User talk:Joe Roe

Merry Christmas, Joe!!

TheSandDoctor ^Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

New page reviewer

Hello Sir Joe Roe, Sir I kindly requested permission to be a new pages reviewer, Could you please sir see it. Request Superatp 15:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Varna culture

Hi Joe! I was browsing this topic on my smartphone, and responded to the (mobile) site's suggestion to "ADD IMAGE CAPTION" for the image at the top of the mobile page, which - on mobile platforms only - seems to repeat the first image of the article proper. "What could be more natural than to describe it as 'Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis'?", I thought. So that's what I did, and the updated mobile page appeared satisfactory.

Then today I noticed that you've reverted it, and was wondering why. So I checked the source changes on a PC, and they indicate that I added (and you removed) the text "{{Short description|Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis}}" just before the existing text on line 1 "{{more footnotes|date=August 2016}}", rather than as part of the first image of the mobile article only, as I intended. The first image of the article proper is: "[[File:Burial with gold treasure, 4600-4200 BC, AM Varna, Varm25.jpg|thumb|Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis (detail)]]", as shown here.

Clearly, I don't know how the WikiMedia software translates a webpage's wiki markup to, or from, the mobile platform, but something seems amiss.

I also rechecked the mobile platform's version of this page just now, and it carries the text I had added as an image caption: "Reconstruction of elite burial at the Varna necropolis" just below the article title "Varna culture", as though these words were indeed a "Short description" of the article! Which was never my intention, and is rather nonsensical.

Do you have any hints for how one might usefully respond to future requests from the mobile platform to "ADD IMAGE CAPTION"? yoyo (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yahya Abdal-Aziz. I try to avoid editing with the mobile site or app since, in my experience, they are both very poorly put-together pieces of software, which seems to be borne out here. So I'm afraid I can't really offer any guidance other than to consider not responding to any automated prompts on mobile. The wikitext you added, with {{short description}}, adds a sort of caption for the article as a whole, rather than the lead image. Since I reverted it you shouldn't be seeing that any longer... but maybe it's just a cache thing.

Sorry I can't offer any more insight. You might try WP:VPT. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joe Roe! Thanks for your reply. Yes, I might try the Village Pump, but it seems that there's a much bigger problem with the mobile site or app than I have the means to address. Think I'll emulate your avoidance of editing there in future! yoyo (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Dating methodologies in archaeology

neither project has included a redirect —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

What? There are plenty of redirects tagged with {{WikiProject Archaeology}}. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

look at it again. both project’s assessment system do not include the redirect class. i set archaeology to N/A assuming that is why you were interested and removed Time’s again, since that is what brought me to the redirect. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Look at what again? We just use the standard {{WPBannerMeta}} classes, which by default mark redirects as NA-class. Please, just don't mess around with templates from projects you have no involvement in. – Joe (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Howley Hall

I am bewildered as to why you would argue that Howley Hall is in Batley when it is indeed in Morley. The ancient parish was much larger and included Morley but Morley did exist and that is where Howley Hall was built. Ancient parishes were very large, neighbouring Dewsbury included Ossett for example. In times past something might have been recorded as being in the historic parish but I think Wikipedia uses modern boundaries, as does Historic England :Location Leeds (Metropolitan Authority) Parish:Morley. Here are two maps showing boundaries, one modern, one older. It can quite easily be closer to Batley centre but that really doesn't change the fact that it is in Morley. YOu are misleading readers by continuing to argue it is in Batley. (https://mapit.mysociety.org/area/9045.html) (https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Batley/BatleyMap)

November 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213 Online events: New: Film + Stage | Endocrine health Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month 2021 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A help...

Hi Joe. Hope you're well. I'm here to ask you that if any user's one or two created page deleted, he will not be granted for autopatrolled? I've created 50 articles. But more than 5 was deleted in July–August. But from September, my created a few articles was deleted. But I think that I meet with other criteria. Thanks.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  •  📝} 05:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)