Open main menu

User talk:Barkeep49

NPPSchool graduated userboxEdit

Hi Barkeep49, Good day. I would like to propose NPPSCHOOL graduate user box and a NPPSCHOOL logo/graphic logo (like that of CUVA). Kindly give me your thoughts. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I think it's a great idea. If you feel up to designing it, great. Otherwise I'd be happy to give it a go when I have a bit more time on my hands. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. I might not able to them it a the moment as I need to get the software set up and my only laptop is about to break into two (there is a huge crack between my screen and the CPU and I cant even close the screen - dont think it will last very long as it has been in such condition for 2 weeks now - need to get a new one :( ) plus I need to move back to AUS soon as I currently resides in SEA thus I will be a little busy looking for place to settle down. Just ping me when you have started so we dont both do the same thing :). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I manage to find a software program which I would do some graphic work and have a few draft on the NPP SCHOOL and NPP reveiwer user boxes. I placed them at the very bottom NPP material page. Kindly have a look and let me know your thoughts. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 18:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, I have done another NPP school and reviewer user box - let me know your thoughts - you can find them my sandbox - here. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I like the work. I am not a huge fan of the blue and red but everything else is great. My personal favorite is npp round logo but it like all the work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, I have changed to blue and dark blue, let me know which one you prefer or you can just change the color as you see fit. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I like the dark blue better. Question, though. Does it make sense, for the rights boxes, to use your new ones or adjust the existing one? I would think we should change that one rather than make an alternative template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, I have created 3 NPP School version using the original template with slight adjustments. Let me know of your thoughts. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I went ooh when i saw them - those are very attractive too. I'm kind of agnostic about whether we should keep the modified wiki logo or your new logo. I definitely like the blue on blue graduate boxes you made in this latest revision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, It is up to you. The modified version would be the extension from the original reviewer version and it would be in the same design family and association. The new one would be, well... new I guess. Let me know. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Request removal of NPREdit

Hi Barkeep, I'm reaching out to you since WP:PERM suggests reaching out to an administrator to request removal of permissions and you're pretty active at WP:PERM/NPR. Could you please remove my NPR user right? I intended to use it when I first requested it but I didn't find the NPP system very intuitive and I never got around to learning how it works, so I haven't used it at all. Thanks for your help. 97198 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

97198, I am able to do this but I can't say I'm happy to do it because you seem like someone with the skills to be a good reviewer even if you only do it occasionally. Could I try to help you master the NPP system rather than give up the PERM? If the answer is no I really will remove it but I wanted to make a pitch first. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it, but I don't really have the time or the motivation right now. If I change my mind I'll definitely get in touch to take you up on that offer. 97198 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  Done Barkeep49 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

RequestEdit

Hello! I was wondering if you could take me on as a NPP school student. I have read WP:NPP (and the articles that are suggested in there) already, and I am familiar with Twinkle through counter vandalism work. I have graduated from a CVUA course with Girth Summit, and am now interested in expanding my area of interest on Wikipedia. Thanks for considering this, Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 20:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, I am currently unable to accept any new students. If I am not elected to Arbcom, I will be able to then. Please feel free to ask me again after results are announced in December. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine, I'll just ask a different trainer. There is another one in my time zone, so it's no big deal. Thanks though! Yours - Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 15:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Update: I am now going to be trained by Rosguill. Thank you for considering my request though! Cordially - Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Hard Luck/GA1Edit

Barkeep49, this review has been open for quite some time. Do you think you could return to it and see whether you can provide the nominator with what they need to continue, or take whatever next reviewer steps you think are necessary? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

NPP by userEdit

Hi Barkeep,

I used to use User:Rentier/NPP/Unreviewed articles by user to identify mass article creation patterns which sped up the review process a little bit if the articles in question were formulaic. However, the maintainer of the tool appears to be inactive and the version on labs isn't working. Can you think of a way to get the output at the page linked above regularly updated? I have a feeling it could be done in Quarry but maybe I'm deluding myself...

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

StraussInTheHouse, I believe the best way to get that information is from a Quarry. My SQL are normally such that with enough time and effort I can get information like this. However, I can tell you I will not have the time to put in the effort. Let me noodle if I can think of other ways of accomplishing this. In the meantime maybe you can try WP:RAQ? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Weird NPR?Edit

I just declined a user asking for PGM, but they mentioned they oversee an Ed program. I'm a little concerned that they're both at AFC (done by me) and NPR (which you approved), and could potentially push through sub-par content without any independent verification. In a quick look at their move history this might be the case for AfC, but I haven't looked to verify the quality of those drafts (and if they're related to their course). You think it's worth starting a discussion with them about the issue in general? Primefac (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I think gaining a better understanding of their work supporting educational students would be good. There is definitely an uneven playing field in the support academic classes in North America get through the Wiki Ed foundation and classes in other parts of the world get. So supporting a user who is interested in filling this gap on a volunteer basis seems noble. However, if that's the role they're playing it would be good to setup some best practices, using the way Wiki Ed coordinators act as a guideline. For instance several of them (maybe even all of them) have NPR on their personal accounts but they leave patrolling to other editors.
Of course if he is just a volunteer he can choose what articles to take an interest in. For instance I will sometimes run across a class and start following the work of other students in that class. Helping students who don't know better create notable articles through use of AfC and NPP doesn't have to be an abuse of anything. Wiki Ed, for instance, does extensive training to help students avoid AfC all together and this has never bothered me. if an editor is poorly using AfC or NPP tools (such by regularly accepting non-notable topics or rejecting notable ones) that needs to be the issue more than what subset of articles an editor chooses to focus on. So yes I think it worthy of discussion but the end result, at least from my perspective, might not be more than "carry on the good work". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you/questionEdit

Thank you for your above help earlier (please note I am now Dr42). Just a quick query: does a relisted deletion discussion have to remain active for 7 entire days or can it be ended earlier if the consensus for keep or delete is clear (or clearer)? Just a question that I can't seem to find the answer to and thought you may be of assistance. Thanks. Dr42 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Should go for the full week. A day or two longer won't break anything. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
@Dr42: I will disagree with the esteemed Primefac. Most relists customarily go a full 7 or longer after being relisted but policy does allow it to be closed at any time when consensus is clear, "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." I would just wait and this will get closed in due course. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in AsiaEdit

The Signpost: 29 November 2019Edit

Note about autopatrolled redirects RfCEdit

Hi. Since you participated in the preliminary discussions, I thought I should let you know that I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol#RfC on autopatrolling redirects. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFirToBeFree
  AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox
  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrolEdit

Deletion review for Draft:NAS4liteEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:NAS4lite. 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. Review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Draft:NAS4lite. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

wowEdit

We had a ~20% decrease in participation from last year. .. I'm honestly surprised. In general I expect to see numbers drop to some extent, but I honestly thought the whole WMF/Fram thing would bring voters out of the woodwork this year. Oh well. — Ched (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ched, well it was interesting because voting was way up early on. There was definitely a subset of very motivated voters. Without being able to sort out how much of the drop-off was due to changing suffrage requirements I don't know what to make of the drop-off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

2019-20 Kansas City Comets seasonEdit

I was curious on why you deleted to 2019-20 Kansas City Comets season. There were plenty of sources per the amount of material there was on the page. All the information came directly from the team's website and was cited accordingly. Why is this an issue? Gatorinator (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Gatorinator, I was acting on this Articles for Deletion discussion. I was merely acting on the consensus of participating editors with this close and the consensus seems to be that it doesn't pass our standards for notability including for specific sports seasons. Information may be verifiable - such as citations to a team website - and still not notable. Hope that helps explain. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, What would you suggest I do so that when I update the draft I may be able to have the page not be deleted in the future? Thanks, Gatorinator (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Gatorinator, I would make sure to include secondary sources which discuss the season as a whole (whether in preview, in progress, or in review). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, The season is about three weeks in and I had actually added several secondary sources into the article that I lost when it was deleted. For the team, they post articles written by employees on their main website and that was where I was pulling their information from for the team. Which is what I do for sever other sports teams in the united states and I have never had this many issues with it before. There is a secondary website that I pay attention to that posts articles about the team that are written by civilians about events happening with the team including signings, match previews/summaries, and other inquiries regarding the team. Should I pull more information from that website and include more sources from there? Thanks, Gatorinator (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Gatorinator, team sponsored journalists are a tricky thing but will have trouble because at some level they are not independent. The fact that you've been able to use this style successfully in other articles and not here is no doubt frustrating. I would recommend starting a discussion over at WP:WikiProject Football where you will find some subject area experts (at least one of whom participated in the AfD) who can offer your specific guidance here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please undo your redirect for IBM Watson HealthEdit

Hello,

Please undo your redirect edit for the IBM Watson Health article. I assure you it is worthy of article status. I created it because I was shocked there wasn't an article for it already. It is an extremely important division of IBM that is doing leading-edge work in artificial intelligence and computational medicine. So PLEASE undo your redirect edit. Thank you very much for all your hard work and dedication. Have a nice day. LearnMore (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

LearnMore each part of a company needs to be shown to be independently notable (see more at WP:INHERITORG). I had not seen any evidence of that from the version of the article I redirect. In fact, the information on that page was less developed than the section I redirected to and in fact was general information about IBM. I understand you may still be building your article. In that case, feel free to develop further in a sandbox and then recreate the article. If I still don't think it's notable I will leave it to another new page reviewer to examine and will not restore the redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. I appreciate your dedication to this encyclopedia. I am currently working on many other articles and so it will be a while before I can devote time and energy to expand IBM Watson Health. However, I feel that it already has more content than many other stub articles out there. I think if you undo your redirect many editors will come along and expand it. 60 Minutes did an in-depth look at Watson Health last year and I was awestruck by the artificial intelligence that was being developed. So again, please reconsider. Give it a month and see what happens. Thanks! LearnMore (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
LearnMore, I certainly respect that position (and definitely understand having other editing priorities). I certainly don't own the article. However, I do think that the redirect target is what best serves our readers (it has lots of good information from my skim) so I don't plan to undo my redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for explaining your position and reasons for your redirect. I appreciate all your time and dedication. LearnMore (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A request for closure if possibleEdit

Hi... could you do me a favor? We have been waiting on a closure at Talk:ITS launch vehicle#Merger proposal for quite some time. I don't really care one way or the other how it gets closed, but we need to get on with it. I had a look and have seen that you have not edited either page. If you are uninvolved, could you please review and close the discussion? Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I saw your post at ANRFC and put it on to review. I'll give it a read later and if I think I'm the right person to close it will do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, there's enough picayune technical detail located over two talk pages that I can't work up the motivation to master. I would suggest per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed this doesn't need a formal close as consensus (at least as I understand it) is clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I also think the consensus is relatively clear, but people seem reluctant to continue with it and take action without a formal close. Everyone wants to move forward, but there were some accusations from both sides early on that 'proper procedure' wasn't being followed, which resulted in a formal discussion that people seem intent on seeing run it's course before taking action. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islanders–Rangers rivalryEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islanders–Rangers rivalry. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

NPP schoolEdit

The backlog is rapidly going higher everyday and enough is not being done.

6361 total unreviewed pages.

1851 pages reviewed this week.

As you suggested in [1], I've asked CASSIOPEIA to take me up as their NPP school student, I hope that they grant this request, to teach and prepare me on how to be a good new page reviewer. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck, good luck with that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Nnadigoodluck, in reviewing your rights log I see that Yunshui removed autopatrol from you due to suspected paid editing. Paid editing would also make you essentially inelgible for the reviewer right and as such not a good candidate for NPP School. As such I don't think - at least for six months and perhaps longer - that NPP and AfC would be a good fit for your time and skills on Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I was suspected of paid editing, which I'm not involved in. You can go through all the articles that I created and see for yourself. I only create articles that are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia and nothing more, I don't see how that is paid editing. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Banking section without a RfC closureEdit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=929892499

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=929893003&oldid=929892742

There was a discussion back in October. Changes made without a RfC may be against the closure at AN/I. There was a consensus among editors back in October for a rewrite. Should this be reported to AN/I or would you like to handle this? QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the consensus from ANI was that no new articles should have pricing information included so information in the MOS doesn't matter right now. The locus of this dispute is about whether, and how, there should be pricing information. While you and the other editors did nothing wrong in adding it in October once it became clear it was a bigger disagreement than just a couple of editors its removal (given that the MOS is a guideline page) pending consensus at RfC seems appropriate to me. As such I have fully protected, in-line with WP:PP#Content disputes without the section as the stable version, in my discretion, is without that section. It does also seem designed to inflame the situation and I will remind the editor responsible for kicking this off about that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The MOS does matter right now because editors would have to gain consensus to change it. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, if I understand you correctly this is about what happens if the RfC closes no consensus? I thought about that too. I would hope and expect that the closer(s) (I would expect it to be a panel but obviously this isn't assured) would explain what version of the MOS is in effect should the RfC indeed close as no consensus. Of course, hopefully, consensus can be found instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
If it closes as no consensus then the previous consensus wording should be restored. This will be more confusing for the closer or closers when the section is blanked. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, it is my assessment that the previous consensus wording is without mention of pricing altogether - back in September before this began. The consensus that support its inclusion in October was appropriate, per our policy on consensus about guidelines to insert it into the MOS. However, when that was challenged we default back to other means of consensus here - namely an RfC which is what is about to be underway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
When an editor or editors want to blank a section they should gain consensus such as an RfC rather than blank a section. This is not what happened. The default would be consensus such as an RfC to change the wording. Before an RfC was started the section was blanked. That's a violation of the previous consensus. The close at AN/I was to start a RfC. There was also content about pricing well before October. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, indeed there is a sentence there - that would, to my eye, appear to be the stable version. If an editor wanted to blank a section from that version they would need consensus, in the same way that consensus is needed to add a section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "The consensus that support its inclusion in October was appropriate, per our policy on consensus about guidelines to insert it into the MOS."
You also wrote "QuackGuru, indeed there is a sentence there - that would, to my eye, appear to be the stable version."
Twice now you have acknowledged content in the page has consensus. I expect you to restore the content from the October version because it has consensus. When there is a new disagreement editors should establish a consensus. The agreement at AN/I was an RfC rather than blank content and start an RfC. When that content was challenged we don't default to blanking. We go by other means which was the agreement for an RfC which is being discussed on how to move forward. QuackGuru (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Barkeep49".