Adam NeumannEdit

Hi Barkeep49. Just wanted to revisit my request on Talk:Adam_Neumann#Intro/Career_and_trademark. Previously you implemented part of my edit request (thanks so much!) and stated that you also agreed with my second bullet point concerning the more accurate wording of the sentence about the "We" family of trademarks. If you still agree, I'd greatly appreciate if you could please implement that edit. Thanks so much, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing! Carlos for Neumann (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49. I hope you don't mind taking a look at something I am quite frustrated about. The last two times I tried to make a simple, uncontroversial direct edit on Adam Neumann's article, my efforts were reverted. It is my understanding that paid editors are allowed to make uncontroversial edits directly to articles they have a COI with, without having to make an edit request, but one particular editor continues to revert those edits solely based on my COI, here and here. As you can see from the diffs, the first was an attempt to fix a typo, and the second was to remove a phrase not supported by the source; owning property does not mean they ever lived at that property; and the source explicitly states that the Neumanns sold the Greenwich Village property in 2021. Could you please help me understand how the guidelines for paid editors apply in situations like these, and in this specific case? Thank you for your continued time and effort. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Carlos for Neumann it's not uncommon for some editors to take a very narrow reading of what is uncontroversial. My suggestion is to talk about it either on that editor's talk page or the article's talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

LightburstEdit

I presume this is a typo in the appended text of the recently submitted commentary from lightbreather? Should probably be corrected if so. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Anastrophe. Fixed. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Separate question, and I've no problem if you wish to just delete this little Lightburst section (thus why I'm putting this new thing in here). In my time here on WP, I've engaged in administrative/formal actions about as commonly as I visit Walmart, which is to say once a decade or so... so I'm barely educated on what formalities are typically engaged in. So - in the arbcom community comments re LB unban, i've noticed that the most recent cluster of them are including a bold-type 'vote' as in Support unban or Oppose. Having those show up so deep into the already existing comments bothers me a bit, as we're not voting here, so it seems as if these recent additions are gently pushing to make it appear as if there are votes to count. Should those who commented previously update their entries to conform to this new style, or should those who've recently 'voted' be encouraged to drop the, for lack of a better term, pretense? I don't think it's a significant issue, but it seems mildly disruptive in itself to see the format changed ad hoc. cheers Anastrophe (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Anastrophe no. As you note Arbcom will do all the actual voting everything else is just feedback. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Right, I understand that. However I presented an 'or' construct and you replied 'no', so I assume you mean no to both...? Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Anastrophe sorry for the lack of clarity. No need for anyone to update a comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Anastrophe: FYI there are users named Lightbreather and Lightburst. The latter may be confused about the heading and mention in the text above. May want to fix. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I think unless someone were to ping them on this thread, it's unlikely. However, the world has enough confusion already, so I'll just plant this here for posterity.[[1]] Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

fyi: Draft:Plutora has turned up againEdit

but it is lacking page history. Looks like a copy and paste from somewhere. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The only AfD I can find is from 2016 and it does seem substantially different from that. It definitely isn't ready for mainspace but I have a bit of a light hand when it comes to G11 in draftspace. Was there a particular reason you pinged me @Fiddle Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Only because you appear, once, to have declined it, but I can see no article history. It is more for your amusement than anything else.
It's paid editing by an almost properly declared paid editor, and not a good one. I doubt their invoice will ever be presented for payment. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pierre Poilievre on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 17:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Restoring accidentally deleted contentEdit

Barkeep, thanks for this. I have seen this happen before, where the software for some reason arbitrarily deletes some other portion of the thread. In my recent set of posts there, it did it elsewhere too. See Valereee's 18:43, 17 September 2022 comment in this diff that got removed. I didn't touch Valeree's or RoySmith's comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Libelous statements by someone who is a moderatorEdit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Otoya_Yamaguchi For the sake of civility, I will not be stating their name on here but its the edit request dated 9/12/22. Wikipedia has rules on civility. Please have a word with him about talking to people this way. This has been a topic of discussion for a very long time, and this guy clearly has it in his head that everyone who's not on his side is a "proud boy". He has been refusing to listen to anyone on this, and has turned his brain off on this because he think's he's championing it against "proud boys". Going that detailed into them when they reenacted the crime is insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.30.108 (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like this has been discussed now on WP:ANI and the article's talk page which are two better places for this issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #22Edit

17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

New essay: Wisdom of the crowdEdit

Since I write essays to be read, I hope my talk page watchers will continue to indulge me when I link to new ones I write on my own talk. Today's essay, with a healthy dose of conceptual help from Worm That Turned is Wisdom of the crowd. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done (read). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm struggling to understand how to apply that to this hugely attended RFC that a) proposed text that had no sources backing it (at least none in the article), b) which no one seems to have cared about, and c) came to a conclusion not based on sources that we are still stuck with. Very widely attended, no wisdom; maybe I'm missing the point? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    There clearly was no consensus at that RfC judging by the spread of choices among the options, so no consensus is what the crowd decided there. You're correct the essay isn't addressing that situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    At least I didn't completely miss it then! I think that one falls under GIGO, but we're still stuck with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia I've added a sentence to note that no consensus can also become clear when there's a lot of people participating. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

BoTEdit

While I am thrilled that Mike Peel was elected, I am utterly surprised and dismayed that Legoktm did not get in. Those two were the candidates who were running on a platform of more board attention to technical and community issues rather than supporting the Foundation's more abstract goals. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung I share your disappointment about Lego. I think he could have really brought perspective and expertise to the board that would have helped it and the movement. I hope he'll consider another go, just as Mike got elected on his second try. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

New watchlist message for RfC on Vector 2022 doesn't link to the RfCEdit

Can you please edit the watchlist message you recently added for the RfC on Vector 2022? The message doesn't link to the actual RfC which is very confusing and unhelpful. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. Fixed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog driveEdit

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)