Joe Roe

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

Hi Joe

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

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

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

Thanks for the heads up. Baroque indeed :/

Do you (or any friendly TPSers) happen to know a quick way to restore 130 pages...? – Joe (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know of any quick way.

BTW, just for the record, I disagree with your close as relist, but I didn't come here to argue that. I just want to ensure that if we are to have a renewed debate on a page which gets only 20 views per day ... then editors should be able to examine it.

My evil twin is mumbling that another 130 manual restorations is karma for your decision to exercise your discretion in this way, but I couldn't possibly comment on that .

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was pretty clear, and my rule of thumb is that more discussion (almost) never hurts. Still, I closed it, I'll take my 130 lumps. – Joe (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I count 9 explicit endorses, 4 overturns, and 6 relists. A 9—10 split is not a clear consensus in my book. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I counted 11–8, but it comes down to the balance of arguments as usual. There was a lot of regurgitating the MfD arguments in the endorses, when DRVs are supposed to be about the deletion process. Also several bold-endorses said they didn't object to relisting as a compromise.

Anyway, I think I've finished restoring the subpages. Thanks again for pointing out the oversight. – Joe (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That must have been fun doing manually? :) Next time, use Twinkle's batch-undeletion tool. SD0001 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: Ah, I knew there must be something. Thanks! – Joe (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A final update, for now:

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

Regards,

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

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

The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter Issue 138 - October 2019 September issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty eighth WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter. Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,992 last month to 15,070 on 30 September 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 155 is ahead of WP:GM who have 87. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 68 out of a total number of 4,419 articles. Currently we have fifty Yorkshire featured articles: Henry Moore • Cædmon • George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore • History of Sheffield • York City F.C. • Joseph Priestley • Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. • Valley Parade • William Wilberforce • History of Bradford City A.F.C. • Last of the Summer Wine • Ealdred (archbishop of York) • Paulinus of York • Wilfrid • HMS Endeavour • Cosmo Gordon Lang • Thomas of Bayeux • Cottingley Fairies • Wilfred Rhodes • Guy Fawkes • Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 • Roy Kilner • George Macaulay • Frederick Delius • Battle of Towton • Halifax Gibbet • Gerard (archbishop of York) • George Hirst • Geoffrey (archbishop of York) • Len Hutton • Hedley Verity • Abe Waddington • Æthelwold ætheling • Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball • The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished • The Wrestlers (Etty) • Bootham Crescent • History of York City F.C. (1908–1980) • William Etty • History of York City F.C. (1980–present) • Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as She Goes to Bed • The World Before the Flood • Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed' • North Eastern Railway War Memorial • York City War Memorial • Northern England • Albert Pierrepoint • RSPB Dearne Valley Old Moor • Keldholme Priory election dispute • 2018 World Snooker Championship There are also sixteen featured lists: York City F.C. Clubman of the Year • List of York City F.C. managers • List of York City F.C. players • List of York City F.C. seasons • List of Bradford City A.F.C. seasons • List of York City F.C. records and statistics • List of Leeds United F.C. seasons • List of Scarborough F.C. seasons • List of awards and nominations received by Arctic Monkeys • List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland • List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons • List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England • Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent • York City F.C. league record by opponent • List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) • List of York City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) • Bootham Crescent Thank you and well done to all those who contributed. Article Activity 2019 World Snooker Championship was promoted to GA on 3rd September George Hirst appeared as TFA on 7th September 2019 World Snooker Championship was nominated for FA on 9th September Capture of Wakefield was promoted to GA on 10th September Capture of Wakefield appeared in DYK on 27th September Member News There are 85 members of WikiProject Yorkshire! The membership is unchanged since the September newsletter. Thanks A very big Thank you to all the editors who labour away quietly and help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. To members who have added suggestions to the ToDo list at Yorkshire Portal. To the football and rugby editors who have done stirling work in keeping abreast of the top clubs. To all the WikiProject Yorkshire editors who have been busy on vandal patrol at watchlist.  Great! Yorkshire articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Total FA 2 1 15 59 77 FL 1 16 17 GA 3 7 36 173 219 B 9 64 133 340 546 C 3 143 288 1,453 1,887 Start 1 234 1,221 8,544 10,000 Stub 18 341 5,658 6,017 List 4 12 831 847 Category 3,832 3,832 Disambig 21 21 File 22 22 Portal 95 95 Project 222 222 Redirect 3 185 1,345 1,533 Template 1 8 432 164 605 NA 1 1 2 Other 1 11 12 Assessed 18 472 2,060 17,692 5,712 25,954 Total 18 472 2,060 17,692 5,712 25,954 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 95,708 Ω = 5.11 Assessment Assess and review As of 28 September 2019, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)  Thanks Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below... Written by Keith D • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome! Aims After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire in April 2008. Specific aims for the project are:- To complete tagging and assessment of all Yorkshire related articles (See below) To recruit more active editors (See Member News) To bring our top level article Yorkshire up to Featured article status To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive (See this month's feature below) To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members and apropos of the above a 2010 New Year article improvement drive/collaboration is being organised. Priority Articles The top priority articles that have been identified to date are as follows - Bradford • East Riding of Yorkshire • Henry Moore • Kingston upon Hull • Leeds • Northern England • North Yorkshire • Ripon • Sheffield • South Yorkshire • Wakefield • West Yorkshire • William Wilberforce • York • Yorkshire • Yorkshire and the Humber The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first. WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project The October 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page. Month Dates Article(s) B class choice Start class choice 114 1 Jun 2019 ~ 30 Jun 2019 North Yorkshire Moors Railway X+Y 115 1 Jul 2019 ~ 31 Jul 2019 Death of David Oluwale Yorkshire Wildlife Park 116 1 Aug 2019 ~ 31 Aug 2019 Amy Johnson Zetland Hotel 117 1 Sep 2019 ~ 30 Sep 2019 Lealholm A19 road 118 1 Oct 2019 ~ 31 Oct 2019 Otley Barbican Centre, York Please nominate future articles for improvement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire. Please bear in mind... The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis. Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible. Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.

10:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi MSGJ. I acknowledge that there is some room for interpretation in the COI policy and that mine is on the stricter end. Making a sharp distinction between "paid editing" and a "financial conflict of interest" seems to be important to some but I just don't see that as a hair worth splitting. I very much agree with Lourdes' view: his continuing engagement with the MariaDB article (his part-time employers) makes it impossible to differentiate what is paid editing and what is not. If you're editing your employer's page, even if you are not getting paid for the edits but are being paid for any other work, the differentiation is but so little. So while I'm sorry that Greenman is having to suffer a bad RfA—they're an unpleasant experience even when they go well—I did vote oppose so I obviously can't claim that I'm unhappy with the outcome. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Only (watching), but: I think it's fair to say that the only guilty parties for the failure of this RfA are the candidate themselves and their nominator: the former for not getting their ducks, as they say, in a row, and the latter for not ensuring that they were watertight. Indeed, a good nominator would have alleviated many of the opposes with a well-crafted nomination. While it's not necessarily the fault of the candidate who their nominator is (that is, the faults of the nominator are not and should not be confused with those of the candidate), it's hardly the fault of the RfA reviewer that they did not do so. And it is not JoeRoe's fault that the nom has taken the trajectory that it has: sixteen editors opposed before them, and it was no more doomed after one particular !vote than it was previously. Except Lourdes's perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 11:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Another tps: I was determined to just let the RfA go without a comment, but "doomed" has alerted me. Too bad, I really don't have the time to investigate a candidate I don't know yet, but I am defiant ;) - will vote support or not at all. - Could someone else please deal with "my" referencing problems for a GAN, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply at the RfA. The reason the semantic difference is important is because one is a TOU violation, while the other merely a local policy violation: different disclosure requirements and enforcement paths, among other things. –xeno^talk 14:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If policy violations have become "merely" violations, then by that logic we would welcome back most of CAT:BLOCKED. ——SerialNumber54129 15:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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