Open main menu

User talk:Barkeep49

Contents

TalkbackEdit

Hi there, please can you explain why my article about Parnia Porsche has been deleted? She meets notability criteria and is worthy of entry into Wikipedia. It seems as though an older page was deleted and since then my page has been deleted without any thought to the content within it. Thanks Kelmoo (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: There has been a recent discussion about her notability held here that concluded delete. I did not see any large changes between what that version appeared to be and what you made. I nominated it for deletion on those grounds and an administrator agreed. If you feel different rather than creating the page in mainspace perhaps go through WP:AFC? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Parnia has about 500,000 followers on Facebook and a lot on Instagram too - I could link to her social profiles if that helps? She has a huge following and is a very well known in Australia particularly. Kelmoo (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: Social media followers generally aren't considered when assessing notability - it is too easy to manipulate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I do understand that and agree also, I was just trying to highlight the fact she is well known in the modelling world. She wouldn't get on the cover of Maxim and so forth if she wasn't. She was number 9 on the Maxim Hot 100 list this year with the likes of Kate Upton etc so I feel her profile is worthy. Can I get a copy of my original page? I could resubmit at a later date. Thanks Kelmoo (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: I'm not an administrator so I can't do that but let's ping Anthony Appleyard who deleted the page and is one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of XX articleEdit

Hello, you recently removed the article XX (Mino album) because you stated there was a lack of notability. However, I felt that it was a notable article/topic because there was a significant amount of coverage on the topic from reliable and independent sources. Specifically, all of the sources used were sources that are considered reliable by consensus on WikiProject Korea as per WP:KO/RS. Although the sources can feature advertising material or quotes, I feel that there is also discussion/commentary about the material and album such as at Source 13, Source 6, Source 9, and Source 2.

The page was previously removed by User:Alexanderlee (talk) for lack of notability, but after I found new reliable sources for the article, he did not remove the article on his second edit on the page. Please let me know why the album does not satisfy notability from news coverage if it indeed does not, and if so, how that might be fixed. Thank you! ChromeGames923 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChromeGames923: In general music albums demonstrate notability not just by mentions in the press but either by reviews from reliable sources, winning of a major award (like in the US a Grammy), or by having sold enough to reach a national sales chart. This is what I saw to be missing when I redirected the article. You can read more at WP:NALBUM Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Hello, thank you for the details about the article's notability. In any case, shortly after you redirected the article, another editor undid your redirect because they claimed the article fulfilled notability, so I continued from there. Now, however, that the album has been released and has received some reviews in addition to charting on several charts, I feel it should be very qualified to be considered notable. The article has also been reviewed again, although I am not too sure how the situation of your redirect being undone should have been handled. Thanks again, ChromeGames923 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChromeGames923: Thanks for checking in. With the release it looks like another reviewer felt like it met the criteria so you're set. 01:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

ReapplyEdit

Hi, I am thinking about reapplying for New Page Reviewer rights soon. I realize that I should just request probationary New Page Reviewer rights (month long trial) which I should have done the last time. I'm a little concerned that the draftifying issue will cause me to be declined again even though I now have a firm grasp on WP:DRAFTIFY after studying said page and I now know that I shouldn't move any article to draft space 'minutes' after the article is created (and that I shouldn't drafitfy 'junk'). From studying other New Page Reviewers, I know when and what type of articles to draftify and i could even do a pop quiz for the NPR Perm admin to show that draftifying will never be an issue again for me and that I have a firm grasp on that issue. So do you think I should apply for probationary New Page Reviewer rights within a week and a half? Seeing all those unreviewed new pages that should be reviewed and accepted still sitting there unreviewed is hard. (I had a similar feeling before I was an AFC reviewer seeing some promising unreviewed AFC drafts that I wanted to accept but couldn't (since I wasn't a reviewer then) despite being in the AFC backlog for weeks/months. Or do you think I should wait longer to reapply?? And if so how can I tangibly prove that I no longer am bad at draftifying? My My draftify school log shows two things, the top section is the log of draftify moves other users made that I studied, and the bottom section are New pages that I encountered in new Page feeds that I mentally marked as 'draftify' and left for NPR or other users to draftify themselves. JC7V (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I want to take a longer look at your work. If I haven't commented in two days please ping me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@JC7V7DC5768: Where can I find pages you nominated for speedy, prod, or AfD? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

NPP ReviewEdit

I have reviewed your NPP School edits going back to November 20. Overall I largely agree with you - in fact in some cases I had independently marked the pages as reviewed. Without a sense of your deletion efforts I can't give an overall assessment but here are some thoughts I have on specific articles:

  • I have done no outside research beyond reading the article but Cleo von Adelsheim doesn't seem to be notable based on acting. I am very skepitical that her royalty claim is strong either but this is not a topic area I know that well so can say nothing about what would happen at AfD.
  • Kristen Tan - Is a single Foreign Language nomination for a film she directed enough for notability? There's a good chance the answer is yes per WP:ANYBIO but I would have gone a little further in my pruning of the article.
  • It seems like notability for Swindled might be based on list "reviews" (e.g. "10 must-listen true crime podcasts") - such lists are frequently not considered significant. I don't know enough about the DiscoverPod award to know if that nomination would lend it notability.
  • I can't see Samuel Balrey Issifu but am surprised that was A7'ed. He seems to meet WP:NFOOTY
  • I don't believe Anthony Duluc is notable. I redirected to the TV show he appears on as an AtD. If reverted I'll do a little more research but will likely go to AfD.
Barkeep49, Hi, thanks for looking over my NPP school page. Here is my User:JC7V7DC5768/CSD_log, User:JC7V7DC5768/PROD_log and my AFD log. Thanks.JC7V (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
So do you think I am ready to reapply for NPR?? I want to apply for probationary NPR. Please check my CSD, PROD, A, FD and AFC logs and let me know. Thanks. JC7V (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@JC7V7DC5768: Your stats look good. Looking over your last 20 AfCs as well as a few other random ones, I might quibble with your choice of tags but looks solid overall. 2019 Southeastern Conference football season shouldn't have been accepted yet and Item (TV series) is borderline for the same reason. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (soundtrack) doesn't seem to show notability in the draft but I agree it's notable looking overall. Tell me more about why you felt Draft:William Coates (technician) and Draft:Taj Pharmaceuticals weren't notable. I am curious about your explanation for those two but overall I think it's a borderline, though if I were an admin I would be likely to grant it BUT let me ask you - how long has it been since you last requested? Have you waited at least 90 days? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Hi i declined those 2 drafts because they were borderline and I felt a little more work on them could put them over the top. If i could have 'weak declined' them i would have (somewhere between commenting only and declining) But there is no option for that. As for the 2019 Southeastern Conference Season, if you look, Boleyn reviewed 2018 Southeastern Conference season in December 2017 without tagging or nominating it for deletion and it had only one reference then, and the 2017 Southeastern Conference Season draft was accepted by 2 AFC reviewers and that was in similar shape to the draft that I accepted.
I am requesting probationary NPR rights and I've seen other users request NPR after being declined before the 90 day period. Me being a probationary NPR is good as it gives me a chance to prove myself and that's all I ever wanted. I am not perfect, but I try my hardest when I make a mistake to not only not make them again but to make the best out of them. I hate how perm admins cherry pick drafts by AFC reviewers that are mistakes while ignoring the good drafts they accepted. Look at what they did to Dial911 and Legacypac. Those 2 are right about it all. AFCR and NPR are a triad and we rely on each other. AFC is not the article rescue squadron (i should know i was a member of the ARS). JC7V (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@JC7V7DC5768: I see you went ahead and applied - good luck! If you do get the PERM it would be good to be able to explain why, based in policy (and precedent like you did with the SEC), you make your borderline decisions. For instance I was hoping your response would say what weight did you give to Coates win of the Bragg Medal and its place with-in his field and would say something about how none of the Taj references covered the company in signficant detail. I agree AfC isn't ARS, it's why I was on the "Strickland was properly declined based on the evidence on offer" side of things, but NPP has a lot of call to find and weigh a range of policies; we have an obligation to go beyond the article in our reviewing. I regularly go back to NCORP and NSPORT, the two areas I patrol in the most, on a regular basis to consider borderline calls. Hope that advice makes sense. Anyhow good luck to you. I will be monitoring the response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49, The Taj draft was declined by me because those references didn't make me feel comfortable accepting it. It was borderline and I felt that adding a few better sources would have been a good move. Some of the sources were just details about the company, some of the sources were routine coverage and some were passing mentions. The issue with William Coates was it needed a few more sources. One of the sources was an obituary, and I didn't feel the other 2 sources were enough. I know the Bragg medal is notable but the draft needed a little more work sourcing wise etc. There was just 5 sources when I declined it. I said my decline was more of a soft decline. JC7V (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@JC7V7DC5768: Thanks for the explanation and again good luck! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Hi is my perm request at Requests for Permissions: New Page Reviewer good or should I change it?? I don't want to be declined for putting a bad request. Thanks. JC7V (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@JC7V7DC5768: Your request is written fine. I think the fact that you were turned down in the last 90 days works against you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Hi, when I was declined for my NPR request last month by TonyBallioni, he told me come back in 1 to 2 months (30 to 60 days) to reapply if I fixed the issues (which i pretty much did). JC7V (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@JC7V7DC5768: I see Swarm granted the PERM to you. Congrats! I hope you have a good time reviewing and if I can be of any help don't hesitate to ask. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Hi thank you for the support. If I need help I will ask. JC7V (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crown: An Ode to the Fresh CutEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maclean25 -- Maclean25 (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Thanks for reviewing Premila Kumar, Barkeep49.

Unfortunately Onel5969 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hi Barkeep... there was a large copyvio issue with this, so I'm going to remove the copyvio and re-review it, just so I could let you know about the issue.

To reply, leave a comment on Onel5969's talk page.

Onel5969 TT me 15:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Onel5969 and bigger thanks for catching it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries, the only reason I caught it was I reviewed another article by that editor, and like I usually do, I check on any other recent articles by that editor. After 10 straight articles with a copyvio issue, I noticed that Ymblanter had also caught another copyvio. So then I began checking every article they had recently created, and virtually all of them had a copyvio issue. I left a message on that editor's page. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Onel5969: I did forget to mention earlier that it has made me happy that you've come back to active reviewing. The encyclopedia is better for it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The backlog was beginning to tick up again. Now it looks like we might lose Boleyn. Dang. Onel5969 TT me 23:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The backlog has been consistently creeping up since the backlog drive ended - we've just reached the point where we've basically undone all the progress of the first half ot he year. Losing Boleyn is definitely a bummer in this kind of situation. NPP can truly be a no love lots of dislike sorta situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018Edit

Re: Draft:The Night DiaryEdit

Hello Barkeep49 I have added projects Literature, to your article. You may wish to join them, check their to-do, and meet new people with interest in these topics. ( To reply click "edit" next to this section, and add your reply at the end. ) Cheers, --Gryllida (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Thanks. I tend to put project tags on it when I move to mainspace. Curious how'd you find it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm reading Special:NewPagesFeed and tagging any articles with wikiproject tags - either sorting by newest first or oldest first - I think making the articles available to wikiproject from early stages can be a bit encouraging to the article authors Gryllida (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gryllida: I think collaborative editing could help in many places. I hope your efforts are successful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crown: An Ode to the Fresh CutEdit

The article Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maclean25 -- Maclean25 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sayaka MikiEdit

Hey, I don't understand... why did you revert my edits? The article had enough notability. NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@NotEnglishSpeaker: Another patroller has agreed with you and as I don't have enough expertise I will not be challenging it but in general I did not see the kind of reliable sources that would indicate notability for a character and not just the anime they were in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll try my best to expand the article! Thank you very much! NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@NotEnglishSpeaker: Good luck and happy editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Bambi from the chatroomEdit

Hi Barkeep49, if you remember, some time back I had asked you about citations in the chat room under the name 'Bambi'. You had told me to ping you once my draft was ready. So here it is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kalynn_Campbell - with all the neutral references that I could find. The page was already in draft when I got into AfC to put up my version, and I found this draft to be lot more detailed as compared to mine. However, the referencing was not proper and it lacked formatting. So I incorporated my info in this and worked on both aspects. Going ahead, I would like an expert opinion on what to do next to get it approved and published as a page. Also wanted to ask if the same reference can be used multiple times in the content body. For example, 2 references I have used twice in the body of the content and going by the original draft, they have info pertaining to much of the content. These are showing up twice in the ref list - is this correct, and can I use them more than twice? Awaiting your feedback, thanks, Vinvibes (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: You can absolutely reuse a reference. Here is some description of how to do that. As to the page itself, it doesn't appear that Campbell meets any of our subject notability guidelines, but might meet the general notability guidelines. Which are your two or three best sources? Best in this case is a source which is reliable and which describes him in significant detail, not just a sentence or two. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Barkeep49:, thanks for taking an interest. There are about 4 references which cover almost the entire article. At present they have been mentioned only once, but thanks to your guidance now I will mention them all through. These validate almost all the info in the content. Overall whatever sources I have used are independent and 3rd party, I personally ensured that by checking them out, and the CD list comprises of names that have wiki pages with the illustrator's name mentioned in all of them. What I can do is ping you again after I have replicated the sources all through. And let it come under general - do I need to do anything to change the category to general? Many thanks, regards, Vinvibes (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vinvibes: No. You can press the blue button that says "submit for review." It will that be eligible for review - the reviewers are volunteers who review drafts in no particular order so it can take several weeks for a review. Given that so many of your sources are off-line it's difficult for me to make a prediction about whether it will be accepted or not, but you have clearly worked hard to follow Wikipedia guidelines about how to write a page - congrats on that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Barkeep49:, many thanks, for me this is serving as a worthy learning experience. So now I have replicated the references as per the guidelines. Can you please check and provide feedback as to its latest presentation? Thanks for taking an interest, Vinvibes (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vinvibes: Looks good. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Barkeep49:, many thanks for your valuable inputs, am truly grateful, Vinvibes (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  The Guidance Barnstar
message Thank you Barkeep49 for your help and guidance, am truly grateful - Vinvibes 19:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vinvibes: Thanks! If I can help answer any further questions please don't hesitate to reach out. Also just confirming that you know that the draft hasn't yet been submitted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Barkeep49:, no, not yet. I need to add external links, then will probably submit by tonight or tomorrow morning my time. Will let you know once I have submitted. Thanks again for all the guidance, regards, Vinvibes (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wish ListEdit

Just for your information , using the lead I was given. I would hesitate however, before bombarding them with support messages at this time until they have replied. I might have to try other avenues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Kudpung. There's a reason our wishlist was longer than ideal and it's a similar reason as to why it got so much support. NPP shouldn't have been neglected as long as it was. But here we are, and I have been and remain hopeful about what will come out of this process. I think the WMF is staffed by good people and have high (but realistic) hopes of the collaboration to come. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Barkeep49".