourced additions, I'd be inclined to let it be per WP:SELFCITE. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Arb Count

Can you update the count, and since it's now declined by the committee can you have the clerks archive it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the count, but we usually wait at least 24 hours before archiving. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Or six hours  :) ——SN54129 10:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 at Women in Red

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166


May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2020

Delivered May 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

14:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

please review advise on Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy article

Dear Joe Roe, I resubmitted the aedp article on April 27th and it was declined. I had made very significant changes from the 2016 version that you accepted but was withdrawn a year later. I added a critique section and I altered all the technical language. Biogeographist asked someone in psych to review but no one has come forward. I re-wrote the draft to address what I thought might be the problem (not a neutral point of view): took out references to original research where I could. I used Fosha's name only once. I read about neutral point of view and the article meets criteria: I have not synthesized material, everything I say is given a second or third party reference. (there are considerably more third party references since 2016). I actually think the declined article is better because having original sources to reference along with third party references is nice for people who are interested to have on hand. I looked at all the psychotherapy pages and I don't understand why the aedp article is not encyclopedic but the published one's are. I guess I don't understand what encyclopedic is. Why am I persevering you may ask? Aside from my personality to persevere, and the 100's of hours I put into this, I love wikipedia and I think its fantastic to look up anything. So many people now know about aedp. It's not in the reference list, but aedp is even mentioned in an article in the new York post and three times in the New York times. People want to know what is aedp. It doesn't help to go to the website because the website is written for professionals and there is way too much information to distill. And for whatever reason, there is no one else I know who would ever be interested in writing an article for wikipedia: its a lot of work and no glory. So now that I am more deeply involved in aedp than I was in 2016, my relationship to aedp when I started this whole project in the sandbox back in 2014 was very much on the periphery as a student. I don't have a conflict of interest. AEDP doesn't need an article in wikipedia but wikipedia and google searchers need the wikipedia article on aedp. I'm hoping you can help because I know I can't accomplish this task on my own. Thank you if you can and thank you for your patience to read all of this. Carrie Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit war at Ethiopid race going on

Just half an hour after you reverted Ethiopid race to the pre-war stable version, another editor restored his own version of some hours before (no edit summary given). His version has nothing in common with Dalhoa (talk · contribs)'s. Rsk6400 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is now a 3RR complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Skllagyook reported by User:Dalhoa (Result: Both warned), involving User:Dalhoa who you recently blocked due to Ethiopid race. Not sure why I'm letting you know, but I have noticed that talk page discussions involving User:Dalhoa seem hopeless for anyone else, and I am unsure whether admins might need to take stronger action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I've indeffed Dalhoa and will try to keep an eye on the other user. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Last night, I reported the changes made by the other user while my nerves where really strained by that edit war and the "hopeless" discussions with Dalhoa. I see the other user has little experience, so I hope that he acted in good faith. Thanks. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For calling out aggressive administrators. BlueD954 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Marion Stirling Pugh

No reason to replace my article. That negates the work I put into the article. Just merge your information with mine, as mine was posted first. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Postcard Cathy. Perhaps you missed the message I just posted on your talk page? I am sorry that our edits collided. It seems we were coincidentally creating the same article at the same time and I did not see your version until I hit "save". When I looked at the edit conflict, all the information in your version was also in mine, so I thought it simpler to go with that. If I missed something please let me know and I'm happy to merge it in. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Postcard Cathy: I've doubled-checked and, as far I can see, the only detail that was lost is that Pugh studied under Truman Michelson. I've re-added that now. There were also discrepancies in Pugh's date of birth and Stirling's year of death, but I've checked the sources and I think May 12 and 1975 are correct. Please let me know if there's anything else you would like me to merge. – Joe (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Postcard Cathy, what is the purpose of this? Can you please work with me to improve the article, rather than reverting to a version that contains substantially less content? – Joe (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
From a talk page watcher on @Postcard Cathy:'s page: No, Joe, it's bad manners to completely overwrite someone else's page rather than just add your new material bit by bit. If planning to put a lot of effort into an article it's useful, I find, to create a one-sentence sourced stub with an {{under construction}} banner first to stake a claim and avoid this sort of spat. Then I create incoming redirects - sometimes finding that there's actually an existing article at a variation of the name - and make interlanguage linkage if there's an equivalent on another wiki. Then go back and expand the article. Saves the disappointment of finding that someone else has started the article while you're developing yours in sandbox or offline.
Neither of you seems to have noticed that Middletown, New York is a disambiguaion page (there's a brilliant gadget in "preferences / gadgets / appearance" which colours dab pages orange to remind you to disambiguate the link).
If she was 89 when died in April 2001 then the May birth date is the more plausible. PamD 15:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input PamD. To clarify, I started writing the article before Postcard Cathy saved her version (live, not in a sandbox or offline, it just usually takes me a couple of hours to write the first edit). I had no way of knowing that Postcard Cathy was also working on one until I had finished a first draft and got the edit conflict. At that point I checked the existing version for anything I was missing and, not finding anything, decided it would make more sense to save my version as-is and make adjustments afterwards. I then immediately posted on her talk page to apologise for the conflict. It would not have been possible to add my material "bit by bit" and, even if it were, I do not see how the outcome would be meaningfully different.
I will consider your advice in future but generally that's not been my process—I like to write fairly complete articles in one go—and in 15 years and ~150 article creations this is the first time I've encountered such a conflict. Archaeological biographies are not usually a busy topic area.
I am not remotely interested in credit or "staking a claim", only in having the best possible biography of Pugh. I would like to keep working on it while I have the sources to hand, but at the moment I cannot do so because Postcard Cathy has repeatedly reverted to her earlier version. Any advice on what we do now?
I noticed the dab link to Middletown, New York, yes (I tagged it with {{disambiguation needed}}), but none of the sources I've found so far clarify which one it is. – Joe (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Joe Roe/Archives, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Article Vicky Manhas

I had requested to Draftify the Vicky Manhas article. As I was the creator of that article. Actually I am new user, and I created the article directly. Later, Aaqib Anjum Aafī guided me, that we have to draft the article first before publishing it to main space.

As requested to move the article into draft but you had deleted the article. My lot of time and research washed away.

If possible please move it to draft. So that I can find the reliable sources and make the draft update and I will publish it only when it qualifies WP:SNG WP:GNG TheChunky (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheChunky: Sure. I've restored it at Draft:Vicky Manhas. Please be aware that as there was a strong consensus to delete at the AfD, you will need to address the concerns there before moving it back to article space. If the article is restored without substantial changes, it will probably be speedily deleted. – Joe (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tolu' A Akinyemi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tolu' A Akinyemi. 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. Olatunde Brain (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Tolu' A Akinyemi Deletion Compare and Advise

Please i created this article when i read this this this and this also see this all on the mainspace, please kindly help me understand what these subject has that the deleted article lacks, this will help me make a better decision when creating related articles in the future.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Olatunde. The decision to delete this article was made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolu' A Akinyemi so you should read the arguments there to understand why. I will say that comparing an article to others that appear similar is generally an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Decisions on whether to create or delete an article should be based solely on whether there is enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources to write one. – Joe (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Joe Roe I debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolu' A Akinyemi because i believe there are enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources cited in the article. I don't think the nominator and others who voted fact-checked my point. Here in my discussion with the nominator, i made references to this this and this.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Brain7days: As an administrator, my job isn't to decide whether a topic is notable myself, it's just to assess the consensus after a discussion and press the appropriate buttons. I believe there was a clear consensus at the AfD to delete Tolu' A Akinyemi. If you think I made a mistake, you can get opinions from others at deletion review. But if I can offer you some advice: as much as it sucks to have your work deleted, it happens to most of us at some point, and eventually you just have to accept that the consensus is against you and move on. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please found new independent reliable sources see this this this this please this is all i could find at the moment, is it enough? It took me weeks to draft this article. It hurt me to see it deleted on that grounds. Please advise me on what to do to keep it. There are some greek and spanish sources too but wouldn't it be too much? or should i list them in the deletion review as requested by Praxidicae --Olatunde Brain (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2020

Delivered June 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Petrosphere

Thanks for your work here, but one of them is red-linked. I didn't want to remove it without asking you. Meanwhile, I'm taking this to the Wikiproject to ask for opinions as we seem to use it quite a bit. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for reminding me. I meant to create a stub for it, but on closer inspection couldn't find that many sources. Maybe a WP:TOOSOON situation as it seems quite new. I'll remove it now. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your question to me

You asked me a question at the Medicine PD talk page ([2]), and it closed before I could answer, so I'll answer here. I was concerned that you had missed something, and apparently you had. Some editors pointed out after the workshop had closed that the evidence you cited was not actually diffs or in-context quotes, but were words and phrases that were picked out of discussions by using software designed to tag words with negative connotations. As such, some of the comments might, perhaps, have been appropriate in context, rather than negative comments directed at other editors. (Had I known that before the workshop phase had closed, I would have removed my reference to that evidence from my own workshop proposals, but I only realized it after.) So I was concerned that you might have been unaware of something that you would have wanted to be aware of, and maybe should have been aware. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Thanks for the explanation. My interpretation of Bluerasberry's comment was that he was using sentiment analysis as a rhetorical device rather than presenting the results of one (Here are some phrases which Colin uses in this present version which I assert would trigger robotic sentiment analysis). Regardless, the reason I singled out that piece of evidence is because, as Bradv also commented, it's extremely difficult to point to a set of diffs when the problem is sustained incivility rather than bright-line instances of misconduct. In those cases, I'm minded to give more weight on the assessment of a sensible and respected editor like Bluerasberry than to isolated diffs. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Joe thanks for considering the case and @Tryptofish: thanks for discussing, and thanks for considering the challenge of how difficult it is to make judgement on civility.
Tryptofish - I wish to answer anything anyone asks of me, but in my view, text discussion on wiki is challenging and giving less benefit. I was considering whether there could be a lighter, more casual way to discuss, if anyone was interested. We now have meta:Wikimedia Meet natively installed in the Wikimedia platform, and consequently, we could set an agenda for a live discussion, invite anyone to speak, and publish the video on wiki. I would not want this to be too complicated, but if there are 4-8 people who wanted to have a chat in public, I wondered if that might be productive and if that could be a stress free positive experience.
I have been trying to organize more public talks which keep to an agenda through an experiment at meta:Wikimedia Café. This was my first time being a party in an ArbCom case, and even entering it, I wondered how much of this could have been resolved if people had agreed to a voice chat in advance. I think it might be interesting for ArbCom cases to start with people in a voice chat room together talking to each other somehow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. Joe, if ArbCom is moving away from diff-based evidence in some situations it might be good to tell the community about it, in order to get the most useful evidence. (As for the chat idea, I have no clue whether it would work, or whether it would be yelling instead of chatting. There might also be issues around editor privacy.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This is also being discussed, with some comments directed particularly at Joe, at WT:ACN#Bookkeeping. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't say ArbCom is moving in any direction, it's just part of my personal approach to these tricky incivility cases. I think we've always used a mix of cut-and-dry diffs and more subjective assessments of conduct as evidence. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please help me with the page David Quinlan (musician)

Hi, friend! I've seen that the author DavidStarIsrael7 created the article David Quinlan (musician) but you deleted it. Could you please restore it for me or send me a draft of that article? I want to create an good article about that singer.

Thanks!! --IGYV (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, IGYV, since that version was created by an editor evading a block, I won't restore it. You will have to start again with your own version. – Joe (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, really? I really need that, Joe Roe. --IGYV (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven L. Tuck

Hi--I saw your note at that AfD. I was thinking about closing it, but it's going to close as keep anyway, I'm sure, and I'm editing the article pretty heavily. Anyway, I think we should have articles for the Villa Vergiliana and for Vergilius (journal), so if you have a moment, haha. BTW the JSTOR results are seriously thrown off by advertising--like in this article. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • There is some seriously murky territory here. I suppose this can verify he did tours--and yet I don't feel great about it, in part because it's primary evidence for the tours, of course. I didn't really know that was such an industry until I wrote Gara Medouar and got in touch with Chloe Capel (see references) for permission to use the photos, and then looked at her resume. She does desert tours for National Geographic, I believe--and I wish I could afford to go on one. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Thanks for the work on Tuck. I think he's a notable academic, but PROF gives people who focus more on teaching/outreach than research a hard time. I'll take a look at Villa Vergiliana and Vergilius (journal). The world of tours is also unfamiliar to me, but I gather it's a common side-gig for classical archaeologists. Probably not worth putting too much emphasis on though, given the commercial aspects. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

UTRS Access

You are being messaged because there was a bug in UTRS that made it look like you had access to no appeals in the system. This has now since been patched and will be tested more before fully implemented again. You can track the progress if you wish here. I appreciate your patience and wanted to stop by to say try again, and let me know if anything else is wrong. Please also ping me if you reply here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2020

Delivered July 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2020

Delivered August 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

18:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Samaine (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Just in case you are working on gathering examples of NPROF people deleted when similarly accomplished people in other fields are not, I would put Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination) on that list. There are obviously some complicating factors there but I definitely think someone of Bechly's level of accomplishment (or less) is kept if he's NSPORT and probably a few other SNGs (including probably NAUTHOR, my own area of expertise and work). I get that this might undercut the argument I'm making at NPROF but I do value being intellectually honest in such things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

For your Response

Respected Sir,

Thanks for your response.

Regards.--AranyaPathak (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2020

Delivered August 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

22:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for David Graeber

On 5 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Graeber, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia. 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. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: Thanks for the notification, though you might want to note for future reference that the usual practice is to discuss with the closing admin before opening a DRV. See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Dam template

Hey, the noreplace text you added here seems to just dangle in some articles, like Upper Anaicut. I don't usually do template syntax so I didn't want to start mucking about with it in case I screwed it up. Could you take a look? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Oops, thanks for spotting that – I'd put it in the wrong place. Should be fixed now. – Joe (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Kenn Banks

I don't think that block was the right thing to do - a) nothing in WP:PAY prohibits direct editing, it is only "strongly discouraged" and b) you should not be using your tools against someone in an edit war. It's also overly simplistic to think that because it's suffered from promotional editing in the past, that someone can't be paid to make it more compliant with policy. There are good paid editors as well as bad ones. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Smartse: Everywhere else on the project, wording like "strongly discouraged" means don't do it unless there's a good reason to make an exception, and is expected to be enforced. I've never understood why some think WP:COI is uniquely optional amongst the other PAGs. In any case, semantics aside, I believe it's well within the bounds of current community consensus to ask a paid editor to make an edit request so others can check their changes, especially when the financial COI was initially not disclosed, and to an article that has been plagued by UPE and promotional edits for years.
I also think my use of the tools was appropriate. I'm not in a content dispute with Jjanhone. Ken Banks is on my watchlist because last year I responded to a report to ANI and ArbCom about the UPE there, and I've only ever edited it in an administrative capacity.
I know there are differing views on how strictly to combat paid editing. If you want to spend your time helping Banks' latest hire get paid, that's your business and I won't revert you. But I think undermining another admin's attempt to enforce the community's consensus to strongly discourage paid editors, even if it isn't the way you would have gone about it, sends a poor message. – Joe (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
"Strongly discouraged" vs "must not" has been argued over ad infinitum but that remains the current wording of the guideline and is not "semantics" but a reflection of community consensus. To block someone only because they directly edited an article and with no regard for whether the edits have improved an article is not enforcing policy. I'm also struggling to see also how you can block someone for edit warring but not be in a content dispute with them - this is a content decision, not an administrative action. By reverting you, I was not helping Jjanhone, but improving the article by making it more compliant with policy. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The article has been edited by at least 10 different accounts (many now blocked as socks) editing on behalf of the subject over the last few years. Almost all of it was undeclared and we have reports of the subject, or someone working behalf of him, trying to get established editors to proxy for them. After each bout of promotional editing, volunteers have had to clean up the mess. Given that history, I don't think it's unreasonable or contrary to policy to ask the latest hire to follow the guidance in WP:PAY and let other editors review the changes first. I don't know if Jjanhone's changes are improvements. I rather doubt it, but I'm not going to spend my time checking the sources to find out. Which is the point. This isn't a content decision—I have zero interest in the content—purely an administrative one to enforce our best practice guidelines on paid editing on a page that has seen extensive disruption from people not following them in the past. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of discussion about what I have (and haven't) done to my page, so can I quickly outline what has happened here in the hope of getting us a little closer to a conclusion? Firstly, I am only aware of two editors editing my page prior to @Jjanhone, so I have no idea where the other eight come from. I didn't hire them, or instruct them to do anything. I was approached, out of the blue, by the first who offered to tidy my page (it wasn't up to date and was in need of work). He promised to declare the payment I was making, as per community guidelines. He let me down and the tag was added. My big mistake was hiring a second editor to try and sort it out, and he did exactly the same thing despite his promises. After a lengthy period hoping the page might get resolved I reached out to the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team via email to ask for guidance on how to find a way of resolving the issues. Eventually, a user called Sam offered to review and tidy my page (he kindly offered, I didn't ask). Then, just before he was due to start he was told not to do anything by another editor. All in all, I spent a few months trying to get pointers and advice and ended up getting nowhere. No-one (except Sam) seemed to want to help. I can fully understand frustrations with paid editors, but is it my fault if they break guidelines? All I've been trying to do is get my page sorted, nothing else, so I'm as frustrated as everyone. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone might have about the history of my page, and my involvement, if it helps. I have no ulterior motives here except to have a page which accurately reflects me and my work. Thank you. Kenkiwanja (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyiv/Kiev

Is there a WP:DANZIG style discussion on which periods of time to use these spellings or some other spellings? I couldn't find one anywhere and all WP:KIEV indicates is a lack of consensus without a link to any discussion or other details on which if any timeframes have any broad agreement aside from an unspecified "modern". I saw you started a section on the talk page there and figured if anyone would know you would. I mostly edit randomly, but I would rather not stir up a hornet's nest by accident, thanks. 74.73.230.173 (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Kyiv/Kiev dispute has mostly been confined to the name of Kyiv. WP:UAPLACE is just an information page, written largely by one editor, and has never had much consensus behind it, especially on the Kyiv/Kiev point (see its talk page). I think you are fine to use whichever spelling you think appropriate in new articles. In existing articles, I'd just stick to whichever one is already there. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

October editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

COIN

The point of my going to COIN first was to address the COI. You took the time to glance at the ip's. I assume you looked at Aronnax1's contributions. So to address your request for diffs on spamming: All of Aronnax1's edits appear to promote pamela-green.com, Wolf Books, or Korero Press. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Hipal. I've copied this comment to the COIN thread and responded there, to keep the discussion together. – Joe (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Moan Barrow

Hello Joe, I have no idea how Wikipedia works. I tried to start a page about myself and was told that I could not do that. Rookie mistake. They told me I could ask anyone on this list to post my article on my page.

My page link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moan_Barrow

What I tried to post was:

After being the keyboardist for many rock bands in the late '80s, I put that life behind me and blended into the regular population. Today in my early 50's with a little time to spare and some encouragement from my wife Lisa, I have decided to write and compose a few of the songs that I envisioned long ago.

Now, with over 50,000 Streams from around the world on Spotify and Itunes, I guess people still crave 80's style of new music.

Moan Barrow is a fictitious band name for a band that is just me now (Brian Jones) I do all the music, writing, and attempt the vocals. Moan Barrow's genre is rock and ballads mainly.

Remember, I don't claim to be a singer but just a humble songwriter who finds inspiration from my family and my wife who encouraged me to record some songs and even purchased the recording equipment for me. All of my music is aimed towards other talented vocalists to perform.

My goal is only to eventually sell my songs and have them performed by true artists who may wish to improve them and enhance them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moan Barrow (talk • contribs) 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi Moan Barrow. This is a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It isn't a social media platform or open to people posting "profiles" of themselves like many other websites. It's an encyclopaedia, written by volunteers, who are expected to be unconnected to what they're writing about. So when we have articles about people they're biographies about them not pages that belong to them. They're written by volunteers when and only when that person meets our criteria for inclusion (which, briefly, are that there must already exist a significant number of published biographical sources we can base it on).
I don't know who told you that someone else would publish it on your behalf or what list you're referring to, but I'm afraid that's also not correct. If you meet the criteria mentioned above a volunteer editor will write about you in time. You shouldn't try to push the process yourself. – Joe (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Manoj Verma (IPS) request AfC acception

Sir, Please see the article and accept the submittion all reference with details has given I have not created this for advertisement. For identity purpose only. If anything miss please let me informed on my talk page. Please don't decline it as I have tried a lot of research on this. Now I can't do more until it is AfC submition is accepted on this article. Dibyojyoti RC (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you offer your opinion

Hi there mate, hope you are doing well. Thanks for the notice, can you please offer your opinion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudoarchaeology#Examples:_Nationalist_pseudoarcheology --James Richards (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, have a nice day. --James Richards (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2020

Delivered October 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That delete discussion about neolithics

At the time I made the comments I did not see any others. If they were made prior to mine I am not sure why I didn’t see them. Possibly something to do with the fact that I was coming from the uncategorized queue, which is where I saw the article (?) In any event, I am glad I spelled out my assumption, since apparently the sourcing was bad, in which case very fine, good thing it was deleted.

I see a lot of AfD articles in that queue and generally simply don’t categorize them if I don’t disagree, but also see a lot of systemic prejudice in AfD tagging, ie editors who mostly write about cricket, tagging articles about anthrax experts, for example, apparently because the scientist has a funny foreign name, or mathematics and AI articles they do not understand. Just fyi, that is where that came from. I have no particular expertise in archaeology but have translated some articles on the field, and hadn’t ever seen a bogus one, but maybe that’s just because the Visigoths never caught on in pop culture ;) Elinruby (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Human Genetic Variation: Lewontin's Fallacy

Hello, thought I'd share this: http://smallie.de/external/edwards_lewontin_fallacy.pdf

Just some food for thought. Msiehta (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Msiehta: I'm not sure what prompted you to share this with me, but it's an old paper, and the idea that it weakens Lewontin's disproof of biological race is long since debunked [3][4][5][6]. We have an entire article on it, in fact. – Joe (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
They shared the same paper with four editors (including you and me), all of us recently active at Carleton S. Coon or Talk:Carleton S. Coon. Obviously, we still have to learn the value of Coon's theories about Congoids, Caucasoids, and Yetis. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Police state - yes, that's an expression I've used recently in a certain context.

I did not say anything whatsoever about losing respect for you. That's the danger of the suspicious mind of most Arbitrators and why they jump to conclusions and radical remedies. There are some people on that Committee I'm particularly fond of, but for the Committee as a body, I don't have a microgramme of respect - and don't try to turn that into a PA. Like many others, I think the whole ridiculous Arbcom circus should be deprecated. Problem is in knowing what it should be replaced with. Certainly not with people who examine every word of normal discussion on every Wikipedia talk to see if they can find something to complain about and belittle some of our best contributors. Your police state got rid of me, try to leave it at that - at least until you catch an admin or an Arb doing some socking or UPE, and it will come, and not for the first time... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Calamba Medical Center

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Calamba Medical Center. 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. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 08:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Superastig, but for next time please note that the usual practice is to discuss with the closer before opening a DRV. – Joe (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon

Hi, can you back up your “100% claim“, please? Feel free to cite. Kind regards.—FalseRemover (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello FalseRemover. The citations are in already in the article and recently discussed at length at Talk:Carleton S. Coon. If you want to suggest a change you should seek a consensus there. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
That’s the reason for my edit. Neither could I find any citation in the article, nor did I find anything comparable in the sources. I really checked every single page. It looks like that passage has been invented by some user. What can we do now? Kind regards. —FalseRemover (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Please outline your concerns on Talk:Carleton S. Coon so other editors can participate. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
ok, thanks. —FalseRemover (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A new personal rule

For every hour you spend arguing with cranks on talk pages, put two into improving the article itself. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2020

Delivered November 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

00:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Carleton S. Coon

The article cites "Coon 1981" and "Shipman 1994" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3: Ah, thanks! I'm always forgetting to do that with Sfn pages. That script should be helpful. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't delete

Please don't delete the article about malayalam language film actor Arun (actor) Rosebud098 (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Haleth

I am pretty sure Haleth did not mean what you think he did. Also I usually try to compromise with the reviewer (trying to remember name) you refer to. Though he is kind of a jump the gun reviewer I harbor no hard feelings that he redirects my work sometimes. For example I did hard work on a sandbox and then try again on improving the article that he put on AFD and asked him if it’s a compromise. I understand the burden of proof on me though and I get that. Most of the stuff he redirects were mostly proven notable anyway. So I am glad he puts it in AFD like he should though because even though that the AFD is not cleanup it does help some. Though he usually the says the same argument which is one argument you shouldn’t use according to guidelines. Anyways you assumed bad faith on us prettty badly...especially when favoritely compared to another editor. That’s my only offense because I care less to have the right unlike Haleth. Jhenderson 777 19:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this issue seems to have made it all the way to AN (←link to disc.). Jhenderson777, you should know better by now that the subjects of an AN need to be notified. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Primefac beat me to notify you. Is there any way to nofity on mobile device faster? Primefac: I promise you i was going to do it. He was pinged too. Jhenderson 777 20:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for my assumption, I guess I just expect everyone to edit as fast as me! Primefac (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Italo-Celtic

Hi Joe. Anthony traces the earliest origins of Italo-Celtic to the Yamnaya-migrations into the Danube valley; what are your thoughts on that? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I'm not super up to date on this, but as far as I know, the "early branches" of the Indo-European family are the least well understood; both from the historical linguistic point of view (because the phylogeny still isn't full resolved) and from an archaeological/genetic one (because most attention has been on locating the initial homeland). Mallory and Ringe also talk about migrations along the Danube but stress that it was a variegated process:

After that, a cluster of western European branches separated to the west, into the Danube valley on the south side of the Carpathians with the Yamnaya migration up the Danube about 3100–2800 bce, and into southern Poland on the northern side of the Carpathians with the expansions of the Usatovo and the Tripolye C2 cultures about 3300–3000 bce (Ecsedy 1994, Mallory 1998, Klochko & Kośko 2009, Heyd 2011, Anthony 2013). These last separations match the proposal that the ancestors of Italic and Celtic (and perhaps pre-Germanic) could have separated in a rather complex phase of migrations and language spreads.

IE languages must have spread through Late Neolithic/Copper/Bronze Age societies in a patchy, incident-inspired, opportunistic manner, leaving many “islands” of non-IE languages. [...] Archaeological evidence suggests at least three phases of migration out of the Pontic-Caspian steppes between 4200 and 3300 bce (Figure 2), each with its own circumstances and dynamics[: ...] the third, a complex series of movements that dispersed a cluster of late PIE dialects westward, up the Danube and into the Carpathian Basin about 3100–2800 bce with the Yamnaya-to-Hungary migration and, also about 3300 bce, around the northern side of the Carpathians into southeastern Poland with the Usatovo/Tripolye C2 expansion, which could have carried IE dialects into the region that gave birth to the Corded Ware horizon (Furholt 2003).

This recent book also calls Italo-Celtic "the most important unsolved problem of Indo-European subgrouping" and has a few chapters on it, but it seems to be mostly concerned with linguistics. Could be useful though; I haven't read it. (If you don't have access to any of these, send me an email and I'd be happy to give you a copy.) – Joe (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I read Anthony and Ringe (2015), and some summary of "Ancient DNA, Mating Networks, and the Anatolian Split." Lingusitics is too complicated for me... Intuitively it makes sense that ITalo-Celtic is related to the Danube Yamnaya expansion, but the Corded ware expansion also seems relevant. Well, nice puzzle to delve into. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2020

Delivered December 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

16:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Koavf block review. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

A dispute that has been quite for a while is not necessarily a dispute that is resolved. Thank you for making that observation. The argument to decline a case could be, "This dispute has already been resolved." Nobody is making that argument. In effect, what many of the commenters are saying is that, "We have managed to put a lid on this by suppressing several editors' concerns." When that argument is made in parallel with obvious canvassing to summon allies to the discussion [7], well, it just screams out for a case to be held. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I do agree. And more generally, I think ArbCom has become too reluctant to accept cases over the years, for various reasons. But if we do accept this, it will probably be my last case on the committee, so... – Joe (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Joe Roe/Archives,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding rights

Hi Joe Roe, Thanks for giving me the Autopatrolled rights. May i also get New Page Reviewer rights. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@MRRaja001: No problem. You can request the NPR right at WP:PERM/NPR. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Joe Roe, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
MRRaja001 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Cite Unseen

R.E.: Göbekli Tepe
Hey, Joe! Not sure if you are familiar with this tool, but you may want to load and use Cite Unseen. It's a useful tool and helps in finding out the non-reliable sources in articles. It's helped me root quite a few out. On another note, it's also very surprising to me that a listing—one way or another—of History.com (home of Ancient Aliens) is missing at Wikipedia:List of unreliable sources. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 16:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@GenQuest: Thanks. I hadn't heard of it before but tried it out after seeing your edit. It looks like an interesting idea, but still a bit simplistic in its implementation. For example, looking at Göbekli Tepe, I noticed a lot of the journal articles cited were marked as "state-owned" media because they link to records in PubMed. And it puts a big red warning next to citations to the Tepe Telegrams blog, because it's hosted on Wordpress, although in this case it's obviously a reliable self-published source. I'll keep it installed and hope it will improve, but it definitely seems it should be used with some caution for now.
Regarding the two citations you removed, for me CiteUnseen doesn't flag anything about Dietrich & Notroff 2015, which is a chapter in an edited volume published by Oxbow, so solidly reliable. Maybe you saw something different? History.com is definitely more questionable—it is in fact listed at WP:RSP, under History (The History Channel)—but I don't see any reason to doubt the specific article cited, which is largely based on direct quotes from the excavators.
The latter is a good example of why the recent trend towards codifying source reliability at WP:RSN makes me uneasy. The discussion that put it on the list was almost entirely about selected TV documentaries the channel produced, but now casts a shadow over the entirety of their output across media. The introduction to WP:RSP takes to emphasise that context matters, and I hope semi-automated tools like CiteUnseen won't erode that essential caveat. – Joe (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joe_Roe/Archives/2020