User talk:JoelleJay/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 04:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 21:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 01:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 05:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

You added the line "It was proposed by Gunnar Ehrling." Do you have a reference for this? Thanks. Mathuvw (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mathuvw Yes, but it's apparently complicated. I've added it with several notes. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting! I looked at Ehrling's paper but didn't find it there;-) Thanks! Mathuvw (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 22:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 02:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

I am really tired of the truly rude and cruel things people get away with saying at ANI. Especailly when they are allowed to start bringing up topics that have nothing to do with the ANI. I am especially frustrated that a discussion of my the uncivil attacks on me by Lugnuts has turned into an every broadening attack on things I have done that have absolutely zero reference to Lugnuts. This whole process is very frustrating. Especially with how long it is dragging out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thankyou for your comments at ANI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Why do ANIs stay open so long? Why is it OK for people to claim an AfD nomination that made no mention of them is somehow "harassment" of them?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking you might see my most recent edit to Huang Shihui as a sign I have changed my ways and am not rushing into Proposed deletion. I am sure a reader in Chinese languages could find better sourcing, but at least the article is no longer 100% without sources. A week ago I might have gone the Proposed deletion route to try to get some movement. We still do need improvement, but that source suggests to me that Huang Shihui is probably notable, even if it may not be enough on its own to fully back an article. That I am the frist editor who has seen that tag that has existed over 13 years and do something about it seems really odd, but I have to admit most people might say "I do not know Chinese", but it was not ncessary to find at least that source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that was a much better approach than just prodding. Can you commit to putting that same amount of effort into each PROD? JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Now at ANI someone is suggesting that I be indefenately banned from editing Wikipedia at all, evidently because an ANI being opened against Lugnuts for attacking me did not cause me to stop nominating any of the 93,547 articles he created for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert, the arbcom case will probably invoke a temporary IBAN between you two for its duration, so it would look better on you if you held back on nominating any more of Lugnuts' creations even if they're the next up in your YoB category. You can bookmark them and come back to them later (but not all at once!) when everything settles down. I don't want to see you blocked or TBANNED, and I think the best way to avoid those outcomes is for you to stop responding to comments about you and stop posting on people's walls about active discussions they aren't involved in (since that can be considered canvassing). JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I really do not think such a rule is fair. I may abide by it, but it still feels like Lugnuts being rewarded for uncivil behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's not fair that he gets to keep his junk articles around a little longer, but since the case is nominally supposed to be on behavior in deletion discussions, not on his article creation/retention per se, to the arbs an IBAN would seem to be an effective remedy for the incivility issues. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought the case was about his incivil behavior. It makes no sense that we reward incivil behavior by giving the person being rude exactly what they want. Also, if people want such an ANI to ban any interaction it should be spelled out when it is opened, not when it has been in operation for more than 2 weeks. Actually the behavior was not in deletion discussion, it was statements he posted mainly on his user page attacking me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The ArbCom case request is about behavior surrounding deletion discussions, which includes yours. I agree that an IBAN would be unfair since the effects are so asymmetric, but you are seriously not helping your case by continuing to nominate his articles and posting all over the place about the ANI. JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Would this extend to voting on AfDs about articles Lugnuts has edited, or does it only apply to my starting AfDs. I am hesitant to ask, because sometimes it feels like every time I ask it gives people new ideas on how to restrict my behavior that no one had come up with yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  An IBAN would prohibit any interaction with articles Lugnuts has made significant or recent contributions to. JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

So would that mean I could not edit in any way any article started by Lugnuts. That seems extreme when we have over 93,000 such articles. Considering he has created over 10 times as many articles as my this really does seem extreme. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Some people claimed the problem was that I was nominating articles for deletion that could be redirected. However I am not convinced that posting notice on talk pages about redirect discussions is actually an effective forum. There is no easy way to notify others, and there rarely seems to be any time table. The whole process seems to ignore what really needs to be done. I think the bigger issue is that some people do not care how rude someone is, and just want to advance their cause.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Hi. Thanks for rebutting the assertions that ATD-E applies to all of ATD at the workshop. I am planning to present evidence along those lines sometime this week. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Flatscan, glad to hear it! JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Reading further, this other comment caught my eye: Also specified in the example is that the source is independent of the subject (SIGCOV's language on independence is in any case a lower bar than that specified for biographies in NBIO or for corporate topics in NCORP). This comes up a lot. So what does "Independent" mean in the context of GNG? It's a short sentence so sure, lots of wriggle room there - but the wriggle room of GNG's language is not exclusionary. You can see that all of NCORP's examples of "Independent" fit within GNG's definition.

HighKing⁺⁺

17:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@

HighKing, thanks for responding. For your second question, in my opinion there really isn't anything separating "degree of independence" needed for GNG compared to NCORP in theory, but in practice much less effort is put into tracking down whether a source actually is independent in GNG AfDs than in NCORP AfDs, and editors and closers in general seem to care a lot less when someone does demonstrate non-independence. This is probably true for the other GNG vs SIRS criteria; certainly the amount of SIGCOV needed for NCORP looks a lot higher than what is often claimed to be "enough" for GNG, where you get junk like routine transactional coverage occasionally tipping things into NC. Biographies also generally seem a lot more prone to RGW-style BIAS that tends to...redefine...GNG. So, to answer your first question, I would say a lot of the more contentious NCORP deletions would've been GNG passes due to the laxer approach many editors use for it (not that I personally agree with that approach). JoelleJay (talk

) 22:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good summary, I agree. It is also fair to say - and not intended as a criticism - that a number of AfDs don't really have the opposing viewpoints evaluates against policy/guideline and the reality is that it is a !vote count for the most part (cos consensus). Its always a breath of fresh air when a closer spends the time looking at the opposing arguments and bases their close on the weight of each. I find BIO guidelines especially as a bit of anything goes sometimes.

HighKing⁺⁺

12:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• I also appreciate you calling attention to the
  WP:GNG and the issue of "independence". Cheers, Beccaynr (talk
  ) 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Beccaynr, the discussion was archived so that's probably why you can't find where to comment :)

  The above was originally just me disputing the absurd (to me) stance that any of the core GNG criteria are optional for a given "GNG source", and then spread to independence when it became clear that that was also a locus of fundamental disagreement with that editor. Although I've probably written a dissertation's worth of material across all the numerous arguments I've gotten in about notability (while avoiding writing my actual dissertation...), I'm not sure there's even a coherent-enough topic for an essay in there -- other than "Joelle's Angry Sprawling Thoughts on Wikipedia Notability". I don't know if I'm even capable of composing analysis that isn't rooted in confrontation! But if you have an idea for expanding on anything from that discussion I am of course willing to provide commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  I will certainly let you know if I start composing essays on these subjects - I have been generally thinking about how to become more efficient at AfD, and that essays may be helpful. I am currently somewhat distracted by my interest in composing something possibly titled 'Wikipedia is not Murderpedia', but it relates to an issue I feel arises somewhat consistently - a tendency to rely on GNG without consideration of NOT. This is where some issues of independence may benefit from an essay that expands on reasoning for why it is important for the encyclopedia. And I would wager you have identified consistent principles - the adversarial process has a tendency to distill core arguments over time. For example, for a 'not Murderpedia' essay, I may review past AfDs, generalize routinely-raised keep !votes, and respond to them with greater depth, perhaps with objective data in addition to policy-based reasoning. Various topics have their particular quirks, but the unifying theme always seems to be how to build and protect the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this question: I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guidance restricting the use of sources to written ones, whether it is to determine if an article meets English Wikipedia's standards of having an article, or to provide verification for article content. Was there some discussion or guidance you encountered that gave you this impression? isaacl (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

From WP:NBIO: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. We've also got strong guidance against primary sources being used, with videos specifically listed as primary at WP:OR. JoelleJay (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The footnote you point to refers to videos of surveillance, and videos of fictional works. Just as with books, not all videos will be appropriate, but some may be suitable for illustrating that a subject meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article. The sentence you quote says that the work has been written and published; it doesn't specify that the work itself must be a written one. What matters is if the secondary source is significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional, and reliable, no matter what format it is in. isaacl (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see that now, I think when I last read that footnote I misinterpreted the "news film footage" as "news videos". JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 13:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

The article KYVE Apple Bowl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: as far as I know, only some broken links were fixed, a few links were added, and some typos were fixed. I don't think it has much net effect on the narrative of the evidence. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment on the Arb Committee report.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Olivia Mowat - thanks in advance. Atsme 💬 📧 16:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme, what about her? The article as it is fails NSPORT as it doesn't have a source of SIGCOV. A brief google search returned zero independent coverage, so she is very likely not notable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Just double-checking to confirm what I already knew to be true. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 10:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 09:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Links to women scientists

Hi there! I've added some manual counts to better understand the linking situation at User:JoelleJay/Notable Women, and where a page exists added links which were missing. I'm getting decreasing returns from the exercise, so probably won't do more of that. One limitation is that I've used the 'potential links' column in two ways there: (a) for redlinks, to count potential links (vancouver referencing sometimes makes that annoyingly laborious), and (b) for bluelinked bios, to count existing links (after I've created them if missing). Using the column in two ways like that means that if a bio gets created then the 'potential links' will misleadingly make it look as if all the links have been added. So it might be worth marking that distinction. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for adding those in! It's super informative as an independent secondary measure of scholarly impact, especially since for some of them we can later compare link numbers before and after their article is created. If I was more wikitech-savvy I'd look into ways to automatically update that column -- like maybe a bot that collects the DOIs of all their papers and searches wiki references for them -- but for now I think whenever I add a new entry I'll also search for links as well (since I already search their names to make sure there isn't already a page). Since the link numbers will be dynamic anyways I'm not too concerned with distinguishing author-linked counts from potential links; I'll probably just periodically update them manually.

Thanks again! JoelleJay (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 18:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 04:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hi there JoelleJay, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Haas may be of interest in terms of whether citation counts are sufficient. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look in the next few days! JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham, I checked Haas's Scopus profile and unfortunately she only has 11 coauthors there, so I can't do the coauthor analysis I normally do. Usually I stay out of AfDs on academics in the humanities since a nontrivial part of their output is through books and other media that aren't indexed on Scopus, and they have far fewer collaborators than people in STEM so it's much harder to compare relative impact. @Beccaynr might be better equipped to assess in these situations. But thank you for alerting me to the discussion, I appreciate it! JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay Thank you for taking a look nonetheless! And it's good to understand more about the limitations of your technique. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay, Bettina Eick is another AfD that may be of interest. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I was too late to the discussion, but it seems to have reached a reasonable conclusion. Math is another of those fields that is pretty tough for Scopus citation utility, since there are so few coauthors and when they do exist they're not ordinal. I would trust Russ's evaluation of math AfDs over my metrics, I usually don't participate in them unless it's a field I have some familiarity with (combinatorics, set theory, logic). But I do still appreciate the head's up! JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent AFD that seems to have been recreated – Question

Hi JoelleJay, I hope your fine and well.

I have a question regarding an AFD that we were both recently involved in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teppei Miwa. The consensus was that the article be draftified. See Draft:Teppei Miwa.

However, I’ve noticed that Teppei Miwa (born 2000) has now been created by the same user, whilst the draft is still sitting there. I don’t see many, if any, improvements or changes to the page.

My question is whether there has been a consensus change as I haven’t been able to see anything regarding any change, but I may be mistaken. King regards. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fats40boy11, I think this would probably be regarded as disruptive since it's identical to the draft, but I'd ask the deleting admin Sandstein what the norms are for these situations since drafts are supposed to be exempt from G4. JoelleJay (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 21:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 11:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I am awarding this barnstar to you for your high-quality participation in AfD debates. Your arguments consistently demonstrate a thorough analysis of sources and strong understanding of policy. We need more AfD participation like this and I aspire to be as thorough as you when joining in debates. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for your comments regarding routine coverage on the Errington Kelly AfD. I had become thoroughly confused and your comment helped me understand the issue properly. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Your contributions have been excellent as well! JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 23:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

ARCA RfC pings

Do you realise none of your pings are going through? I think when you sign with just the date, it fails to ping. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for the head's up. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 09:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 22:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Beryl Benacerraf

I came across Dr. Benacerraf in The New York Times, found her story (overcoming dyslexia to become an important scientist) fascinating. I started an article on her, but as you know my specialty is not with academic biographies and the article would definitely benefit from input from someone more familiar with such matters ... someone like you. If you care to expand or burnish it, perhaps we could present it jointly to be featured on DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really surprised we didn't already have an article on her -- nuchal fold thickness is up there in ubiquity with head size in prenatal ultrasound measurements, and she's got an h-index of 64. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll leave some suggestions on the talk page! JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank, JJ. Your improvements/suggestions will be appreciated. The nuchal fold dates me -- when my kids were gestating, it was in the days before nuchal scans. Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I ended up expanding a bit instead of leaving suggestions, although I'm a very inefficient prose writer (which may be surprising, given my proclivity for walls of text at AfD...) so most of the additions were in the form of refs and the awards list. I think her nuchal fold thickness and/or genetic sonogram research could probably be its own subsection of the Research and Medical Career section.

Now I'm wondering if I had a nuchal scan--it would have been at the start of widespread acceptance. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cbl62, thanks for crediting me in the DYK (even though I really didn't do all that much!)! I wanted to note that the image we're using for the nuchal scan is actually a first trimester nuchal translucency scan -- a measurement that was introduced by other researchers -- rather than the second trimester nuchal fold thickness scan developed by Benacerraf. While I think it's still appropriate to describe her as the nuchal scan pioneer since the translucency test sort of evolved from her work, it would be more accurate if we had a 2nd trimester sonogram showing nuchal thickness in the article. I left a note on the Commons author's page asking if he has any such images as I have zero familiarity with image copyright vis-a-vis WP so am reluctant to search myself, but if you know how to identify free-use pics that might be faster. Anyway, just looping you in on this incredibly minor detail that almost no one will notice or care about, no rush. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Tennis

| have a question for you...see this discussion. If you have anything more to add to what I explained, please do. How are things progressing over at SNG sports? Atsme 💬 📧 00:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Atsme, it looks like you gave the right advice to the new NPPer. Of course in my opinion events that haven't happened yet should just sit in draftspace until they're covered, but I don't have a lot of experience with non-biographical sports articles so different norms probably apply. JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Article talk pages

I saw your comments but I have now unwatched that page and am not continuing that. Please remember that an article page discussion is not a private conversation between two people. Although a post may appear to be a response to the one above, it is often not exclusively addressing those points, or making comment only on the poster above. I do appreciate you are a medical editor without a clear bias in that area. That's one reason why I wanted to steer the conversation away from trying to convince you to change your mind about a vote you had already made on the internet (nobody does that) to hoping to convince you that judging article content and lead content is more complicated than you were initially proposing. You know the saying "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, appealing and wrong". I'm sorry if my little joke appeared to be pointed at you, it really wasn't. We disagreed but at least your argument was rational, if a little on the theoretical side. Ha, another saying: "In theory there is no difference between practice and theory, but in practice, there is." Anyway, I wanted to say sorry and hope to see you around medical topics. -- Colin°^Talk 08:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 18:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 06:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 12:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 19:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator

. | Sent at 16:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Beryl Benacerraf

On 18 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beryl Benacerraf, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Beryl Benacerraf, pioneer of the nuchal scan, wrote that dyslexia caused her to live in a world of images where "anomalies jump out at me like a neon sign"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beryl Benacerraf. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beryl Benacerraf), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, where can I see the DYK? It is not showing up in the Nov 18 set or in prep or queue pages. JoelleJay (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is on the main page now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

) 19:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 10:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays

	Seasons greetings!
	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, JoelleJay! and best wishes for the New Year

Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Beccaynr! Happy holidays to you too! JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I know it's a long time ago, but this is really excellent work - your rewrite made something arcane and confusing more accessible to an uninitiated audience. I actually list this page in my style tips as an example of how to do this right. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Filelakeshoe, thank you so much for the positive feedback, I really appreciate it! And I'm so glad the rewrite was helpful to you! JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 09:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Congratulations on the fancy degree! It's surely a lot of work and something to be proud of. (Although I also hear that sometimes one feels more exhaustion than pride by the time all the details are taken care of. :-) ) Anyway, appreciate everything you do here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Russ Woodroofe! Definitely relieved to have it out of the way! JoelleJay (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 21:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 22:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

@Enos733, what do you find confusing about NSPORT? And I don't disagree that GNG is nuanced, but I'm not sure what you are saying is a black and white view? Of the hundreds of athlete AfDs I've seen since the RfC, the requirement for meeting GNG or at least identifying one GNG source has been upheld a large majority of the time and is referenced regularly in close statements. This is the case even for players in the top leagues of major sports--the presumptions afforded to such players before the RfC were explicitly removed because it turned out the sports projects' and wider community's perception of what qualified as "top of the game" was substantially divorced from actual SIGCOV. We saw this early on with old-timey English cricketers (dozens, maybe hundreds, have since been redirected), football players outside the top N leagues (hundreds have been deleted from the lower tiers and from leagues where there is less media interest), early Olympic medalists and even contemporary Olympians, and in American football. The Pete Vainowski case really demonstrated that a) even people who are paid to research 1920s pro football players can't find coverage of everyone on a roster (a lot of the significant coverage of players of that era has come not from contemporary national news but from football historians with access to archives much later on (and their books typically are available to us)), and b) "playing in the NFL" just wasn't particularly impressive at that time, to the extent that families didn't consider it worth mentioning in players' obituaries even well into the modern era of the game. Being drafted nowadays is national news, but back then in many instances joining a team garnered strictly local coverage if it got any at all. So even if we did give more leeway to "top-tier" athletes of major sports with the expectation that GNG sourcing exists somewhere, early pro football just wouldn't qualify as a "major sport". JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I believe how we evaluate a subject (and how we apply GNG to a subject) depends on what the subject is most known for. We rightfully recognize that a person who plays minor league baseball is evaluated differently (in practice) than a person who makes it to the big leagues, even as we removed participation-based inherent notability.

The problem with leaning just on GNG is I think one you have recognized - that there is lots of coverage of sports in the US and Europe. What the SNG does (and especially did), was to be explicit that coverage of lower division professional athletes needed a much higher bar to merit an article than someone who did participate in a top-tier league.

However, that led to the opposite problem that resulted in NSPORTS2022, that some sports broadly expanded their idea of a top-tier league to leagues below the top tier without any consideration of whether RS coverage of the players actually exists. Since there was no link between participation and RS, that link was rightfully broken. (Which then led to the proposal [failed] to show that all NBA players are notable).

In an ideal world, NSPORT serves a filter setting a higher bar than GNG because (at least in the United States), there is lots of local coverage of prep and amateur athletes. My preferred solution is to add something like this in the basic criteria as an outcomes-like statement (which would cover all sports):

Athletes who won or medaled in a major amateur or professional competition (as listed on this page) or won a significant honor (such as election to a hall of fame) are likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Professional athletes in team sports may also be likely to receive significant coverage, especially in elite professional leagues, but all articles must contain references to more than a statistical database.

Another sentence could be added to further distinguish amateur and non-elite leagues.

This may not solve all of the problems, but I think expands on this sentence in the basic criteria: "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level." - Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Enos733, I agree with most of what you're saying here. The difference is that I see NSPORT as informing on what SIGCOV is for athletes and who is likely to meet it. It's still GNG, it's just the SIGCOV portion has been contextualized to account for the existence of routine and local media. I think it's also important to recognize that someone meeting GNG doesn't have to have an article if they're not an encyclopedic topic, and I would argue someone like Greene whose most substantial coverage is of purely hyperlocal interest (in both time and space) is a perfect example of NOPAGE (if one believed GNG was met, which I don't). JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I know we share lots of common ground. I guess at the end of the day, I am just more willing to apply a less exacting standard for what qualifies as GNG coverage for a professional athlete who participated in an elite team sport.

I do agree with you that routine game reports don't cut it, I want to see something with some biographical details since I do think there are some readers who may want to know who the substitute was in that one game for my favorite team - Enos733 (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess my main quibble with that is that the early NFL wasn't an elite team sport in the sense we used to use in the sports projects when determining which leagues to include in participation-based criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 22:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at