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 Talk:Konstantine Anthony 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 21:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Monica Kraft, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JoelleJay ( talk) 23:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I am considering nominating the above article at AfD and would appreciate an independent opinion before I make a final decision. Discussion with the article creator can be found at Talk:Elle Leonard#Notability. Thoughts? Cbl62 ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I withdrew the bundled canoeists AfD and re-opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manaka Kubota and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teruko Kiriake, just notifying you and the other !voters in the prior AfD. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gaby Jallo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Giant Snowman 12:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

JoelleJay,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe ( talk) 13:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe ( talk) 13:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

... at least there's one thing we can agree on! BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@ BeanieFan11, I know, right?? JoelleJay ( talk) 23:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this addendum. Over the years I've seen you in various deletion/naming/etc. discussions, and although I don't always agree with you (obviously), your comments are invariably thoughtful and well presented. So, uh, thanks for being a great Wikipedian :). (Also obviously I appreciate anyone who knows what a Hasse diagram is.) Happy editing, JBL ( talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @ JayBeeEll, I've been similarly impressed with your decorum and reasoning in these discussions. It's always a relief to see your name come up in my watchlist under whichever contentious thread I've inserted myself into, even when we disagree. And yeah, there was a brief period in 2016 where a "fun game" I'd do when killing time was to doodle something and then see if it somehow happened to be a distributive lattice by scanning for any obvious pentagon or diamond substructures and then manually going through the meets and joins to figure out if it really was distributive... JoelleJay ( talk) 00:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind. "fun game" Amazing, I love it :). -- JBL ( talk) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JoelleJay

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Howdy. I re-aligned your post at the USFL Draft RM, so it would match with the others. GoodDay ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange 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 07:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan 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 23:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates 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 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello JoelleJay,

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/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

In a discussion you have mentioned that you think '1000 mentions on WP is a much lower bar than 1000 mentions in IRS'. I didn't want to spoil that discussion with rabbit-holing on one particular claim. But I do think that's very doubful quantitatively. I can't find recent stats, but think here are a smaller number of people with 1000 mentions on WP (<10K) than there are researchers with 1000 mentions in IRS (>10K). Or do you think that's wrong? Dsp13 ( talk) 12:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Any number of citations in an unreliable source is a lower bar than in IRS. It doesn't matter how difficult to get or infrequent the citations are in the unreliable source. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Joelle, Hope all is well. :) A pair of seemingly experienced editors are attempting to argue that they can use the Rugby Football Union site to establish notability for any one of its member clubs. Does this not go against everything in WP:Primary sources? I feel like this has been established over and over again. I am baffled, quite frankly. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ JTtheOG, NSPORT explicitly states that governing sports bodies are not independent sources so that should clear up any confusion. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes 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, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/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 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel 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, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fani Willis 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 13:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Joelle,

I noticed your editing history on Trail Life USA, and I would like to ask you discuss your edit on the talk page, Talk:Trail Life USA, before a edit war starts.

Regards, Waylon (he was here) ( Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) ( Also, not to brag, but...) 17:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just checked the talk page and saw you discussed it a while back. Waylon (he was here) ( Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) ( Also, not to brag, but...) 17:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election 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, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't participate in GANs because I have a tendency to be thorough to the point of self-injury when writing/evaluating (non-technical) prose. On the other hand, I think I would enjoy tracking down sources.

Sweet! I'm the reverse. If this passes, review buddies? :D -- asilvering ( talk) 03:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Haha sure! JoelleJay ( talk) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joelle, like you, I’m also a molecular biologist… to be… I’m working on my PhD at Oregon. It’s nice to meet you 😊

I plan to mostly edit on molecular biology topics and was wondering if you might have some advice for how to get started looking for articles I can edit and how I can find things that might need to be sourced? Are there categories or can search for things that might interest me? Just thought someone with a lot more experience might be able to help 😊. Marskven ( talk) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ Marskven, welcome to Wikipedia! I think the Biology Wikiproject may be a good general resource although I'm not sure how active it is. There are lists here of biology articles that might need better sourcing or summarizing, and this project is generally concerned with articles that need more references (all the articles in this maintenance category are grouped by tagging date here, and in each date subcategory there is the option to filter by topic). I actually don't edit that much in molecular biology topics, however I am very familiar with the sourcing standards for biomedical topics, which are critical to understand when editing in that area, so if you have questions feel free to ask! JoelleJay ( talk) 01:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

100% agree with your comment at DELREV about this. That AFD was woeful, and really makes me think that RFCs on what content should or should not be included in Wikipedia are worthless if AFD closers aren't going to give them any weight. FOARP ( talk) 14:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@ FOARP yeah, I really regret not noticing that AfD when it was open. Apparently it's not enough that P&G-based arguments were almost entirely absent from the keep side; closers also need multiple !votes spelling out the fact that those articles currently fail multiple policies and thus cannot be retained unless keep !voters demonstrate the sourcing generally exists to bring them up to policy. That's on top of clearly not meeting NCORP and directly violating a well-attended RfC. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)