User talk:JoelleJay/Archive 3

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

Would you mind having a look at this academic's citation record and let me know what you think? Her h-index of 12 (according to Scopus) seems low to me for her field - but I'm not actually sure I have a real idea of what her field is. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering, sure, I'll take a look in the next few days. I think I did an organizational psych prof Scopus analysis at some point too, which might be informative. JoelleJay (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering, this is a surprisingly low-citation field, but so far from analyzing 102 of her coauthors (with 16+ papers) it looks like Mayer is generally below the median among her peers:

Total citations: average: 1313, median: 730, Mayer: 453.

Total papers: 51, 34, 98.

h-index: 15, 13, 12.

Top 5 papers: 1st: 251, 103, 25. 2nd: 126, 68, 19. 3rd: 94, 55, 17. 4th: 75, 47, 17. 5th: 64, 40, 17.

I'd say she doesn't have a C1 pass, but if there's more of a humanities bent to her disciplines she might have books (not indexed by Scopus) with reviews.

During my analysis I came across Sabine Herpertz, who doesn't have a page but has a very strong citation profile in this area (citations: 12382; h-index: 57; top 5 papers: 1012, 620, 409, 404, 284). Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti (2672; 28; 235, 223, 173, 157, 133) might also be a good candidate for a page.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad my sense that it was a low number of citations is accurate. I'm also confused by her academic history - a PhD and a habilitation, then another PhD, then two master's degrees? Altogether very unusual. I see Herpertz is also a dean and writes textbooks - looks like a notability slam dunk really. She's Sabine Herpertz (Q27256842) if you want that for your WiR list. Jasinskaja-Lahti is Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti (Q91300862). Both are present on their native language's wikipedia, but neither article is all that useful for translation, for lack of footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to confirm your position as well as Levivich; do you support removing items from the list prior to draftification if it no longer meets the inclusion criteria, or if it meets the removal criteria? BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal I support removal if it meets removal criteria; if it no longer meets inclusion criteria I think it can be addressed after the RfC. JoelleJay (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand the difference? Levivich (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll say this tho: I couldn't give less of a shit of this batch has 980 articles or 900 or 800 or 500. It doesn't matter. What matters is getting consensus that some criteria == draftify (or redirect, or !mainspace in whatever form). It's much more important to get consensus for some criteria, than to argue about whether specific articles meet or do not meet that criteria. So if this is about 1 GNG v. 2 GNG sources, I don't care, whatever gets consensus that 0 GNG sources means move it out of mainspace. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That is true. If you prefer, I’ll tell CBL to make whatever removals he wants? BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, as long as it's not clogging up the RfC. One option would be that he/Beanie could have a list of improved articles in a separate subsection and the ones that now plausibly meet at least SPORTBASIC #5 can be discussed briefly and removed after the RfC. JoelleJay (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Forest, trees, etc. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What are the odds huge swaths of draftified articles will be immediately moved back to mainspace based on refbombing with trivial/routine mentions from the opposers... AfD certainly isn't an option anymore. JoelleJay (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your endless patience and energy in dissecting sources and identifying relevant notability rules across multiple AfD discussions, and your intelligent and convincing demonstrations of whether they conform not only to policy but also to common-sense and encyclopedia-worthy standards of both quantity and quality. Avilich (talk ) 02:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @

Avilich, AfD can certainly get discouraging at times so I really appreciate the positive feedback. JoelleJay (talk

) 16:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@

Avilich advocating for basic minimal coverage standards really is never-ending, isn't it? Considering the !voter landscape at the current athlete AfDs, perhaps we need a new discussion at NSPORT about local and routine coverage... JoelleJay (talk

) 16:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, the current process of closing and relisting discussions is too subjective for any change of rules to have much effect. In

Avilich (talk

) 22:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@

Avilich, that's very true -- and several of those cases that eventually turned out favorably were only achieved after asking a closer to reopen the AfD; both Nokisi and Vosagaga (among several others) were originally closed as keep. Then there's the demonstrable shift from editors claiming a subject meets some sports criterion to insisting that they meet GNG through sources everyone else would regard as trivial or routine (which is why some of these are only closed as delete after they get attention from the wider community, e.g. Vainowski, Larry Green, Abdellatif Aboukoura). And there are enough from that crowd watching every AfD/notifying projects that an apparent large consensus can form very quickly, creating an echo chamber of egregiously idiosyncratic P&G interpretations (see here where multiple seasoned editors insisted a profile in an athlete's school newspaper was sufficiently independent for GNG, even after a question on the topic at RSN resulted in a like 9-0 determination that of course such sources didn't count towards GNG). That forces anyone coming in with a dissent to decide whether they really want to subject themselves to soul-crushing resistance, including veiled accusations of racism and sexism, on the off chance that people outside fan projects will take notice before it gets closed. JoelleJay (talk

) 00:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, when the outcome happens to be correct it's more due to numbers and chance -- shows the system simply doesn't work properly. And this is hardly confined to sports pages; the roads/highways projects are

Avilich (talk

) 01:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes the roadcruft is among the worst; sometimes I consider watching the transportation delsort but then I remember the pile-on that occurs at every single one and decide I'd rather preserve my psyche...

It's funny how readily every cruft-defending fanbase resorts to the "sYsTeMiC bIaS" argument when sourcing on a non-Western article is challenged, as if their obsessive cataloging of every single American highway or fourth-tier English footballer isn't directly responsible for orders of magnitude more bias. WiR was a moderate supporter of Lugnuts for years, and then it turned out he was like the single biggest factor in decreasing %women's bios lol. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for your contribution and research at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert James Diamond. --hroest 13:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem! I was reading over the article right after having seen the comments about the book, so the last name stood out to me. JoelleJay (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It feels like we're disagreeing a lot, and I just wanted to drop by and say that if Wikipedia could have a more hundred editors like you, I'd love it. I know I'm being picky about precise language when we're talking about policies and guidelines, but I'm not actually trying to drive you up the wall. I have some hope that the core content policies and the notability guidelines will eventually move a bit in your direction. Before we can get there, I think we'll all need to be "speaking the same language". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a common misconception. In fact, per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Bold:

Although most editors find prior discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made.

- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It was not reverted solely on those grounds. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, and since you gave a perfectly good first reason there was no need to add the second one - except, perhaps, to state the obvious: because you gave a good reason the reverted editor needs to seek an affirmative consensus. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 14:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 03:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

Whoops, sorry! :D Valereee (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching you slog through a variety of contentious discussions (the one about canvassing made my brain hurt), so I just wanted to say that your patience and your support to others is noticed and appreciated. Thank you! I'm poking at some of the links on your notable academic women list so that you can keep explaining that canvassing is canvassing (and I don't have to). Suriname0 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Suriname0, thank you for the kind words -- it certainly helps to know I haven't alienated everyone with my constant arguing. I appreciate your well-reasoned contributions to these discussions as well. And thank you for updating the table! That reminds me that I have a backlog to add from some recent analyses... JoelleJay (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi; and thanks for your contributions at

Hi @DFlhb, I apologize for piling on the criticism, as I do think you've done a great job cleaning up the articles (and you certainly didn't come off to me as one of the "data hoarders" crowd). I think this was just a topic that happened to intersect temporally with my recent interest in NCORP-related discussion, and so that guideline and related parts of NOT were fresh in my mind when I clicked through some of iOS VH article references. The marketing world is dense with vacuous buzzwords that make it hard to grasp what these companies even do, so I'll have to take a bit more time to digest the Vox stuff. I think one distinction I would make after a brief skim though would be that Vox isn't a trade magazine--it isn't closely tied to any particular brand or topic, and so its business is not directly influenced by the performance of products it covers. With MacWorld, if Apple sales drop there are significant consequences for the magazine itself. Another difference is that the third party requirements of NOTCHANGELOG are specific to descriptions of version history, and so martech-type sources would be acceptable in articles that don't deal with that topic. Best, JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No probs — wanting to clean up Wikipedia is as close to "pure intentions" as it gets, and I know it must be frustrating to have to constantly deal with all

those arguments — DFlhb (talk

) 06:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

The RfC has had a handful of editors propose clarification, which has not received substantial support. Whatever was discussed however many years ago in Archive 45 cannot override more recent and better-attended discussions, nor can BOLD edits override the status quo on a policy page after being challenged. The sequence is BRD, not BRBD, and the D part should occur on the TP. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 21:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 22:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Wikipedia Editor Retention Project )

Editor of the Week

:

I nominate JoelleJay to be Editor of the Week. JoelleJay is very active at

WP:AFD

with a specific focus on assessing the notability of academic biographies. JoelleJay, to an extent that is close to unique, carefully analyses every candidate and provides evidence and policy-based votes. Further to that, JoelleJay maintains a list of women academics that have high impact (link: User:JoelleJay), as a starting point to enable other editors to create articles about notable women academics, an efforts that is very helpful to reduce the gender imbalance on Wikipedia. JoelleJay exhibits role-model behaviour in terms of exercising care, and does so with diplomacy even when people disagree. Giving JoelleJay editor of the week would be good for the project and hopefully encourage more people to vote with care and disagree with grace.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Library of Alexandria

JoelleJay

Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 28, 2023

A very active editor that exhibits role-model behaviour, exercised care, and handles disagreement with diplomacy. At WP:AFD JoelleJay carefully analyses every candidate and provides evidence and policy-based votes. They maintain a list of women academics that have high impact creating a starting point to enable other editors to create articles about notable women academics, thereby reducing the gender imbalance on Wikipedia.

Recognized for

assessing the notability of academic biographies

Notable work

KYVE Apple Bowl

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 22:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555, @Buster7, thank you! I'm honored (and surprised!) to have even been nominated :) JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

-) You and I disagree often. But I respect the way you go about your work, even if we often disagree, differing views and people' ability to share them diplomatically is what makes this project a success.

CT55555(talk) 00:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 20:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Noticed your question over on BC's talk page and wanted to offer my two cents that its not possible for coverage which simply describes the topic without any context to be significant. I know thats a rather pedantic and circular way to answer the question but I think it cuts to the core of the issue. Could be however that such coverage exists but I've never run across it, if I did I think my first stop would be to question the reliability of a source describing a fringe viewpoint without adding the context that it was fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Horse Eye's Back, so the kind of source I'm thinking of would be an article in an otherwise-reliable journal that covers the fringe topic with an in-universe application of it to some other subject. Normally for most such sources we would just consider the author an "adherent" or otherwise fringe, but in some cases you could argue the author is engaging in a philosophical, speculative exercise with the fringe idea without necessarily endorsing it. So there is context, but no contextualization with the mainstream perspective. JoelleJay (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok so for example when we have a supernatural event (say the miracles of a saint) which only religious authors have written about? Thats where my head was going, but I've also seen a number of editors declare that our understanding of Fringe excludes religion entirely (a position I find confusing but appears to be widely held, at least by religious editors). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's more along the lines of the eight-circuit model coverage in this book (you can scihub it), which describes it and then attempts to apply/contextualize its concepts within "media ecology", citing only fringe sources or other sources that engage in the same speculative exercise. It doesn't ever discuss the model's acceptance in the fields it's actually mimicking (psych, cognitive sci, etc.), the book is just using Leary's cosmology in general as a framework. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats an interesting one, but I would go back to the first step above (reassess the source making the claim)... Explorations in Media Ecology is an Intellect publication which is a publisher with a record of "pushing the boundaries of modern academia" to put it politely. IMO the book is not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh is there a discussion on Intellect you can point to? I googled it to see if anything stood out showing it to be unreliable but didn't see anything after a cursory look. JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look like we've ever had a discussion about it. For journals which are fringe but not predatory you generally don't find anything explicit. A good tell is, as you've identified here, publishing papers "citing only fringe sources or other sources that engage in the same speculative exercise". Their JSTOR description "Intellect is a fiercely independent academic publisher for scholars and practitioners working in the arts, media and creative industries. The press publishes and encourages original thinking and seeks to widen critical debate in new and emerging subject areas. Intellect is committed to creativity, innovation and excellence, and to working with our authors and editors to provide an outstanding service that takes their work to a global audience." (emphasis my own) is certainly that of a fringe journal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Hello, JoelleJay. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

---Steve Quinn (talk

Hello. I am requesting your input here [1] (at the Village Pump).

Caution: If you provide an answer to this question you'll have Wikipedia-wide exposure and become famous! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 19:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Rhea Debussy was breathtakingly thorough. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Routine

I reverted your un-discussed addition to NSPORT. I have, however, thought some codification of routine coverage would be worthwhile. Your proposed change would assert that match coverage is always routine. That is incorrect. Match/game coverage can in some instances constitute SIGCOV and in other cases not. For example, passing mentions of players in game reports have long been considered routine. That is uncontroversial, but a blanket assertion that match/game coverage is always routine is grossly overbroad and unwarranted. Let me know if you would like to discuss. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• The same applies to your statement regarding "transfer" coverage. There has long been consensus that short announcements of a player's trade, signing, release, etc., don't represent SIGCOV. However, it is not uncommon for in-depth coverage to be written at the same time that a player is signed or traded to a new team. Rather than create carveouts that "transfer" and "match" coverage are in all case routine, the correct approach is to assess the depth of the coverage as it applies to the person in question. Of course, it is sometimes necessary to weight the totality of factors, such as how much real-world notability the player has. An example of the sort of totality approach is presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averell Spicer where I voted to delete -- even though there was some depth of coverage, the player had no significant contributions to the sport, thus leading me to vote earlier today to delete. The general rules that supports such a common-sense determination are already in place. However, creating broad carve-outs of the type you sought to enact unilaterally (for "transfer" and "match" coverage) are not IMO a good approach. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Cbl62, my edit specified that routine transfer or match coverage is considered trivial. Not that all coverage of those types is routine. If I had intended the latter I would have said "routine coverage such as of transfers or matches". JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I purposely used the same language as that in the local coverage section, which states must provide reports beyond

  routine game coverage, since that hasn't been interpreted as meaning all game coverage is routine. The whole reason I made the edit is to have something in our guidelines to reference when explaining to someone that, no, a two-sentence transfer update is considered "trivial" even if it technically is "more than a directory entry" and "doesn't require OR to interpret". It's the same thing with the earlier sports org edit I made that eventually was accepted--it helps to point to something. JoelleJay (talk

  ) 00:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the sole intent, it serves no purpose. It's like saying "routine transfer coverage is routine". But it would inevitably be misconstrued as a general rule of thumb that "transfer" and "match" coverage are routine and therefore don't count. What would actually add some real value is to try to hash out a guideline with some specific detail on what types of coverage doesn't count as SIGCOV in the sports context. Ideas that immediately come to mind: statistical entries in all-inclusive databases; passing mentions in match/game coverage; paid death notices; and brief transfer/signing announcements. If such a proposed guideline were to be opened to discussion, it could have some real value. BTW, any thoughts on the Spicer AfD linked above? Cbl62 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  It serves the purpose of reminding people that transactional reports and matches are things that can be routine, since we get the "but ROUTINE applies to EVENTS!" resistance every time this comes up. It allows us to say "routine transfer news is explicitly excluded from counting toward notability" without having to go through the rigamarole of first convincing someone that ROUTINE can apply to coverage of people, and then convincing them that transfer coverage is something that can be routine. And we already use "routine match coverage" in multiple other places without anyone assuming all match coverage is routine.

  I haven't looked at the sources in that AfD yet. JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 2001:D08:2901:372C:176E:668A:26DB:24BF (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Hello. I was going to tell you that a diff you posted at .Raven's bludgeoning ANI is incorrect. The diff you posted goes here [2]. It is regarding the ANI section entitled "‎Marines RfC, and two-week site block proposal". It does not focus on .Raven's post or comment. Well I was trying to get the diff of your ANI post to show you what I am specifically talking about. But, in your User contributions page it seems the links for this ANI have been crossed out or something [3]. These links have been rendered useless. In any case, I can't open up those particular diffs. Did you request this or is this some funny business by someone else? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In any case, at the ANI, this is what you wrote: For an example of the thread derailment .Raven introduces, see this discussion on the notability of/how to describe a particular pseudoscience topic, where he starts out by attacking the FRINGE guideline itself with misreadings of it and nonsensical comparisons and anecdotes, eventually making anti-consensus edits in mainspace to advance his position. It is the link here that seems to go to the wrong place. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn - Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it looks like all diffs from ANI history on July 8 are somehow redacted without the text itself being removed from the page? Also, when I click the first diff you linked above it goes to the 8CM section (as it's supposed to)? JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I noticed. It looks like a redaction but the text itself has not been removed from the page. I haven't seen that before.

About the diff you provided - it links to the opening of the discussion, which is subtitled 'Discussion', apparently as you intended, which I wasn't sure about. So, what I more specifically mean is postings from .Raven do not appear until way-way down on that page. In fact, one must scroll into the next sub-sub section entitled 'Fiction proposal.' To be honest I don't think most editors will read through that whole discussion.

And the other thing is, you are citing an issue about .Raven, but his posts are not there after clicking on the link, until way-way down on the page. So it is confusing and will most likely be ignored. Does this make sense? So, my intent was to be helpful. But if this is what you intended then, well, that's what you intended. Nothing more than that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I debated whether to link to .Raven's first comment in that discussion, but I figured people could just control-F and find it. JoelleJay (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I never thought of that. That's a good way to do it. Thanks for letting me know, even though you didn't have to. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't you love it when another editor critiques your edit :>) I know that I don't. It's like shaddup already! Or mind your own business! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Regarding two of the journals you mentioned over at the Notability (academic journals) talk page, please see these edits: [4], [5], [6]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn, I do appreciate what you're doing, but I think those edits are really, really straining at being DUE, even under PS sanctions. Moreover, my point in the NJOURNALS discussion is not necessarily that these journals can't be contextualized indirectly or even that GNG coverage doesn't exist on them, but that the essay licenses standalone articles on journals even if the content directly on them can only ever be sourced to themselves and their appearance in an index. For every other notable topic on wikipedia (except to some extent NPROF, although that is also often governed by BLP), the fact that a topic received SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources at least somewhat predicts that the topic will have or has further coverage of any contentious aspects: that is, we know that it has attracted significant independent commentary multiple times, so it is more likely that any controversies will be covered and contextualized. But NJOURNALS does not give us any predictive power in this regard and in fact actively prevents us from deleting articles on fringe journals even when they have been delisted. This is comparable to how the 8-circuit model page would be treated if we had a guideline stating any concept described in significant detail independently in multiple reliably-published books was exempted from FRINGE even if the only material on it was in-universe stuff from fringe believers. JoelleJay (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JoelleJay. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here . Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We do agree on a good bit, don't we? But yeah ... obviously we're on the opposite side of the line from BeanieFan, and I expect that he pisses you off at least as much as he does me. And since we're all periodically active at AfD, the tong war spills over there as well. But it'd occur to neither of us to insult him gratuitously, nor to track down his contribution history so as to oppose him at every step of the way. Life's too short. (Don't mind me; the things one rambles about at midnight when one hasn't slept in over a day and a half ...) Ravenswing 04:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:Ravenswing, yes he's definitely one of my main antagonists at AfDs, standing for pretty much everything I am against WRT notability. Nevertheless his !votes at least make an argument toward GNG/BASIC (I can't tell you how much I hate BASIC, what an awful idea that is...), even if I think his standards for SIGCOV are way too low, and they're are nuanced enough that agreeing with him or even changing my !vote because of coverage he found isn't too painful. And he does sometimes give me a reality check on the outrageous amount of effort I put into rejecting some sources (even if I'm obviously right at the end...). There are like 8 other users whose !votes I hold in much lower regard. So I agree with you there's no impetus to add more negativity to that thread. And anyway sports AfDs have taken a bit of a backseat to the "academic journals are inherently notable" debate, especially after this ridiculous discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Thank You for providing me guidance related to WP Football and Notability Demt1298 (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Demt1298, no problem, thank you for being so receptive! JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Perhaps the problem is that the name MEDRS makes people think it is a "reliable sources" issue, and for sure, primary research in big journals are reliable in most people's eyes. But I think it matters what we think it is reliable for (not that the research happened, and it got those results, but whether a drug is safe and effective, say). And for that, we have a hierarchy of evidence quality. And secondly the MEDRS hierarchy shifts editors towards sources that make establishing the WEIGHT of an issue straightforward. If an international consensus guideline says X then that's almost certainly what the body of literature is pointing towards being true and important. -- Colin°^Talk 09:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I realize PRIMARY re: MEDRS is more nuanced than what I said at RSN, however I also think MEDRS is clear that the restriction on use of primary research articles goes beyond the general policy recommendation that articles be based on secondary/tertiary sources. This is also supported by WP:OR: However, note that higher standards than this are required for 

medical claims. I do believe that articles on any academic topic, not just biomedical ones, should refrain from citing primary research, and that this is supported to some extent by DUE and BALANCE. Although, DUE unfortunately reads as if it only applies to controversial claims where opposing views already exist, and is less than clear on what to do with novel research findings that aren't or (or aren't clearly) controversial (due to fitting in with established models) but haven't yet been discussed in independent secondary sources. I think MEDRS addresses this by explicitly stating Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content, which leaves a lot less room for primary citations than an isolated reading of just WP:PRIMARY or WP:DUE would provide. JoelleJay (talk

) 17:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That line in OR was only added in April 2022. I wonder what User:WhatamIdoing thinks about whether it is actually useful.

When MEDRS is giving its advice about primary research papers, it isn't overruling

WP:OR

. If someone wrote "A study in 2003 found that half the patients talking wonderpam felt better and had longer thicker hair" citing some study in The Lancet, none of that is original research and The Lancet is utterly reliable (as far as such things go) that that research took place and got those results. Both OR and V are amply served. We would stray into OR territory and classic "avoid primary sources" territory, if someone cited that study for the claim "If everyone took wonderpam daily, the world would be a happier place, with no wars, and great hair" because the editor is interpreting the primary source and frankly fantasising. But it turns out there are lots of studies of wonderpam and most of them found it was useless and none of the others even mention hair quality. Or alternatively, there weren't any further studies of wonderpam since 2003, and this pilot study was not followed up. The drug got ignored after its company went bust. So to handle NPOV, we demand editors use the secondary literature. And that literature in 2023 doesn't give the time of day to the one pilot study on wonderpam that showed promising results.

So although we are using terminology like "primary" that perhaps sounds more like WP:OR and WP:V territory, I think the real issue is how to determine WP:NPOV in medical articles, and MEDRS isn't in conflict or overruling any general policy at all.

Where one could argue MEDRS is special is the specific calling out of newspapers as being unreliable for medical facts. But then I think too much people think about "reliable sources" without thinking "for what subject" and "for what claim". I don't think many people would think newspapers are reliable sources for computer algorithms or maths proofs or quantum physics either, but our newspapers don't have daily articles on these topics by journalists who are out of their depth, so probably editors in those domains don't have the same battle to fight out the silly stuff. It is more the other way around, that quality newspapers are reliable for a certain set of subjects and events, but not for anything else. Just like one wouldn't think The Lancet was a reliable source on the Second World War.

I think a lot of Wikipedians think we do hold medical sourcing to a higher level and a lot think we should, but I don't think it actually requires any special exceptions or rules. Just for folk to sit down and think ok, how do we apply all these policies to writing medical articles and how might that influence how we pick which sources to use. Oh, wait, if we select X, Y and Z and reject V and W, then we end up solving all our core policy issues in one go. -- Colin°^Talk 09:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Quick reply: I think it is damaging and dangerous to describe MEDRS as a "higher" standard. It is a more specific standard, but telling people how to understand which sources are actually reliable ("reliable" even within its basic meaning, of something well-informed people would choose to rely on) within a particular subject area is not a "higher" standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've proposed it be removed, at the talk page of WP:OR. -- 16:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 16:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

) 08:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 18:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 02:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hope you're well. What do you think of this nomination? I'm not sure how convincing the keep arguments are. JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 08:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Jonathan at CornellNLP, I actually already installed ConvoWizard and had it running a few months ago. I had to disable it after a month or so though since I think it was interfering with some of the other scripts I use. Hopefully the data will still be useful? JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the heads up! Sorry for the inconvenience regarding the other scripts. But yes, even a month's worth of data should still be useful, thank you! Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 08:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review

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

) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎