User talk:JoelleJay: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

JoelleJay, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing edits

Hi Joelle, when making edits, please reference them, especially with medical articles, which have their own sourcing guidelines. I have undone a couple of your edits (those to Mowat–Wilson syndrome and Bloom–Richardson grading system), because the information they added was not found in the referenced sources. Graham87 12:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine

I gave into Wikipedian monarchists last time through exhaustion but the reality is that Johanna wasn't a Princess and her article should really be at Johanna von Hessen or such. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

langan

Are you willing to remove the attack on Chris Langan? It's very unfair and biased to have it up...I hope you can see my perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me

Hi, I'd like to be informed if you're pointing out stuff I write to admins. From my background and other edits I believe you can find I am a pretty reasonable person that can understand when behaviour is an issue. And also please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Manipulating_an_admin_into_helping. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi, I wanted to sincerely apologize for the interaction we had recently. My perception of this whole situation was altered and I didn't mean to offend you in any way. I hope that you can forgive me sometime for it. I will be glad to collaborate with you in the event we edit on the same page. Sorry again and thank you for your understanding. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lupus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BAFF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rem deps

Hello, why are you deleting so many references? Especially the "royalark" ones? No idea why, is this not a good reference/source according to you?Garnhami (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garnhami, royalark was deprecated a few weeks ago. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I judge this as quite unfortunate. It's not that I don't understand about WP:RS, but it's a mistake to apply this in its most strict interpretation. So in the first place, these changes cause us to lose sources for which alternatives may leave something to be desired. Readers aren't supposed to actually rely on WP anyway, but to establish the accuracy by checking the sources. For that matter, it is fair to have some skepticism of "official sources" (which I see have been substituted in some cases) because official sources are likely to introduce their own biases.

So here we are, using our most precious resource (editors' time) to make questionable "improvements", when the fact is that there is so much stuff in WP that's actually broken, and the backlog of things that really need fixing grows every day. I am saddened. Fabrickator (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is frustrating to lose what seems to be a comprehensive and accessible reference, however, the way I see it is any claim citing RA should be easily verifiable through other more reliable sources; otherwise is the material truly notable and due? Articles need not and should not contain all possible information, which is what I think a lot of these pages on royalty struggle with--as an unrelated example, Wiki does not need to include the Nile water levels for every season in the ancient Egyptian calendar, even if those data are available. Instead we rely on preferably recent expert interpretation of which flood cycles were actually historically important. That's what I think is lacking when we use RA: Buyers certainly has expertise in finding, connecting, and curating information on royalty, but, especially with the breadth of centuries of non-European culture, he cannot provide the analytic filter someone specialized in a particular subject can use to determine what is relevant now. He is essentially supplying a platform for viewing [his translation/rendering of] primary sources, which are valuable for academicians who know what they are looking for, but are too information-dense and contextless for editors to adequately summarize and are thus rightfully limited as wiki sources. I hope this makes sense. JoelleJay (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add category "composer" to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

Because some sources given on "Why removed?" talk section, from the newspapers 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The– Hindu 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India 3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Telegraph_(Kolkata). Or allow me to add this. Thanks..... প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 corrected: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hindu প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Neohumanism and education sections

Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

https://appliedsentience.com/tag/neohumanism প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Ducal Family of Tuscany

I have added the type parameter to the TfD template at Template:Grand Ducal Family of Tuscany. The type parameter is important for the correct rendering of the TfD banner in pages transcluding the nominated template. See Template:Template for discussion#Display on articles. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

You are doing gods' work. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are too! JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne

I am waiting for your nominations of delete Line of succession to the former Romanian throne, Line of succession to the former throne of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Line of succession to the former Iraqi throne etc. It was clear double standard and anti-Austro-Hungarian sentiment from your apart. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. But thanks for making all those AfD threads so I didn't have to. JoelleJay (talk)

The Romanian throne article is still in place and there does not appear to be a motion to delete it. Also, it might be prudent to delete articles such as those for the Bavarian throne, Hessian throne, Bharatpur throne, et cetera since none of these thrones actually represent real countries any longer. So, if you don't mind, when exactly are you going to nominate all of these articles for deletion? Futurist110 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian succession article is surprisingly much better developed than the Austro-Hungarian one was: it has 26 refs, including coverage of the former king "decreeing" his daughter as "heir presumptive" in 1997 as well as an actual published line of succession in 2015 -- making the sourcing much more robust and relevant. The article could stand on its own without the unsourced Succession by Salic law tree (which I have now tagged as needing more references). The Bavarian house has also published its own recent succession line, although I have requested verification and added a source needed tag. I've nominated Hesse and Bharatpur for deletion though. If you're so keen on eliminating these articles, why haven't you been participating in the AfDs? JoelleJay (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have been participating in the discussions for these AfDs. Is there anything more/else that I need to do? Also, in regards to Bavaria, where exactly did it publish its own recent succession line? I mean, a book or website that publishes the genealogy of the Bavarian royal family isn't the same thing as a book or website that actually lists the current line of succession to the former Bavarian throne. Futurist110 (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects in templates

Since you had stated in the past that unlinked entries in the templates for royalty wasn't allowed, do you know what the rule is regarding redirects for people who don't have articles? There was some disagreement over at Template:Danish princes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically it regards individuals such as Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark, who entry is a redirect to his father's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox guideline EXISTING suggests redirects should normally be avoided. The "normally" part is interpretable, but personally I would just not include redirects unless the navbox is supposed to be thoroughly comprehensive. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does that standard applies to the Template:Danish princes, since unlinked entries were previously removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed these to link entries for individuals with deleted pages on Template:British princes. Is this a valid use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates inclusion

In the most recent edit history of Template:Hanoverian princes, it says "per WP:EXISTING #1: "Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting links would leave an incomplete and misleading result". Should such entries be added back to hose other royalty templates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; a genealogy is not going to be well-defined and complete (are we going to add every infant that died? every illegitimate child? every future descendant?), especially as you go back in time. Additionally, red links are supposed to represent items that could have an article; the vast majority of the entries removed earlier are not going to meet GNG requirements, so they wouldn't even apply to the red link exception anyway. Navigation templates should not be directories of every non-notable subject: their purpose is to provide links to related articles that would otherwise be in the See also section. JoelleJay (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- What should be done with the entries at Template:Hanoverian princes? Sorry if it seems like I'm badgering the issue, I'm just concerned with consistent application across templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up in the talk section. I agree the templates should be consistent. JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems discussion on the matter has stalled.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methuen Mall

Did you take a look at the mall's article after my addition of sources? I think the court battle with Applebee's is an assertation of notability, and there are far more sources from newspapers all over Massachusetts distinctly about the mall and its community impact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate data vandalism

Thank you for reverting the IP edits on US cities a few days ago. Sorry you have to deal with that, but it's good for Wikipedia as a whole that people outside the very small meteorology project are aware of who he is and what he's doing. All the best, —Soap— 20:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

If you're interested in COVID-19 or other medicine-related articles, then I think you'll find some wiki-friends at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. There is also a specific group for COVID-19 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the invite! At one point in May I considered joining the COVID-19 Case Counts task force, but then saw only like 3 people were listed for the US so I figured that was for higher-level involvement. And then I couldn't find a membership page to add my name to. I just joined the medicine project, though! JoelleJay (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're not always very organized about keeping lists of people. Everyone's welcome on the talk pages, whether officially signed up or not. I hope to see you there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Barnstar

		The Missing Barnstar
		This is for coping professionally with stupidity like "focus on princes and princesses" and for your insightful contributions to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs more editors like you, —Paleo Neonate – 22:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding some context as I had trouble to find it back again and the image was not very descritive: "The Missing Barnstar is designed for Wikipedians who are long overdue for a Barnstar due to their efforts, if they've ever received one at all for that matter (apparently their Barnstar was missing)." —Paleo Neonate – 01:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first barnstar, thank you! It was a little tough to bite my tongue on the "princes and princesses" dig, haha. JoelleJay (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs on scientists

Hello JoelleJay -- Not sure I understand your AfD rationales. I'm stuck with GS, not Scopus, but what you seem to be doing is comparing academics with the co-authors on their top-cited papers? I don't see why this is valid; surely (1) taking higher-cited papers biases towards above-average citation profiles; and (2) academics will tend to publish mainly with people in their own university, so someone at a prestigious university will tend to have higher-cited co-authors than someone at a relatively low-level institution.

Am I missing something? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict, you are absolutely correct that this method can bias against authors who collaborate with highly-cited people. I try to compensate for this by looking at a lot of the subject's coauthors from both highly-cited and recent papers (which are more likely to have the subject as last author). For subjects whose collaboration field is very narrow (basically just their university), I also branch out to coauthors of coauthors. In this case, Dr. Jones has worked with people at a lot of different universities so I felt more comfortable with my assessment. I actually looked at 50+ of her coauthors; however, PROF C1 requests we look at how a person compares to the average professor in their field, so I filtered out everyone who didn't hold at least adjunct instructor positions (I also threw in people who were senior research specialists at universities, which lowered all the parameters (8842 to 7916; 161 to 142; 43 to 41; 984 to 854; and 223 to 213)). If I was to include all of her coauthors, including undergrads with h-indices of 0, the values would be: total cites: avg: 3383, med: 453, J: 557; total papers: avg: 65, med: 20, J: 31; h-index: avg: 21, med: 13, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 385, med: 109, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 116, med: 48, J: 75. Even with these numbers Dr. Jones would be unlikely to meet PROF C1 as they don't demonstrate she stands out as clearly more notable or more accomplished. As Wikipedia is not a directory, it is important to apply notability thresholds fairly and evenly, which for academics generally excludes early-career researchers. Wikipedia is also not to be used for advocacy or to right great wrongs, so it would be inappropriate to relax standards for subjects perceived as deserving an article for reasons outside of notability. You can think about it this way: Wikipedia is very policy-oriented, especially when it comes to AfD, so if we were to apply lesser thresholds that had any semblance of uniformity for, e.g., women scientists to give them more "Keeps", this would need to be codified somewhere. Which IMO would be really patronizing and would serve to diminish the achievements of all women scientists with articles. That's not to say we can't increase the visibility of marginalized groups on WP in other ways--for example, by encouraging newspapers and magazines to do more in-depth coverage of particular people (which would fulfill GNG). JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jones is a difficult case. The relevant bullet point of WP:PROF is extremely woolly. The citations fall into a grey area where personally I would not have started the article but, once started, deletion requires a reason that Wikipedia is actively improved by the deletion. Now often that's obvious, but here we are left balancing the harm caused by including someone perhaps a few years too early (possibly encouraging other too-early article creations) versus the harm caused by the deletion bolstering the outside observer/press perception that we are biased against women and BAME people (which has caused real harm to the encyclopedia's reputation in the past few years).

More generally I fear that -- without citation counts per decile for all relevant subdisciplines generated by an expert in citation analysis -- your analysis is simply generating a spurious sense of accuracy. To put it frankly, I think the analysis is inherently flawed to the point of being worthless. The differences between "average" (I assume you mean mean?) and median are huge, and confounding. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by citation counts per decile? As for average (I do mean "mean") and median, I base my analysis off the median but provide the mean for additional context (mostly to give an idea of the range). The relevant subdisciplines can be assessed by looking at the major topics Scopus identifies with a person (Dr. Jones has 10 papers in the topic of "peptide mapping; deuterium; glycine ethyl ester") and then looking at other authors tagged with that topic. In this case most of the people who regularly publish in "peptide mapping..." are already included in her coauthor metrics, so instead I've gone through and evaluated the authors of 15 articles that cite her "peptide mapping..." papers. This widens the field a bit, but that's actually more in line with NPROF C1: For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed... Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. My coauthor analyses are actually tend to over-estimate scholarly impact (especially as I include non-professors), as evidenced by the results of looking at citing authors:

Citation metrics of authors citing Dr. Jones

Professional positions of everyone with an h-index of ≥4 included.

Caption text
Citing paper	Name	Citation #	Pub #	h-index	Highest cite	Highest first-author cite	Position
Early modification of cytochrome c by hydrogen peroxide triggers its degradation	Natasa Tomaskova	80	9	5	32	20	?
Early...	Petr Novak	3063	149	29	462	53	prof, ETH Zurich
Early...	Tibor Kozar	1120	48	18	105	23	sr scientist, IEP of Slovak Acad.
Early...	Martina Petrencakova	7	4	1	6	1	--
Early...	Daniel Jancura	939	61	18	85	40	assoc. prof, UPJS
Early...	Ghazaleh Yassaghi	20	4	2	10	10	--
Early...	Petr Man	2154	120	27	95	37	sr researcher, Charles U
Early...	Erik Sedlak	1394	73	22	126	126	assoc. prof
Probing the effects of heterogeneous oxidative modifications on the stability of cytochrome c in solution and in the gas phase	Victor Yin	73	7	4	27	27	postdoc, Utrecht
Probing...	Lars Konermann	6371	167	43	447	447	prof, Western U
Native mass spectrometry of membrane proteins	James Keener	86	9	4	27	22	grad student, Arizona
Native...	Guozhi Zhang	27	3	2	22	4	--
Native...	Michael Marty	1001	41	18	206	206	prof, Arizona
Selective cross-linking of coinciding protein assemblies by in-gel cross-linking mass spectrometry	Johannes Hevler	41	3	1	41	0	--
Selective...	Marie Lukassen	52	9	4	14	8	postdoc, Utrecht
Selective...	Alfredo Cabrera-Orefice	222	19	10	32	25	postdoc, Radboud
Selective...	Susanne Arnold	2199	41	25	208	164	assoc. prof, Radboud
Selective...	Matti Pronker	59	6	2	45	45	--
Selective...	Vojtech Franc	341	20	10	71	36	asst prof, Czech Tech
Selective...	Albert Heck	39100	730	95	913	509	prof, Utrecht
Higher-order structural characterisation of native proteins and complexes by top-down mass spectrometry	Mowei Zhou	643	31	14	78	78	scientist, PNNL
Higher...	Carter Lantz	70	6	3	42	0	--
Higher...	Kyle Brown	175	12	4	73	15	postdoc, Wisconsin
Higher...	Ying Ge	3360	121	34	229	124	prof, Wisconsin
Higher...	Ljiljana Pasa-Tolic	10158	237	53	425	194	Fellow/Deputy of Tech, PNNL
Higher...	Joseph Loo	21951	450	80	1113	1113	prof, UCLA
Higher...	Frederik Lermyte	417	42	12	67	67	asst prof, TU Darmstadt
Protein higher-order-structure determination by fast photochemical oxidation of proteins and mass spectrometry analysis	Xiaoran Roger Liu	98	12	6	37	37	scientist, Bristol-Myers-Squibb
Protein...	Don Rempel	2613	81	27	430	114	instrument specialist, WUSTL
Protein...	Michael Gross	25913	680	79	1846	251	prof, WUSTL
Exploring the structure and dynamics of macromolecular complexes by native mass spectrometry	Elisabetta Boeri Erba	5	3	1	4	4	--
Exploring...	Luca Signor	924	36	15	188	87	CEA researcher-engineer, ISBG
Exploring...	Carlo Petosa	4398	42	26	654	654	research sci., Grenoble
Subresidue-resolution footprinting of ligand-protein interactions by carbene chemistry and ion mobility-mass spectrometry	Gaoyuan Lu	74	9	4	23	1	PhD student
Subresidue...	Xiaowei Xu	320	33	11	44	14	scientist
Subresidue...	Gongyu Li	387	25	9	174	18	postdoc, Wisconsin
Subresidue...	Huiyong Sun	2747	67	26	325	325	assoc. prof, China Pharmaceutical U
Expanding the types of lipids amenable to nativ emass spectrometry of lipoprotein complexes	Marius Kostelic	6	2	1	6	6	--
Expanding...	Alex Ryan	6	1	1	6	0	--
Expanding...	Deseree Reid	81	5	4	30	30	grad student, Arizona
Expanding...	Jibriel Noun	6	1	1	6	0	--
The diverse and expanding role of mass spectrometry in structural and molecular biology	Philip Lossl	644	18	13	121	121	Nature Comms editor
The diverse...	Michiel van de Waterbeemd	575	14	12	121	70	principal scientist, MSD
Mass spectrometry-based fast photochemical oxidation of proteins (FPOP) for higher order structure characterization	Ke Sherry Li	106	5	4	37	37	assoc. sci., Genentech
Mass spec...FPOP	Liuqing Shi	322	18	11	64	64	sr sci, AbbVie
Protein footprinting comes of age: mass spectrometry for biophysical structure assessment	Liwen Wang	631	17	13	141	74	sr research assoc., Case Western
Protein footprinting...	Mark Chance	12604	277	61	557	144	prof, Case Western
Mass spectrometry-enabled structural biology of membrane proteins	Antonio Calabrese	524	34	13			Academic Fellow, Leeds
Mass spec...membrane	Sheena Radford	21124	310	78	936	705	prof, Leeds

Including all authors: total citations: avg: 3454, med: 417, J: 557; total papers: avg: 84, med: 20, J: 31; h-index: avg: 20, med: 12, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 224, med: 76, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 128, med: 39, J: 75.

Including only the 14 people with professorships: total citations: avg: 10782, med: 4866, J: 557; total papers: avg: 241, med: 158, J: 31; h-index: avg: 47, med: 39, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 559, med: 436, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 310, med: 200, J: 75.

Including all authors with ≥10 papers: total citations: avg: 5264, med: 1001, J: 557; total papers: avg: 126, med: 42, J: 31; h-index: avg: 29, med: 18, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 335, med: 158, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 191, med: 83, J: 75.

As for the degree of harm to Wikipedia...there are always going to be people who don't understand or agree with our policies, and even when they publicize a deletion the impact is very small and temporary. We have large swathes of India condemning Wikipedia as "anti-Hindu" (Op-India is literally campaigning the government to "ban" or otherwise sanction us...) because we call Ayurveda "pseudoscientific", but this really hasn't affected the encyclopedia at all. JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to just chime in here and say that I appreciate your reviews of citations in particular literatures. It's not the whole story on impact, but it's an interesting sanity check. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Russ, I want to thank you for your work and helping people on Wikipedia understand academic citations and putting them into context. Especially for fields that have a lot of citations, such as biomedical fields where even a average researcher easily amasses tons of citations. While I agree there are of course biases by making somebody look worse by comparing them against highly cited researchers, you might as well argue that collaborating with highly respected researchers will increase the citations of your papers and produce a bias in the opposite direction and make you look better than your peers. Overall, I think its a useful and important sanity check but of course not the one and only criterion. If people are unhappy with the current criteria of NPROF then I think we should discuss there (which I am all in favour of discussing) and not for each AfD. --hroest 19:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! I'll continue posting my analyses on the STEM academic AfDs, and I welcome any suggestions or feedback for how to improve them for particular fields. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raven the Science Maven page

Hello! Hoping you are keeping safe and well.

I note that you edited out the reference to Ms. Baxter being a scientist, due in part, to her not having any peer-reviewed publications: "No indication she is a scientist or engineer (no research publications, work appears exclusively educational/science comm, PhD study is in humanities)."

Nevertheless, I would draw your attention to the SUNY Buffalo article that states how prior to her starting a doctorate in education, she worked as a research scientist: "Becoming a scientist in the community Prior to becoming a STEM educator, Baxter worked as a corporate cancer research scientist in the pharmaceutical industry. But after learning that the only other African Americans working at her office were security guards and custodians, she decided to shift her career toward pushing more people of color toward STEM fields."

Which is to say that there is more than one way to practice as a professional scientist, and Ms. Baxter evidently did so. I hope that you will reverse or amend your edit to reflect this. best wishes Festucarubra (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Festucarubra, I agree that she worked briefly as a scientist, which should definitely be reflected on the page (please also see the nice discussion I had with another editor on the talk page). However, I think it isn't appropriate to say that she is currently a scientist as that implies she is either doing research now or had a long-established career as a researcher. Categories should reflect what a subject is known for, and she is not known for her contributions in molecular biology (nor is that her occupation) -- I think it's helpful to look at the professional work of the vast majority of people categorized as molecular biologists. So, I think it is most appropriate to highlight the amazing work she has done in communicating science and expanding access to education instead. Thank you, and hope you're well too! JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JoelleJay, I totally agree with you!!!! And I did see your conversation AFTER I sent this note. And you ma y have seen that too. Thanks and take care. Festucarubra (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Turner (academic general practitioner)

Dear JoelleJay, Sorry to bother you. I just thought I would let you know... see what you think ... ask you to have another think - about the tone of your contribution to the AFD for the article on the Director of New Zealand's Immunisation Advisory Centre, New Zealand. Such a position were it in the US, I think would, by many based in the US, be almost automatically judged notable. My reading is she is a leading figure in NZ public health and she has made a lot of contributions there ...is in the media a lot... but that she is also a GP and has done substantial academic work. I know you have some qualification at the beginning of your contribution - but, and this is my reason for writing - to say She is, at best, a standard academic in her field sounds to me, and I might be a bit oversensitive here (and writing as someone is at best a low level academic), a bit sneery. I could be reading this wrong and feel free to disreagrd this and best wishes anyway, (Msrasnw (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)) (15:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Msrasnw Sure, I can see your point, I've edited that comment to be less condescending. The most equivalent positions in the US would not automatically be notable, but I will look into whether she meets GNG. Thanks for the feedback! JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Your opinion

Hi. I just wanted to invite you to the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (2nd nomination). Since you had previously participated in similar discussions, I thought you might be able to provide us with some insights regarding this article. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 16:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasiliy Krivtsov

Dear JoelleJay, Sorry to drop in your talk page, but I wanted to ask if the justifications I have provided for Krivtsov being well-respected in the field is sufficient to change your opinion. I have mentioned many contributions to Krivtsov in the field, For instance, SAS - JMP implemented his Bayesian Algorithm, from his paper "A simple procedure for Bayesian estimation of the Weibull distribution" with 104 GS citations. Moreover, Reliasoft implemented his GRP Algorithm, originally described in his dissertation A Monte Carlo approach to modeling and estimation of the generalized renewal process in the repairable system with 49 GS citations. I hope you find those implementations acceptable to consider his respect in the field and the contribution he has given to the reliability engineering professionals like myself. The only other two professors that I have heard their work was implemented by a well-respected software package are Wayne Nelson and Sir David Cox. Thank you so much for your time in contributing to my page. --Sarouk7 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarouk7, I did see your earlier comment with the details, I just don't really have the background to assess whether those uses demonstrate widespread implementation. The SAS cite and the mention of GRP (if he is considered the sole developer of that process) are a good start, but again, I don't have a lot of familiarity gauging popularity of proprietary software (and NPROF C1 states In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question, which is harder to evaluate when there are multiple authors). Sorry I can't be of more help -- you might want to ask some of the topic-specific wikiprojects if they can help in this assessment. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Ludvig Johansson

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Ludvig Johansson, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!. /Julle (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also for Mergim Laci. /Julle (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Laundry symbol on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazhar-ul-Islam

Hi. I hope you are well. You are invited to participate at this AFD discussion as you are active in these type of discussions. If there are more participants, then it will be easier to get clear consensus. Hope, you will participate. Thanks and Have a nice day. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 11:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Race and intelligence on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Major League Baseball postseason teams on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of association footballers who died during their careers on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:George VI on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Dynamics page

Hello JoelleJay, I appreciate several of your edits on the Spiral Dynamics page. However, I would like to understand your notability concerns and perhaps get a discussion going on the Spiral Dynamics talk page if we can't clear that up here. My concern is regarding the judgement of sources as inadequate. I have no interest in convincing you of the merits of the theory- Wikipedia does cover fringe theories if they are notable.

Your edit comment states "Almost all citations are non-independent from SD or "Integral theory", and the rest are primary", but Spiral Dynamics is separate from Integral Theory. Please note that I am personally not associated with Integral, am generally skeptical of Wilber, and dislike the self-promotional tendencies of many people associated with Integral and/or Spiral Dynamics. I am not working on the page to promote them, and in some cases would be quite happy to leave them out entirely. But that would not be accurate.

Regarding notability, articles published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, or books by mainstream publishers are a commonly cited standard. The Spiral Dynamics page cites publications from:

Emerald Group Publishing (two journals cited)
IU Press (Indiana University)
Springer Publishing
Edward Elgar Publishing
Gower Publishing/Routledge
Free Press (publisher)/Simon and Schuster
SUNY Press
Wiley (publisher)

While some (but not all) of the authors cited are associated with Integral, Wikipedia relies on the notability of the publisher and not a value judgement of the author or their ideas. Can you help me understand why you do not consider these sufficiently mainstream to be supportive?

Integral Leadership Review is cited, but only for book reviews indicating what information was published in which book, rather than citing the books themselves, and generally to support a point on how Integral views Spiral Dynamics (since, again, they are not the same thing). They are not used to support general notability.

Not all of the sources mentioning Integral are supportive of the "movement", or even associated with Wilber. For example, Frank Visser (who has published on the topic of Wilber through SUNY Press) is a noted critic. The California Institute of Integral Studies predates Wilber and is not associated with him. There are many people in history who have used the word "Integral", and the citation template does not have a field for "Integral but not Ken Wilber" :-D

Integral is also not the only philosophy cited as building on Spiral Dynamics. Metamodernism is a different and much more recent school of thought that (in one strain) builds on Spiral Dynamics, establishing a different and independent usage in a similar field.

What else is needed to properly establish notability? I feel like the very presence of the word "Integral" makes the page a recurring target (a position with which I have some sympathy). Since I don't care about defending Integral theory, I did my best to find publishers independent of it, with reputable peer review, association with research universities, or long mainstream publishing history. But it would be inaccurate to avoid mentioning Integral entirely. How can I improve this? What publishers would be considered acceptable?

Thanks for reading this far!

Ixat totep (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently edited out an important paragraph when commenting yesterday: Part of why I want to understand your concern is that if it is not possible to establish notability, I would like to understand that and not waste my time on the page. I think there should be a page for it, but if I"m just badly misreading the notability criteria I'd rather not keep at it. The last editor I worked with on this agreed that since there are several distinct approaches with different groups of advocates, including references outside of any of the originator's communities, the topic did not belong purely as a subsection on Don Beck's page.

Ixat totep (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ixat totep, I just wanted to let you know I read and appreciate your detailed clarifications and will try to respond more in depth at some point. Reading the article, my impression is SD(i) is WP:FRINGE and not widely accepted or even acknowledged within mainstream management theory, which ties into my complaint about the independence of the sources: there seems to be a lot of self-referential content from a relatively small pool of scholars, with many of the cited texts/opinions appearing WP:UNDUE. In particular, something that stands out to me as a notability red flag is the use of PhD theses and barely-cited books supporting assertions in the text -- if material is not discussed in relatively highly-cited secondary sources or at least well-received primary articles it is likely not important enough for inclusion. The ^VMemes table and timeline also contributed to my concern -- the table colors are unnecessary, and the description and attributes columns and whole timeline section come off as overly-detailed and "in-universe". If the model is indeed only practiced by a small group of people and ignored by the majority of the field, then going into this much depth is definitely undue.

If SD comprises substantial coverage in multiple well-cited broader-topic papers like this as well as more focused impactful papers like this, it may be notable enough for a standalone article.

I hope this helps. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response JoelleJay. Spiral Dynamics is a weird pile of things. Management theory, sociology, psychology, philosophy, "consciousness studies"... It depends a great deal on which branch of the concept you look at. I find it challenging to figure out how to present it. I personally consider it more philosophy than science- that is my interest in it. It is a significant influence on one of the more active strands of metamodernism, which also significantly criticizes it. Just to lay out my personal perspective, I consider the philosophy side of things more of interest than management theory.

I continue to work on improving sources and demonstrating impact, and will have more to say about that shortly. In the meantime:

I have already ripped out a lot of the "Integral" and other primary sources, many of which were not being used (they were just in "References") or were redundant. Ken Wilber is no longer cited at all. (since your notability tag change only mentioned this concern, I removed the tag- you're welcome to re-tag, but I'd appreciate it if we continued to discuss here first to avoid change thrashing- I apologize if that seemed to be premature, but you're the first tagger who has bothered to respond to me or explain themself at all, so I'd stopped waiting as long for responses)
I'm working on converting the description of the theory to secondary sources-only, and removing a lot of the narrative who-did-what aspect.
Would it help if I took the color out of the table? I really don't care one way or the other, so that's easily fixed if it's a contributing concern. It's got colors because I saw some other tale with colors somewhere, that's all. EDIT — I went ahead and did this and took out some jargon-y boilerplate in the table cells.
As far as having the table, most stage theory articles either have a [[table like this or have a subsection for each stage. A subsection per stage seemed like far too much detail so I made a table in an effort to be more concise. A single paragraph felt too smushed. Is it really strange to list the stages? What else would you suggest?
The timeline/chronology was a stopgap replacing a more gossipy narrative that had been present before. I'm now working to shift the page away from describing the antics of the main advocates and towards what the idea says and how/why it is important. Assuming the sources involved are decent, will that help significantly?

[EDIT: these sourcing questions may be a moot point, see below] Regarding sources, could you point me to the appropriate policy defining what sort of "highly-cited" metric is required? I do not see a clear criteria in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. What sort of impact numbers are you looking for, if this is a numbers thing? Are things like "highly influential" citations on Semantic Scholar meaningful? Given the range of things in Wikipedia, and the fact that being fringe does not automatically mean not notable, "multiple well-cited broader-topic papers" seems like a very high bar for an article that is not attempting to claim to be mainstream science. But it is an approach with a quarter-century of history of application worldwide, that continues to influence new areas such as metamodernism. Whether those applications are scientifically meaningful or not, at what point does the usage of an idea start to matter? Wikipedia is not exclusively a science encyclopedia, as the inclusion of the unsinkably popular but decidedly pseudoscientific Myers–Briggs Type Indicator demonstrates. SD doesn't meet that level of popularity, but it's not obscure, either. Otherwise there wouldn't be a steady stream of books and articles about it.

Ixat totep (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not too hard to fine more reputable/impactful sources. What's challenging is accessing them in order to provide a useful, specific, citation. This is a lot of the reason why I was citing things like dissertations- they're much easier to get hold of.

For example, Springer has published [Handbook of Personal and Organizational Transformation] in which several articles cite one or more of Beck & Cowan's Spiral Dynamics book, Beck's "SDi" training materials, Cowan's "SD" training materials, and Wilber's books in which he began incorporating Spiral Dynamics into his theory. The editor's overview cites the Beck & Cowan book, and [one chapter] with Spiral Dynamics in the title cites pretty much everything remotely relevant. However, the print version is [$448 on Amazon], which is a bit outside my budget.

Another Springer book, this one on [memetics and economics], cites Beck & Cowan and also Beck's more recent book in the editor's overview article. I can find one preview page indicating that he mentions SD in a list of significant applications of memetics, no clue if there's more than that in the chapter. This one's cheaper at $132.

In a [book of conference proceedings] on "lean" and "agile" (which if you're in the tech industry are instantly recognizable business approaches- I have no clue if they're meaningful in other industries) includes an article citing Beck and Cowan's Spiral Dynamics. This one's a bargain at $44 for the ebook.

Somewhat more accessibly, Spiral Dynamics appears repeatedly in the Journal of Business Ethics, which has an H-index of 168. I have no idea if that's a good number, but it's the highest of the journals I've found with articles significantly covering Spiral Dynamics. (various others are in the 20-60 range, several already cited on the page). I've found three articles that I can get as pdfs so that's helpful. Continuing on the ethics theme, there's another book with [a chapter] prominently featuring Spiral Dynamics.

The books go [on] and [on]. Really, it's not hard to find Spiral Dynamics in academic publications. I just don't have any idea how to make a bunch of books I can't easily access (if at all) into a compelling wikipedia citation. Any advice would be much appreciated. And if this is not enough for notability, I would like to understand why not. [EDIT: That last sentence was intended to express curiosity, not be demanding]

Ixat totep (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ixat totep, I'm going to move this conversation to the SD talk page since that'll get more eyes and be helpful to future editors. I do think you've allayed my notability concerns, though. JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Xi Jinping on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Carl Christian of Austria

Hello, I read my notification that you thanked me for my edit on Archduke Carl Christian of Austria page. You don't have to do that, though, just because I did. If you check media reports and Google search results, have you found any significant coverage of himself? CuteDolphin712 (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CuteDolphin712, I haven't found any indication of him being notable so I appreciated your redirecting him. JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:JP Sears on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael Moates on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Public recursive name server on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your PhD

Hi JoelleJay, I just thought I'd point out that your User page says "This user is working on a Doctor of Philosophy degree in molecular biology" and since you show up under "Wikipedians with PhD degrees" I thought maybe you forgot to update the other part. Please accept my apologies if I've informed you of this in error. Dr. Universe (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Universe, the "working on a PhD" userbox unfortunately automatically puts users into the "Wikipedians with PhD degrees" category. There isn't a HotCat option to remove the category, but it does look like manually deleting that usercategory field has the same result so I have done that. It had been bothering me for a while. JoelleJay (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had no idea how those things work. By the way I saw that after I wrote this on your talk page, you left to more edits on the AfD. If I don't reply to those can we call it a day and let the article get deleted by an admin? It might be better for someone else to write the article a few years from now if it gets to the point where notability is completely indisputable. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Hi JoelleJay. I just wanted to say again that I appreciate your explaining WP:NPROF notability in the recent contentious AfD discussion. And I always appreciate your citation-level comparisons. You make academic AfD a better place. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the effort that went into your Python script for the citation comparisons, and I think it can solve a lot of contentious problems, but I think it needs to be used with caution. While bioRxiv and chemRxiv are new, physicists and computer scientists have been publishing on arXiv for decades and many of them only publish on arXiv (like the example I gave of Sergey Bravyi's "unpublished" arXiv paper with 99 citations on GS). I think it may still be a good idea to use the citation-comparison when !voting to "keep" but to avoid it when !voting to "delete", especially because someone's work can be notable without having a lot of citations, and because the table of citation data does/can "bludgeon" or dominate the AfD page a bit since it's large and bulky and has bold font all over (perhaps this could be avoided by having a "show" button like in the case of some of your "citation assessment" tables that you've done on some AfDs). Dr. Universe (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe, thank you, that means a lot! Your contributions are always very well-reasoned and of course very appreciated as well :) JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have ya

I saw you were approved yesterday. Welcome to the reviewer crew!! I'm sure you'll do awesome! Curbon7 (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've done two reviews already; definitely a lot more work than AfDs but also fun! JoelleJay (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello JoelleJay:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 900 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Hi Joelle

I won't be commenting further on the AfD, however, I wanted you to know that I did read your comment. I respect your position that you feel this represents a large number that disputes my claims. I agree that this source denotes something of an improvement from the early 1800's but this still does not make a woman receiving a medical degree in 1904, overcoming all the obstacles she had to after graduating, including finding somewhere to intern, and then elevating herself to the head of an institution of higher learning, regardless of who they offered degrees to, and was able to maintain a successful career as a general practitioner as something to dismiss as common. This was an exceptional woman and I would like to point out that if she is notable now then she was notable before Susun provided those sources WP:NEXIST. I think you are an amazing editor and a positive for the encyclopedia and I wish you all the best. It's okay to disagree and I just happen to disagree with the degree of significance that the source you provided states as compared to the over-all state of women in the medical profession as accredited doctors in 1904. I enjoyed our back-and-forth civil discussion. Thank you. --ARose Wolf 19:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARoseWolf, thank you for the kind words! I also respect all the work you do here and am glad we were able to discuss everything civilly. I absolutely agree Dr. Brant was a remarkable woman and deserving of recognition for her achievements, especially given how much harder it was for women to excel in academia at that time. Unfortunately at the time I first saw the AfD the only refs were her daughter's biography and an ancestry.com user-generated source that mentioned her in passing, so despite her stature being clear there was very little demonstrating sourceable notability. I suppose my philosophy on historical/non-western biographies is on the side of requiring direct evidence of SIGCOV existing – like identifying specific books where we know the subject must be addressed in depth, even if we can't access them – rather than assuming sources must exist based on achievements. I run into this so much on athlete AfDs where presumptive notability is dreadfully miscalibrated to GNG ("this cricketer played one test match in 1897 according to this database, therefore he must have received coverage somewhere that someone will eventually fill in someday") that I automatically have misgivings whenever a similar argument is presented. On the other hand, my experience with historical figures outside of sports is sufficiently lacking that I probably shouldn't apply so much cynicism to arguments presuming notability. I will keep that in mind for next time. Thank you for reaching out here, I appreciate your feedback! JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was the case and I totally understand the issue with sports related articles. I went through a spell where my opinion shifted on the sports subject related articles. I tried keeping tabs on the number of male vs female articles being deleted and came to the shocking conclusion that the numbers didn't tell the whole truth. Whereas the total number of articles being deleted were about equal it constituted a larger proportion of articles on female athletes simply because there weren't as many. I stepped away from those AfD's because it turned into a real battleground where I saw sides being formed between those bitterly opposed to the deletion of articles on females actively looking for potential articles on male athletes to delete or question out of spite, which in turn, led to more arguing and accusations and led to more articles on female athletes being proposed for deletion in retaliation. I will not be involved in that, either way. Wikipedia has serious flaws but its not too uncommon from humanity at-large. We have serious flaws. Some need to be corrected and we can and are working on them as a society. Others will never be fully rectified. We have to live with our flaws but we should always be seeking to improve ourselves and society around us. For the sake of our future. --ARose Wolf 13:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something I also see in NSPORT AfDs is the readiness to invoke WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS for any and every non-contemporary or non-English-speaking subject. This is often purely to further completionist goals rather than a sincere effort to address real bias in coverage, which unfortunately ends up trivializing such arguments and diluting their impact in subsequent discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pre70

I cannot agree with your statement in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelia Chase Brant that " NPROF is really not applicable to pre-~1970s academics." The modern system of research based tenure had fully developed by then, the same system of major journals and indexes that existed today existed then. Analysis on the basis of citation factor had been developed in the same form as today. The key s, of course, is that we had neither free access nor electronic journals, and this makes analysis more difficult if one does not have accesses to the resources a a major library. But otherwise I was working in the scientific literature the same way, and teaching how to use it to students as faculty just the same way as I explain it now in WP. It is necessary to consider the lower density of publication, as there were fewer journals-- in bioscience at the time having even one article with more than 100 citation was truly exceptional. while now we generally ask for twice that for just notability in the field. As we go earlier than the 1900s, we will increasing run into problems, but the method of attaining distinction in science has been still fundamentally the same for the last several thousand years: widely cited published research.

It remains true, of course, that sometimes the GNG is a more convenient alternative--as it was in this case, where there was a NYT obit, which by itself is sufficient to meet notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Yeah my comment there was hyperbolic and I should have clarified I meant NPROF C6, not all of NPROF. My reasoning was (and is) that substantial RS on university presidents etc. is very likely to exist post-internet so C6 is essentially an extremely accurate predictor of GNG regardless of whether the subject has outstanding scholasticism, but before coverage was so ubiquitous there isn't really a guarantee that such positions would garner significant attention. Which means we're basically asserting, e.g., a 1930s Bangladeshi vice-chancellor is automatically notable for his academic impact rather than affording a rebuttable presumption he meets GNG like we would for a CEO. JoelleJay (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the geographic area. I think you would always find newspaper coverage for any US college or university presidency, no matter how old, and no matter how minor the college. both at the appointment and an obituary . It might of course, be a local newspaper. I don't think age matters--in the 19th century when there were many fewer colleges, I think that local news sources would have paid more, not less, attention. How substantial the coverage would be is another matter. i'm much less sure about other parts of the world. I have for example no idea whatsoever of how well they are covered in south asia, and it might be very difficult to work with the sources for eastern europe.

I do not think that in many times & parts of the world, including 19th century US, the individual would necessarily be much of an academic or scholar in the usual sense. So we couldn't always mean academic impact as a scholar. We would mean community impact, which is covered in WP:PROF but the criteria for this in WP:PROF have rarely been used and there's therefore no real standard of interpretation. (Most of the few times it's been used is for very borderline academic figures) If we restricted the use of C6 the way it is written, to major college or university, it would be less of a problem, but the history of afds in this subject have used it even for very minor colleges.

There's another factor: informally, I & other people sometimes argue in this and other fields, that any early figure in the development of a profession or other activity should be covered, basically by saying the rules should be much more loosely interpreted. How far back, for what field, and for what areas, is of course a matter of pure judgment and case by case consensus. (to pick one in which I'm interested, we usually are quite flexible about early film actors up to about 1920.)

CEOs are a different situation, and in practice we are now much less inclusive than we were 14 years ago. I've normally argued for any major company if there's significant information, but if not, merging into the firm. "Major" of course means whatever you want it to. And it is almost impossible to distinguish coverage of the person with coverage of the firm. We're certainly very skeptical about earlier businessmen, and in practice the only workable criterion fort hem is a NYT obituary. For current ones, the problem is of course promotionalism,

In these sorts of situations, we could justify almost aything. The real qy is not what the rules say, but what do we collectively want to include. We then bend the rules to fit. My own personal opinion has changed several times over the years & I expect it will keep changing. In actual practice my view depends sometimes on whether I think the individual ought to be covered in a holistic sense, which tends to mean if they interest me. If enough people thinking along those lines want to keep an article on someone no matter how impossibly non-notable, it will be kept, & I've learned there is no point arguing with them . DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the GNG comments

This was also my understanding, but I failed to express that correctly when I initiated the process. You and the user Alvaldi both expressed my thoughts perfectly. I gave up being a regular contributor to Wik a long time ago, just too much toxicity and politics for my temperament. Glad new people are taking a principled stance.--Tallard (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andy Ngo on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Françoise Robin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Françoise Robin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Françoise Robin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Optical telegraph on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox artist on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jeremiah Lisbo on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Short track speed skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics – Men's 1500 metres on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Holocaust in Poland on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jakarta MRT on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Muay Thai practitioners on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Did you know on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Francesca Battistelli on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of catgirls on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is named 2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506's talk page. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kathleen Stock on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kim Dae-jung on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kim Seon-ho on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Éric Zemmour on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rob Schneider on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox officeholder on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Philip Bath

Hello, JoelleJay. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Philip Bath, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jan V. Sengers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical point.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicki Minaj on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen years at the Russian court

You deleted two links on 30 November to Alexanderpalace. Forum.alexanderpalace.org. Retrieved on 15 July 2018

but this forum published a book which is now open source, uploaded on 25 July 2020. Thanks to you I discovered that but please inform yourself better and read this pdf, you might like it.Taksen (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing where this forum "published a book", at least not in the linked thread, but regardless, a forum is decidedly not a reliable source so I don't really see your point? JoelleJay (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenyl hydrazone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parkin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"subscribe function" ?

What is this subscribe function you write of? I'm intrigued ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the discussion tools beta feature, which also allows you to reply to individual comments (which is HUGELY helpful in big threads since you don't have to edit a whole section). JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, sound useful - I'll check it out, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Dennis

Thank you for your email. I really am not sure what there is to expand on. Even going by your count, which I'm not 100% in agreement with but am fine agreeing to disagree, 9/6 is not a strong consensus for deletion. I feel like NFOOTY still goes back and forth, whereas some of the other sport ones are clearly non GNG compliant. I'm willing to relist it if you'd like, but I don't see myself changing it to delete. No issue if you'd prefer to go to DRV. Star Mississippi 00:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Thanks for replying so quickly. I hope it's clear (from my walls of text) why I would feel rather invested in this and would want a bit more justification for the close statement.‡

First, from my perspective, since there have been numerous AfDs with similar keep/delete numbers closed as delete with the explicit close reasoning of "NSPORT does not supersede GNG", and because the guideline itself is very clear that GNG eventually needs to be met, any !votes misunderstanding or outright ignoring the guideline ought to be ignored.

Second, a lot of new information entered the thread late in the game (in particular the PAG-based precedents and unanimous agreement in the concurrent RSN thread that student media cannot be used for determining notability of students, as well as the evidence that many of the sources offered as contributing to SIGCOV turned out to be direct press releases) that, in my opinion, disqualified several earlier !votes. And despite my asking several participants to justify claims of SIGCOV with specific examples, no one ever challenged my characterization of any individual source in the assessment table. My position is that !votes that assert something without backing it up, and !votes based on claims that are later invalidated, should be given very little weight in the same way we treat delete !votes made before substantial new coverage is identified, even if the total tally doesn't favor keep.

‡Extended explanation

I try very hard to support my arguments as comprehensively, objectively, and neutrally as I can, and even when I've spent a lot of effort advocating for a particular outcome, if I am wrong about something or new info is provided I will almost always at least acknowledge it and change my stance, no matter how painful it is to admit.[1][2]

Because I approach disagreements with the expectation that others will do the same, it's frustrating when other participants make strong, incorrect assertions but then refuse to defend or backtrack on them or even respond when challenged. When I entered this AfD I thought bringing up the obvious issue of her interview being in student media would make the case open-shut. When people didn't seem to agree with my explanation of why such sources aren't considered independent, I provided links to precedents and PAGs, and when they claimed the precedent wasn't strong enough I opened a thread on RSN, which has been unsurprisingly unanimous. No one in the AfD contested this result, so I figured it was settled.

I appreciate your offer to relist, but I'm not sure if that's allowed since after the close I mentioned the AfD in the RSN thread. I think it would be better to leave it with the understanding there is no prejudice against renominating in the near future. JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 709: / Line 709: @@
 Thank you for your email. I really am not sure what there is to expand on. Even going by your count, which I'm not 100% in agreement with but am fine agreeing to disagree, 9/6 is not a strong consensus for deletion. I feel like NFOOTY still goes back and forth, whereas some of the other sport ones are clearly non GNG compliant. I'm willing to relist it if you'd like, but I don't see myself changing it to delete. No issue if you'd prefer to go to DRV. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#a117f2;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#df00fe;">Mississippi</span>]]</span> 00:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Star Mississippi|Star Mississippi]] Thanks for replying so quickly. I hope it's clear (from my walls of text) why I would feel rather invested in this and would want a bit more justification for the close statement.‡
+:First, from my perspective, since there have been numerous AfDs with similar keep/delete numbers closed as delete with the explicit close reasoning of "NSPORT does not supersede GNG", and because the guideline itself is very clear that GNG eventually needs to be met, any !votes misunderstanding or outright ignoring the guideline ought to be ignored.
+:Second, a lot of new information entered the thread late in the game (in particular the PAG-based precedents and unanimous agreement in the concurrent RSN thread that student media cannot be used for determining notability of students, as well as the evidence that many of the sources offered as contributing to SIGCOV turned out to be direct press releases) that, in my opinion, disqualified several earlier !votes. And despite my asking several participants to justify claims of SIGCOV with specific examples, no one ever challenged my characterization of any individual source in the assessment table. My position is that !votes that assert something without backing it up, and !votes based on claims that are later invalidated, should be given very little weight in the same way we treat delete !votes made before substantial new coverage is identified, even if the total tally doesn't favor keep.
+{{ctop|‡Extended explanation}}I try very hard to support my arguments as comprehensively, objectively, and neutrally as I can, and even when I've spent a ''lot'' of effort advocating for a particular outcome, if I am wrong about something or new info is provided I will almost always at least acknowledge it and change my stance, no matter how [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelia Chase Brant|painful]] it is to admit.{{diff2|1064232851}}{{diff2|1061633798}}
+Because I approach disagreements with the expectation that others will do the same, it's frustrating when other participants make strong, incorrect assertions but then refuse to defend or backtrack on them or even respond when challenged. When I entered this AfD I thought bringing up the obvious issue of her interview being in student media would make the case open-shut. When people didn't seem to agree with my explanation of why such sources aren't considered independent, I provided links to precedents and PAGs, and when they claimed the precedent wasn't strong enough I opened a thread on RSN, which has been unsurprisingly unanimous. No one in the AfD contested this result, so I figured it was settled.
+{{cbot}}
+:I appreciate your offer to relist, but I'm not sure if that's allowed since after the close I mentioned the AfD in the RSN thread. I think it would be better to leave it with the understanding there is no prejudice against renominating in the near future. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay#top|talk]]) 04:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)