User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/2

Active discussions

Contents

Request to review Shadow

Hi Barkeep49,

Would you be able to accept the request to review the page for the Netflix television series, Shadow? If you can let me know, if that's fine with you, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Elainasla (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla I have gone ahead and marked that one as reviewed. Out of curiosity can you tell me more about your connection with Netflix? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Netflix. But I do love their shows. Well, most of them, anyways. I hope that answers your question. Elainasla (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla Yeah I had noticed that you seem to edit exclusively about Netflix going back to 2016 which is a longtime on just one topic :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Hello Barkeep, I've responded to your comments about the closing decision on the RfC here. Can you please respond so if needed I request a closure review? RevertBob (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

RevertBob Sorry about that. I know I typed up a reply, perhaps it was a reply link fail? I'll write again and make sure it saves this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Rough Patch (book)

The article The Rough Patch (book) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Rough Patch (book) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Rough Patch (book)

The article The Rough Patch (book) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:The Rough Patch (book) 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hello Lighthouse

The article Hello Lighthouse you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hello Lighthouse for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hello Lighthouse

The article Hello Lighthouse you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Hello Lighthouse 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Legobot (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent RfC closure

Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2#Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

I appreciate your time in taking this one on. It was a lot to sift through for sure. Just curious if you can clarify the strong consensus you detected in your analysis. For the article lead and body, I agree that across the board a large majority supported it. However, for the infobox area, which was treated somewhat separately in many of the responses and discussion, consensus was more divided (15 vs 10). While it was still a consensus in favor of The Wachowskis, that portion wasn't exactly what I'd deem "strong". Also, I'm pretty sure WanderingWanda and others that supported option A wanted this RfC to extend beyond just The Matrix film article. As mentioned in the discussion, it was advertised to the other Wachowski film article talk pages. Not sure if you want to address that in the closing remarks as well.

Again, I appreciate your time and thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 Thanks for your questions. I'm going to respond at the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Barkeep49! I'd just like to say, regarding the closure: thank you for reading through all the comments so carefully and investing so much time in it. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks Bilorv. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Barkeep49/Archives,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.


Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Florida Shuffle

  Hello! Your submission of Florida Shuffle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WAFL

You recently edited the page WAFL. It's the oldest unreviewed page (2011) in the New Pages Feed, and you're a new page reviewer. Can you just review the page so we can be done with it? Sbalfour (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sbalfour I reviewed it less than a minute after my edit :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Tnx. I'm not a New Page Reviewer (yet), so had to recruit someone. Sbalfour (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

IFE copyvio

It was a WP:COPYWITHIN violation by not attributing the source page. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

ViperSnake151 I figured it was from with-in Wikipedia. I'm saying I couldn't find the original source page when I tried using the Wikipedia search with a few phrases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My first article

Hi, quick question on the Page Curation tool. I just created my first article from scratch, Duke of Gordon's Monument, and I noticed it hasn't appeared in the New Pages feed. (Don't worry, I wasn't going to review it myself - I just thought I'd see if it was there, and if Page Curation picked up any problems with it.) Is that a feature of Page Curation does it filter out your own work? I don't think I'm auto-patrolled. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit Hmm. It's in the queue for me and it's showing the curation toolbar when I go to the page. Could it be because you have some other filter turned on in the queue? I don't know that much about this because I was autopatrolled before I started doing new page review and so I've never looked in the queue for my own articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Also I just patrolled it and have one comment on what is an overall excellent first article. Since it's a stub this is OK, but ideally your first sentence would not require a citation. If you ever expand the article you could include a little more detail about that naming and remove the in-line cite. Once you get to a higher class of article and have a true lead section, outside of quotes or particularly controversial material, you don't need to cite the LEAD at all because it will simply be summarizing cited material located elsewhere in the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I confess I was sort of hoping you might patrol it, didn't want to ask you outright... I think I've got the default settings for the filters on Page Curation; next time I create an article I'll have a play and see whether I can get it to show up. Not that it matters, I wouldn't be looking to patrol them myself, just wondered really.
I take the point about refs in the lead - if I can find some more sources to allow me to expand this, I'll do as you suggest. Thanks again GirthSummit (blether) 16:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing that second article. FYI, I had a play with the page curation settings this time, but I couldn't make it show up in my 'New Pages' feed - I'm working on the assumption that it automatically filters out your own articles. I'm getting a taste for this article creation thing - looking at List of Category A listed buildings in Moray when researching an article I was reviewing, I was surprised at how many of them didn't have articles. There are good sources available online, and I've ordered a book on the architectural history of the region, so I'm planning to work my way through them. Some of them might never be more than stubs, but that's better than nothing right? GirthSummit (blether) 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Article creation is really fun. I don't know if you've checked out any of my GAs but the bar can be much lower than people think. For instance Wolf in the Snow. My guess is that a good reference source or two combined with some looking through periodicals could go a long way with these. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll take a look through some of yours. GirthSummit (blether) 17:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi again - I see you reviewed my latest article. There was a lot more to say about that one, so I worked it up with a proper lead and sections. If you have the time/inclination, I'd be interested to read any suggestion you might have about working it into a good article. GirthSummit (blether) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit Yeah I saw there was a lot more info there and it did indeed strike me as closer to GA. While I feel competent to patrol that kind of article for NPP, I don't feel competent to review it at GA so I'm the wrong person to ask - sorry. Just as a note I will not be patrolling your next few articles so that a case can be made down the road to get you autopatrolled and it doesn't just seem like I'm playing favorites. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough - totally understand on both points, it would probably look better for someone else to patrol some of my articles. I'll do some digging around and see who I can find who edits in this sort of area and see if they'd be willing to give me some pointers on trying to get it to GA - thanks again for everything you've done. GirthSummit (blether) 17:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

FR30799386's User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Lagoon catamaran

I simply cannot fathom why you should revert a perfectly good, succinct and notable article to a redirect to Beneteau#lagoon when there is no such address. Lagoon is owned by Beneteau, but the only reference to Lagoon on that page is a sentence that I posted earlier today!! If you look at list of multihulls you will see that there are a dozen or so links (now blue, previously red) that are directed to Lagoon. Why sabotage this work? Please let me know if you have a coherent reason, as I propose to reinstate the article otherwise. Arrivisto (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am replying to identical message at User talk:Bradv. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community portal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community portal. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2 short version

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2

Hi! The full version of this newsletter issue has a lot of information. I am sending a short version to talk pages.

The most important information to know is that draft 2 is finished, that the single long script has been divided into many smaller scripts, and that portions of the script have been prioritized for production.

Due to budget constraints, not all scripts can be produced within the scope of the current pilot grant, but the other scripts will remain available for potential future production. (This project feels somewhat like doing a vehicle repair when the mechanic starts to work on the engine, and once the mechanic gets under the engine and starts to work, they discover that accomplishing their objective requires twice as much time as they first had estimated.) However, nothing is lost, so do not fear. Overall, my assessment (me being User:Pine) is that this project is producing a lot of good output and is generally a valuable pilot project.

For more information, including my requests for your feedback, please see the full version of the newsletter.

Thanks very much. --Pine(✉) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Finding Winnie

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Finding Winnie 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 Guettarda -- Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of This is Not My Hat

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article This is Not My Hat 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 Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Children's Literature Newsletter March 2019

Children's Literature March 2019

More good work has been underway since our last newsletter. Thanks to all the project members for what you to do to support Children's literature on Wikipedia.

Newly Recognized Content

 Finding Winnie Review by Guettarda
 Hello Lighthouse Review by Nova Crystallis
 Jew in the Thorns by Shrike and Nishidani
 The Rough Patch Review by Nova Crystallis

  Stellaluna by Enwebb
  Ursula K. Le Guin by Vanamonde Review by Chiswick Chap
  X: A Fabulous Child's Story by Bobamnertiopsis

Article Assessment

With the completion of our project banner project, we have a large backlog of unassessed articles. Doing article rating is a great way to find interesting articles with-in our project's scope and to also find articles that were incorrectly tagged. This project will hopefully let us better monitor and aid in the development the many articles that this project supports. Thanks to Legoktm for all his work in making this happen.

Google Custom Search Engine

Looking for information on a book? Try out the new Children's literature custom search engine. This custom google search engine will look at designated sites for information. Included so far are Kirkus Reviews, School Library Journal, Horn Book, and Publisher's Weekly. If you have ideas for other sites which should be added start a discussion on our project talk page.

You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of the Children's Literature WikiProject or have chosen to subscribe to the newsletter. If you would like to sign-up for just the newsletters or want to be an active member but not get the newsletters you can do that here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #6

18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Noam Responding to Your Comment

Hey -- Hope I am right to respond here. I did read that discussion at the Administrative Noticeboard, all very interesting. I left a comment at Caryn Marooney (talk) because I thought the challenge was best put there. Did I miss a direct engagement of Assume Good Faith at the noticeboard? Any particular passage you'd highlight for me? Any assistance would be much appreciated. Chomsky1 (talk) Cheers chomsky1 15:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Chomsky1 You are of course welcome to respond here. You're correct that no one has directly discussed how Paid Editing and assume good faith (AGF) tie into each other in this current discussion. When there is consensus that there has been undeclared paid editing (UPE) we don't need to AGF - see WP:PACT. When there is suspected but unconfirmed paid editing AGF would definitely apply - let's think about/investigate (which is tricky in its own ways because of WP:OUTING) the possible issue but not jump to action.
Your question is interesting because it's about how AGF applies in cases of declared paid editing - that is editors who are complying with the terms of use and general community norms/expectations. Speaking only for myself on that question, I think AGF remains an incredibly important behavior in these situations. These editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia. They have a conflict of interest (COI) which might interfere with their ability to write neutral content in the same way any other COI editor will but that does not mean that their ideas and point of view lack merit (and obviously sometimes their connection can mean they have greater knowledge about the topic). I think it important to discuss their content and find ways to work together to improve encyclopedic content. An example where I did that is Coffee Island - it seemed clear that the editor had a conflict, which I confirmed by asking and then worked with that editor to help improve coverage. In that case even though they edited directly rather than attempting to request edits, I assumed GF and continued to talk and work together and improve the sourcing and tone of the article. Hope that helps. I am happy to discuss further if you wish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Florida Shuffle

  Hello! Your submission of Florida Shuffle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2019: Tangled: The SeriesRapunzel's Tangled Adventure

We have a consensus: Talk:Tangled: The Series#Requested move 28 March 2019. Hope to hear back from you shortly. MacCready (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Children of Blood and Bone

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Children of Blood and Bone 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 Fearstreetsaga -- Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Finding Winnie

The article Finding Winnie you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Finding Winnie 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 Guettarda -- Guettarda (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Lion & the Mouse

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Lion & the Mouse 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 Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere You looked at the wrong place. Look one topic up :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah man I was confused because he had sent me a very similar message on my talk page. Sorry. I'll leave the NPP school stuff you for the moment as I am still taking a bit of a wiki-break. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere Sure thing. I hope you're well and that Wikipedia will again benefit from your efforts soon :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

New Page patrol

Hi greetings, I would like to become a New Page Reviewer in Wikipedia. I would like to become a trainee of yours for learning the aspects of NPP as a part of WP:NPP/S. I shall be highly honoured if you can accept my request. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 08:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu Hi there. Can you tell me what you've learned/been up to in this area since you did some Articles with Insertcleverphrasehere in October? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi greetings, ICPH conducted a test for me and gave a list of articles to state my opinion whether the articles to be deleted or not. After this, he said me that approach him after some months. But I think he is in a wiki-break now. Then I participated in several AfD discussions. Then I learned much about notability, verifiability, reliability, etc. But still I need to learn more about them comprehensively. Kindly please help me. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 09:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Ok. I have setup a space for us to work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much--PATH SLOPU 16:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi greetings, what should I do first?--PATH SLOPU 16:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu I have left instructions here about what to do first. For convenience I have bolded it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from Path slopu

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Path slopu.
Message added 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please verify my findings. PATH SLOPU 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu I will take a look sometime today. In general I have the page watchlisted and so we can just communicate there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Florida shuffle

 On 9 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Florida shuffle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that drug users doing the Florida shuffle move between multiple rehab centers so that each center may bill the user's insurance company as much as $40,000? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Florida shuffle), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal on renaming Disclosed Paid Editing?

Hi,

I noticed you expressed an interest in this. I'd be willing to help out or at least give my perspective. I've never been involved in proposing policy changes, and I obviously have a COI, though I think that makes my perspective useful. This Wired article just makes things that much worse: https://www.wired.com/story/want-to-know-how-to-build-a-better-democracy-ask-wikipedia/

Now Wired is reporting that Wikipedians will get you back if you follow disclosure policy by including your disclosure in the article about the subject. If Wikipedia still wants organizations and individuals to disclose, it really needs a "rebranding" of "paid editing" for those who never actually edit articles - I think the idea that article subjects or their reps are using the official "Contact Us" mechanism is what needs to be conveyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects

This failure to characterize disclosing editors as article subject reps asking for a correction of some sort, like an ordinary Contact Us for any publisher, really could kill disclosure. Everything could go back to UPE. BTW, I'm confident my major clients would be thrilled if disclosed requests were all handled by emails, or even a ticketed queue for Contact Us off of Talk. The type of clients I work with have an entirely different perspective than Wikipedia spammers.

Cheers BC1278 (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 I have two policy changes I am willing to shepard right now - attempting to prevent non-administrator closures at AfD and trying to rid Wikipedia of the scourge of manipulated social media numbers. That is a full policy plate for an editor of my stature. So while I would be happy to support a change in terminology I am not the right partner to try and get the community on board to make the change happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I understand. Where would you recommend I post a request to see if anyone of some stature might have interest? Village Pump? AN? BC1278 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
BC1278 I would sugest WP:VPI as a good starting point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Emergency Council (Dutch Party)

I took a look at this with a view to reviewing it. It's entirely unsourced, is OK from a COPYVIO point of view, so the flowchart tells me to tag it and move on. However, it obviously discusses several named persons (whom I assume may be still living), and seems to ascribe some views and motives to them - given that it's entirely unsourced, that makes me rather uncomfortable. What would you do with a page like this? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 22:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit I haven't investigated sourcing/notability but reading the article I think your BLP related concerns are well founded in an unsourced article. I would proceed in one of two ways: leave it unreviewed and post a message on the creator's talkpage explaining what you issues you see or draftify it, with a customized message explaining the issues you see. This editor has never created a mainspace article before (I see one draft article in their contribs) so I'm guessing it's out of ignorance more than ill will. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I think I'll go with draftify - I'm concerned that there are political views, ascribed to individuals who may be living, expressed in Wikipedia's voice. I'll leave a note on the editor's talk page explaining what I've done. Thanks again GirthSummit (blether) 23:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit My pleasure. I do think that this is a draftify appropriate time. When appropriate I try to merge a more personal message with the default one offered by Evad's script rather than leaving two messages but of course there's nothing intrinsically wrong with leaving two messages :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
That's fair comment - there are so many useful links in the automatic message that I decided to go with it and add another, but looking at them together I agree that a single, more personalised message would have been more approachable for a new editor. I'll keep an eye on their talk page and try to make up for it if they respond! GirthSummit (blether) 00:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Under review?

Hi. I've noticed that you tend to mark a bunch of drafts as under review, and then often don't actually review them. Right now, I see about a half dozen drafts in this state for over an hour. Could I suggest that you not do that; it doesn't seem to be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith Your count of 6 is indeed the right number. I am using these drafts as a teaching tool for NPP training. Let me know if you'd like me to explain my thinking behind this more or if that clarifies the matter for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. That link is broken, but I assume you meant Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School. I'd never heard of that before, but it seems like a good thing. Carry on! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
RoySmith Sorry about the bad link here is a working version but you're correct that WP:NPP/S describes it in the abstract. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that's totally awesome, and an excellent thing to be doing. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

  The Instructor's Barnstar
This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors.
For the work linked above in the above section and for caring enough to patiently train new patrollers. Natureium (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of This is Not My Hat

The article This is Not My Hat you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:This is Not My Hat 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 Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Just saw this - that's one of my favourite books. I know it's aimed at younger kids, but I've read it to 11 year olds (and 42 year olds) who were in rolling on the floor with laughter. Happy days... GirthSummit (blether) 00:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit It would make a great book to use as part of a mini-lesson and I agree that its charms work for a wide variety of ages. If you enjoy the book, and it seems like you do, I highly encourage you to read his acceptance speech. It's utterly charming and delightful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I will read that, thank you. I'm sure you already know it, but just in case - The Story of the Little Mole Who Knew It Was None of His Business is another firm class favorite - also involving hats!  GirthSummit (blether) 00:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Sick Day for Amos McGee

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Sick Day for Amos McGee 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 Valereee -- Valereee (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steven Beitashour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steven Beitashour. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Children of Blood and Bone

The article Children of Blood and Bone you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Children of Blood and Bone 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 Fearstreetsaga -- Fearstreetsaga (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Lion & the Mouse

The article The Lion & the Mouse you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:The Lion & the Mouse 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 Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

 
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.valereee (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 Reminder

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 2 of this year's WikiCup! There are only a few days until the second round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 05:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Quick question on translations

Hi, I've got a quick question if you've got a minute? I declined this draft: Draft:Spanish Royal Physics Society (RSEF) on the grounds that none of it was referenced - if had a couple of external links, but no inline citations. The author has asked if I can review the decision, because it's a direct translation from Spanish Wikipedia. How would you treat a case like this - are the external links enough to accept the article, and just tag is for the style of citations / needing more sources? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit Ok. Well. There's a lot going on here. So the fact that it's in ES-Wiki is irrelevant to us in terms of notability and given that it's been properly attributed as a translation is all good on that front. Each Wikipedia has its own notability standards and so what's OK on one won't be OK on another. In this case a royal scientific academy is pretty much a slam dunk for notability. But then you have a very lengthy article, no citatinos, and with two external links to connected sources. And as a bonus the person who did the translation has a COI so they really do need to go through AfC. I see a few options here: 1. Accept the draft and tag it and be ready for criticism of this action - strictly on a procedural level this is "more likely than not going to be kept at AfD" 2. Stubify the article, accept and tag, and be ready for some criticism but that which is likely to be milder than option 1 3. Explain why despite being the exact translation of the article on ES it's not OK here. When I read the message without having looked at the article I thought I'd personally choose 1, but having examined it I'm at 3 - if I found this in NPP the combination of notability, clear COI, and completely being unverified would lead me to DRAFTIFY it. If you choose this option (and I"m not saying you should if you prefer 1 or 2) I'd explain the difference, how only information that comes from reliable sources - which can't be the society itself for anything other than basic information - shouldbe included, and point him to WP:REFB . Since I watch your talk page I'll be curious to see how it plays out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this considered response - I tend to agree with you on option 3. I don't want to hack away all their work to stubify it, that would seem aggressive, but I also don't think it should pass as it is without any independent sources of any kind. I'll get back to the author with the suggestion they try to find some independent sources to support it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Sick Day for Amos McGee

The article A Sick Day for Amos McGee you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:A Sick Day for Amos McGee 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 Valereee -- Valereee (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA! --valereee (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Valereee Thanks and a big thank you for your time and help in this process. It's much appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #7

16:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

Please comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Newsletter question for you

Hello Barkeep49! With support of the Tree of Life community, I have decided to start up a newsletter for that WikiProject. I have a question for you relating to your similar experience with WP:Children's literature. How does subscribing work? Since TOL is so huge and encompasses very many sub-projects, I think the proposed newsletter should be something where everyone opts in rather than basing off a participant list. I presume there's a bot that delivers to talk pages? It's something I'm hoping to figure out in the next month or so, so your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Enwebb it's great to have more project newsletters. Personally I would suggest doing a roll call first - you could have a mass message sent to every current participant asking them to confirm their interest. After that you could assume participants wish to get the newsletter unless they opt-out. This is what I do for Children's literature. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, so say I have a list of people who decide they want the newsletter. How do I get the newsletter to them? I assume you don't manually post it to their talk pages, right? There's a bot? That's what I don't really understand. Enwebb (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Enwebb Oh gotcha. Wikipedia:Mass message senders has the details. The requests page should have some examples you can work from. If you'd like to check anything let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so I could also use that to do as you suggest and mass message participants asking if they would like to opt in, perfect. What frequency are you doing for children's literature, just curious? Enwebb (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Enwebb my original intent was monthly but in reality it's more like every 6 weeks. Really depends on how often you have enough content worth sending though I wouldn't go more than once a month. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, not to bother you too much, but can you tell me more about the navigation template you're using at the top & bottom of your newsletter? Seems like another good thing to replicate. Enwebb (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Enwebb sorry don't know too much about it. That was there from whoever did the newsletter setup originally but all it looks like it's dong is going up one level in order to find the next issue. You can find the code here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks! That was really what I was looking for :) Enwebb (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-German sentiment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-German sentiment. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Do not modify discussions like this

This kind of action and incorrect claim about the comment being off-topic is highly inappropriate. If you have issues, please discuss them with me. jps (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

ජපස I did not modify the discussion, I collapsed it, making the content of course still available with a click, as it seemed to be an extended comment not about the article but the topic more generally. It especially felt this way as !votes had been continuing above your thread but not below it. I respect that you feel differently and will in no way attempt to put it back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It would have been nice if you had discussed this with me beforehand, but I accept that you are not pressing the issue. jps (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
ජපස, to be clear I have no issue with you or that you posted what you did. I was attempting to make a positive clerking decision about a sprawling discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Understood. I think that this discussion needs to be a bit more expanded given the surrounding disputes and lack of context, and I had spent considerable time in coming up with these points. I felt singled out since there were other comments made further up that were not collapsed. But it's good we got to talk it out. Cheers, jps (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Training

Hello! I have more than 700 edits now, and I am interested in eventually being a Patroller. May I ask what this training includes exactly? NetrualEditor (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

NetrualEditor Hi there and thanks for your inquiry. The way I do it is to use real maintenance work to go through the various areas of the syllabus which you can find at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School. At the moment I have 1 student but the backlog is also growing substantially so I am trying to devote more time to doing patrolling myself rather than teaching about it. While the minimum requirements are currently 90 days and 500 edits, in practice the real requirements prove higher. I see you've done a lot of article work already - that's great. If you're interested in doing NPP - and we could use more patrollers - I would start by reading and participating in some Articles for Deletion discussions. Look into the nominees and see if they seem notable or not and are using RS or not. Some experience with that could help you join WP:AfC which is the logical stepping stone towards NPP. While I don't have time right now to do a full NPP School, please know that I would be happy to answer any questions you might have as you go about your work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49 Thanks for the information (and fast response)! I will go reread the articles you mentioned and do what you suggested, thank you! NetrualEditor (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
NetrualEditor, my pleasure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Unrelated question, but how are articles upgraded (eg. start to C, C to B)? Also, is it acceptable to turn in an inactive draft that is not being improved on behalf of the draft creator? Thanks again, NetrualEditor (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
NetrualEditor Any editor can use Wikipedia:Content assessment to assess from stub through B. GA and above have special review methods. Is there a specific inactive draft you're thinking about? In general if you think an abandoned draft is notable you're better off improving it and moving it to mainspace yourself rather than submitting it to AfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, it’s not as inactive as I thought, turns out it’s waiting for review. (It wasn’t improved at all though, last time it was rejected for lack of citations, but no one added any, so not sure why they submitted it) NetrualEditor (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
NetrualEditor, Ahh OK. Here's a tip: when replying to a comment make sure to add one more : than the person you're replying to. This threads the conversation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maddux (statistic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Price (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't know that the text was copying from Wikipedia I thought it was the other way around based on the copyvio reports. We were reviewing the article at the same time which is why I went ahead and posted the template. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Alucard 16 No worries. I tend to use archive.org to help compare histories. Obviously they should have credited us when they moved content but we know that doesn't happen a lot of the time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Java EE version history

My apologies for my missteps around preventing the deletion of this article; I don't have much experience in maintaining Wikipedia content. I do however have a fair amount of experience in Java EE development, and obviously chronicling the history of the Java EE specification is important to me personally. I suspect you don't have experience in this field due to your impression that Java EE is a piece of software, or a collection of software (available to purchase or download for instance). The evolution of this specification and the actions of the JCP committee members has changed, and will continue to change the course of a multi-billion-dollar industry. The individual technologies included in each evolution is important. Each version could have its own page like C++ Standardization (table), but I think it's best to have this history chronicled in a single article. There is an elegance to this as it follows the approach to its non-enterprise counterpart, Java SE.

Hi there IP. You're certainly correct I was imprecise in my wording around this. No worries about being new to Wikipedia and I respect your thinking on this topic. Wikipedia has chosen to draw its standard (which is referred to as notability around what can be included a little narrower than what you're suggesting. Having been around when this was not the case, I certainly can understand why you'd hope otherwise. It is, of course, possible that in the course of the discussion other editors will agree with you and the article will be kept. One piece of advice: when leaving a comment in a discussion it's normal to "sign" it by ending the comment with ~~~~. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC

Hi, I'm not contesting your prod of dollys as its more or less an advert from a UPE but regional notability is acceptable for bands and musicians as well as corporations etc. For example WP:NMUSIC criteria 7, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic306 Yeah I considered that but I didn't see that kind of coverage from the sources to support such a claim. That is why I said at most a regionally known band which is a far ways off from being notable for representing music of a city or region. I can't find it now but came across such an article in the last couple of days but I wasn't able to find enough sourcing to support the claim and so I left it for another reviewer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Barkeep49. I'm just posting to let you know that Newbery Medal – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 3. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Italian supercentenarians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Italian supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi - quick question, sorry if this is documented somewhere. I was looking at Kick It(Blackpink song) - it's not mega-notable, but it charted in a few countries so probably viable, and the sources appear to check out - however, it should be called Kick It (Blackpink song), which is currently a redirect. I'm guessing that either the redirect page needs to be deleted, or they need to be merged, but I'm not sure how to request that. Any pointers? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I did a bit of looking around for myself, and requested a move at WP:RM/TR - let me know if that was wrong, otherwise I should be good. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit Always good to hear from you. So in this case you need to do a round robin switch. In order to do this you need the page mover user PERM which I happen to have and so I've gone ahead and done the move. It's surprisingly useful for NPP - until you have a bigger track record for that and can get the PERM yourself, feel free to stop on by to request any such moves you need. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Perfect - thanks! I'll read up on the page mover PERM. GirthSummit (blether) 16:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Why Did your Move from Song to Band?

Hello. I just wondering that Why would you move from Free Man (Point Blank Song) Article to Point Blank (band). Seriously, I'm the owner of this song article & you moved it. I am not mad at you. This is the issue I think. If you moved it, Please reminded me. Okay?

Cheers.—TowerPizza (Report that Issue) 9:34 PM May 11, 2019 (MDT)

@TowerPizza: Hi there. I came across the article while doing new page patrol. On wikipedia no one owns an article but as the person who created it I understand how you have a special attachment and are confused. In examining the article I did not see how the song met our notability standard for songs. For instance did the song chart? Lacking this indication I meant to redirect the article to the album but you're right that I incorrectly did it to the band. I have now fixed this. If you want to go back to the article you can - when you go there you'll be taken to the album but there will be a little link which says where you were redirected from. This will let you go back to the article where you could further improve it to demonstrate notability. Does that answer your question? If not I'm happy to explain more or answer any further questions you might have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

New message from Path slopu

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Path slopu.
Message added 09:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my answer. PATH SLOPU 09:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Big Cat, Little Cat

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Big Cat, Little Cat 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Rodney Robinson at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

When to incubate articles at NPP

Hi Barkeep49. I'm new to monitoring the new pages feed and was wondering if you could offer me some guidance. I noticed that patrollers will sometimes move undersourced articles to draftspace, as you did with Winterfest (event). How do you decide when to incubate an article instead of nominating it for deletion? In the case of the Winterfest article, I'm not seeing any potential for it to be expanded with independent sources, so I'm not sure that incubating was the right call. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke, welcome to monitoring new pages and thanks for the question. Draftifying makes up a rather small percentage of my overall patrols (I think 3 or so percent and even this is heavily weighted by early on in my patrolling time) and this is how I think it should be. When I draftify, it will frequently be a notable topic when it has little or no sourcing present and thus is perhaps not ready for mainspace. In this case I gave serious thought to nominating the article for deletion. However, I found articles for several theme park events, including the related Six Flags Fright Fest and so I decided that there was a reasonable degree of the article being kept at AfD. However essentially lacking in any true sourcing other than external links to the park pages about the event (which present EL problems given their number and promotional nature) also suggested the article was not ready for mainspace. I think DRAFTIFY is an easy to abuse tool in the new page patroller's toolbox and so I work hard to use it thoughtfully and carefully. Does this explanation make sense to you in the case of Winterfest? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019

Welcome to a special newsletter from the Growth team! This special newsletter is not about Wikimedia Foundation Growth team projects. Instead, it is a call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019. We think that many people who receive this newsletter may have something valuable to contribute to this space at Wikimania. We haven't translated the newsletter, because Wikimania's language is English.

Please see below for the message from the organizers of the Community Growth space at Wikimania.

---

Wikimania 2019 is organized into 19 “spaces”, which are all accepting proposals for sessions. This message comes from the team organizing the Community Growth space.

Since you are interested b Growth team projects, and potentially involved in welcoming newcomers initiatives on your wiki, we would like to invite you to submit a proposal to the Community Growth space because of the actions you’ve done around newcomers on wikis. The deadline for submission is June 1. See below for Community Growth submission topics and session formats. Topics and sessions have to be in English.

In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions, presentations, and workshops that address these questions:

  • What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
  • How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and flourish?
  • How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to come online, participate and become community members?

Recommended topics: please see this link for the list for the list of recommended topics. If you do not plan to submit a proposal, you can also suggest additional topics here. If your topic does not fit into our space, remember that there are 18 other spaces that could welcome you sharing your knowledge and perspective.

Types of session. We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive, promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are heard less often. Please see this link for the list of recommended session formats.

Poster submissions. Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one!

More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission formats is available on the proposal page.

Please submit your proposal. The reviews will happen at the beginning of June.

If you have questions about Wikimania in general, please ask them on the Wikimania wiki.

On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team, Trizek (WMF), 11:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Barkeep49/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please consider...

With regard to your comment at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_10... You said you couldn't review the article?

Many deleted articles are captured, shortly before their deletion was finalized, at the deletionpedia. The version of the Olympia Nelson article, at http://deletionpedia.org/en/Olympia_Nelson is not the very final version - where the section on her second big event, the 2013 op-ed, was expanded. Her op-ed was widely republished. An Australian public affairs show devoted an entire episode to her. Scholars cite her.

I think this second event, and the many interviews it triggered, and the episode devoted to her on national TV, means the original claims of BLP1E were complete nonsense.

You wrote "...especially about someone who would have been a child in what was being written about..." Ms Nelson made a huge effort to defend her late mother's artistic choices. She said this was her all-time favourite photo of herself. I suggest the fact that Ms Nelson defended the photo in multiple RS means wikipedia coverage will not offend her.

Rather, if we are protecting her, against her will, surely that is highly offensive?

Doesn't the assumption that Ms Nelson needs protection imply the wikipedia has decided that, in spite of her vocal defense of the image, she is some kind of victim? If I were in her position I would resent the heck out of this unwelcome protection. Geo Swan (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan, it looks like the DRV has now been closed so I'm not sure I can do anything to consider the issue further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright vio on Decentralization in Rwanda - put on list?

I was going through new page review and came across Decentralization in Rwanda which had a copyvio banner put on it by you. Going over to WP: Copyright Problems, I could not find it...is it possible you didn't put it over there? Just following up =) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nerd1a4i You are correct I did not put it on the list. In fact if you could educate me on the correct next steps I would be appreciative because in general I try not to leave cleanup for others but in this case it was complex enough that I have done so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I added it to the list. Basically, the template that shows up on the blanked page tells you what to do - add {{tlx|subst:Nothanks-web|pg=Decentralization in Rwanda|url=http://www.clgf.org.uk/default/assets/File/Country_profiles/Rwanda.pdf http://minaloc.gov.rw/index.php?id=450}} ~~~~ to the adder of the copyrighted material's talk page (in this case Lou rogers), and add * {{tlx|subst:article-cv|:Decentralization in Rwanda}} from http://www.clgf.org.uk/default/assets/File/Country_profiles/Rwanda.pdf http://minaloc.gov.rw/index.php?id=450. ~~~~ to the bottom of the copyright vio list for the current day (in this case [1]). Hopefully that explains everything; feel free to ping with more questions! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Nathaniel Bartlett, Barkeep49.

Elmidae has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

It's a complete copyvio, I'm afraid :/ Draftifying again...

Please contact Elmidae for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Elmidae thanks. I forgot to click to run the COPYVIO. What a silly mistake. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually this is to Bkissin's ledger - I thought copyvio check was one of the first things they did at AfC? Apparently not :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae, is there a reason you're not G12'ing? Seem unambiguous. My only pause is I did spot check two of the sources and it's legit info so I'm wondering if it's the same person. But if it is it would still need to be properly licensed so COPYVIO would still pertain. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Weelll... the author had some really nice interactions with Martin of Sheffield [2] re referencing and seems genuinely intent on making this a good article; also I DID notify them about the copyright problems while it was still in draft [3], and I like to think that they might have addressed this issue if it hadn't been swooped into mainspace at short notice. So I'd like to give them that chance again. We don't have to nuke copyvios in draft at this speed, isn't that right? (not indexed etc...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae As I read WP:COPYVIO given that virtually the entire article is copied, no, but I suppose I'm ok with a form of IAR. However, maybe {{subst:cclean|url=insert URL or description of source here (optional)}} should be applied? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Glad you agree. Yes, will attach the template. Also good catch re them possibly being the original author; I'll drop another note about that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae I'm glad you posted this to Earwig. Most puzzling indeed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae The copyright has been sorted and the article is now back in mainspace. I'm glad to see it has had a happy ending. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. I wasn't aware that the author had proceeded to deal with OTRS; happy to se they did. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Need your quick attention on an article

Hi there I need one help, I have edited a page named Wakil Kumar Yadav, but someone has kept it underAfD category. Plz visit the page and and see sources,as I have cited with three sources and then remove the AfD template. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakil_Kumar_Yadav Wakuxyz (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wakuxyz. I can understand how that template would be upsetting for you. No one on Wikipedia is allowed to remove that template right now. Articles for Deletion is a discussion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. You can say why you think the article should be kept. You might want to read this list. That list says some reasons why an author is notable (the word we use to describe what can and can't have a Wikipedia Article). To participate in the discussion you can use the following as a template:
*'''Keep''' Your reason why the article should be kept ~~~~
Hope that helps. If you have more questions let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Depreciated" vs "Deprecated"

Hi Barkeep49, thanks for closing WP:RSN § RfC: Dexerto so soon after my request. Could you please make a couple of small spelling corrections in the closing summary: from depreciating to deprecating, and from depreciated to deprecated (to be consistent with Wikipedia:Deprecated sources)? The words are spelled similarly, but the meaning is quite different. — Newslinger talk 21:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger   Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! — Newslinger talk 23:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Call-out culture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Call-out culture. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Newbery / Caldecott bios inquiry

Hello. I came across your username while on the Good Articles nomination page. Based on your userpage, I see you're making articles for every book that won/was honored for a Caldecott or Newbery. I was curious if you would like to help me make articles for the respective authors as well for these awards. As you can see, Caldecott Medal almost has 40 bio redlinks while Newbery Medal has almost 20. It would be nice to have them all blue - especially all the women as I'm a member of Women in Red. Let me know if you're interested :) . --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333, that would be fantastic! In general I'm not a huge writer of biographies - I tend to prefer the books - but there's a lot of futile ground there. At the moment I'm very slowly trying to turn all the Caldecott redlinks blue but if I can offer research support for the authors I would be happy to and knowing you're working on the authors would speed me up on that front so I could join in helping you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Maybe when you/I make an article it'll end up connect with one the other person made :) I'm tackling the women in the Newbery Medal first and/or the last remaining man who is a redlink. Then I'll try to work on Caledecott. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333 if you want to focus on the women as a WIR effort I'd be happy to get around to doing the men. I appreciate your efforts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Even better. You're not obliged to do them but I thought it'd be interesting to do. Thanks again :)--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Well I think I can do even better still. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 007. Happy to take your name out while still announcing the drive if you'd prefer (just like to give credit where credit's due). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't expecting that o.O. That'd be one way to get more people to work on them! I did Lauren Ford for WIR last year so I should do a Newbery one as well. Also, I didn't mention Carnegie, that was your idea ;) Go for it! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi - I was reading this conversation, and wondered whether it would be useful for me to try to help with the growing backlog. I believe that my communication skills are pretty good, but I recognise that I would probably have to do a fair amount of reading to equip myself to deal with people's requests. I see from WP:VRT that offers to help should be submitted here, but before spending too much time reading about what would be involved, I thought I'd ask you to be a critical friend - do you think this would be a productive use of my time/skills, or do you think I would be better sticking to developing my experience at NPP and helping bring down the backlog there. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit I think you have 100% the correct disposition to be a good OTRS agent. I will tell you that there is no training and very few resources to call upon to help you answer tickets (or confirm you're answering correctly) which meant that given the stakes I never really found my groove and so I end up only doing one or two tickets a month. This is in no way to say you shouldn't do it but that to have realistic expectations about it going in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, and for the words of caution! My impression has always been that you've got a pretty good understanding of the ground you're standing on, so if you find it difficult to process tickets then I confess to feeling somewhat daunted; nevertheless, it would be interesting to find out about a different part of the project, and perhaps if I can help deal with some of the simpler issues it would clear the field a bit, so I'll go along and offer to help if I can. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit great. I will give you a support, for whatever value that might have, when you do. I should have mentioned before that NPP is getting up there with the backlog and so it certainly could use your attention too :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - my application is here. Point taken about NPP - I'll try and knock off a few more before dinner! It's not something I'm planning to walk away from - I'm just eager to explore more areas of the project. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, as always, for your recent advice, which I've acted upon. That hadn't occurred to me - I was thinking about the backlog, and feeling bad about adding to it, but I can see where you're coming from. GirthSummit (blether) 07:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your support, encouragement and advice about this Barkeep49 - just thought I'd let you know that I got an e-mail advising me that I'd been accepted, so I'm just waiting for the team to set me up with an account. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Congrats Girth Summit. I think you'll make a great agent. If I can be of any help or assistance please, as always, feel free to reach out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

Please comment on Talk:Danny Baker

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Danny Baker. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm John from Idegon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Future Men, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John from Idegon (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon, Can I ask why? This will be dealt with at AfD one way or another in terms of consensus and so further NPP review should be unnecessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
You're probably right. I apologize. Re review it if you wish. Editor who created it is right at a UPE block, and is clearly using the school exception to wedge through articles on institutions that are not schools. Almost every treatment program for kids has an educational component. That does not make it a school. Secondary schools do not receive a low threshold because education is important (even though it is). They receive a pass because the school itself, irregardless of its educational mission, is a significant physical feature and a major social institution in the community. Those conditions do not apply to the subjects this guy is cranking out articles about. John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I am, as I pointed out in my comment, quite skeptical about notability and am unsurprised to hear it would be UPE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Italian Massawa

 

Hello, Barkeep49. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Italian Massawa".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 06:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Children's Literature Newsletter April/May 2019

Children's Literature April/May 2019

This newsletter sees us embark on a project drive around article creation of some medium, or higher, importance topics that are currently redlinks. Read more and consider joining the work.

Newly Recognized Content

 A Sick Day for Amos McGee Review by Valereee
 Children of Blood and Bone Review by Fearstreetsaga
 Derrick Barnes by Bradv Review by ReaderofthePack
 The Great Migration: Journey to the North by Malexander (BYU)
 Harry B. Neilson by Moonraker

 The Lion & the Mouse Review by Farang Rak Tham
  Newbery Medal
 Scoops (magazine) by Mike Christie
 A Sick Day for Amos McGee Review by Valereee
 This is Not My Hat Review by Ceranthor

Awards in Red

MrLinkinPark333 recently pointed out that on some of our Top importance pages about Children's literature awards there are many redlinks. The three pages with these redlinks are Caldecott Medal, Newbery Medal, and Carnegie Medal (with 0 existing redlinks in the other top importance award article - Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award). As of this newsletter there are 222 redlinks in those three articles. How many can we as a project create over the next 6 weeks? Could we even do better and see if we could create any that earn a Did You Know or even get it up to Good Article status?

As always feel free to head on over to the project discussion page if you find yourself in need of any help as we work to turn these notable entries on some of our most important articles blue.

You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of the Children's Literature WikiProject or have chosen to subscribe to the newsletter. If you would like to sign-up for just the newsletters or want to be an active member but not get the newsletters you can do that here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Axios RFC

Hi I noticed that you reverted my edit on Axios and as you rightly said in the summary I said this is not a problem for me. As you did the reverting I'd be interested on your opinion about my suggestion for an option 4 as this information has now been taken up by 3 and 1/2 RS (not a big fan of Huffpost myself) including one that specialises in marketing and media. From what I can gather your beef was about the reliability of the Huffpost source but from what I can gather nobody is actually challenging the facts including Sussman himself and this has now been picked and commented by 3 other sources all of whom are reliable as far as I know. cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Domdeparis Has anyone else done reporting on this or are they just repeating what HuffPo said? Wired definitely seems to not have done so. In general I'm skeptical about covering these kinds of controversies - we're all COI when it comes to Wikipedia and so are going to both be more attuned to coverage of stuff when it happens and we're going to have strong opinions about it. I don't think Option 2 is the end of the world but Option 4 seems like overkill for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that if reliable sources have reported the tactics that the company has used to utilise Wikipedia as a marketing tool we should mention this especially after the North Face incident. If we don't then it could be seen as brushing this aspect under the carpet. Wikipedia has an undesvered reputation for unreliability and by glossing over this problem of lobbying we are feeding the public's mistrust. I honestly believe that paid editing is a killer for an encyclopedia and the behaviour of certain editors such as Sussman with his bludgeoning and walls of text on talk pages is a scandal and when this behaviour is mentioned in relation to article topics then it has its place in an article and with the details that are meritied by the due weight. I personnally would prefer to deal with black hat editors and get the articles salted for creation than have to deal with agenda pushing advocates that spend their time trying to remove any negative information and add a maximum of positive spin. But that's just me. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Domdeparis, I think a lot of editors agree with you on that front. But that's not what our policies are and so I think it's wrong to treat Sussman poorly when he's an editor in completely good standing with our current Policies and Guidelines. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Dodek

Hello. I believe that you have removed the nomination for speedy deletion from this new Adam Dodek page. I'm trying to understand why a page is made and left to stand with virtually no content; I would not dispute notability, I prompt for content or deletion. I had checked with an Administrator to see that I'd done it correctly, so am now confused. Thanks for responding.Lindenfall (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall, I'm not sure what admin you asked but there are two things at play. First, BLPPROD requires that there be no reference or external link on the page for it to be placed (see the first sentence of WP:BLPPROD). That article was therefore ineligible for the tag. Beyond that the article had enough content to clearly establish notability under NPROF and I added a second sentence to further show what's done. It's indeed a very short article but I think there is factually correct information on a notable topic that could be useful to our readers and because of this I marked it as patrolled for NPP. I hope that answers your question. If not please ask again and I will try to answer better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I suppose that Administrator was incorrect thinking I did it correctly (hence, I will leave them out of this public discussion), and I was unsure myself. It's not a new article, but merely a stub made by an editor who habitually guts articles rather than adding content or sources, which is reflected in their history, to very little consequence. They pop up on my watch list articles occasionally. Truth be told, I was trying to find a legitimate way to curtail that, even a little, by pointing out this inadequate article. Since I have not seen other articles newly created that are so vastly lacking in content left to stand, it seemed a good action to take. Lindenfall (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Lindenfall, Adam Dodek was created May 10 and was still in the New Patrol Patrol feed when I did those edits as that's how I found it. "New article" can be relative :). And I certainly understand a frustration the frustration that this stemmed from. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for review

Thank you for reviewing Mobarz Kidifa, thank you for being a good co-contributor, i can learn so much from you. Can you kindly check Takesure Zamar Ncube for review, its been long unreviewed but the person is someone who is actually prominent and qualifies for Wiki. Thank you once again

@Hurungudo: Looks like another reviewer got there first. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 Reminder

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 3 of this year's WikiCup! There are just over 2 weeks until the third round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Please comment on Talk:The Internationale

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Internationale. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #8

09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Rodney Robinson

 On 14 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rodney Robinson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rodney Robinson, 2019 National Teacher of the Year, makes sure his former students at the Richmond Juvenile Detention Center register to vote? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rodney Robinson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rodney Robinson), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review training programme

I am a new page reviewer and want to see if you have room to take me on as a trainee in your NPP training. As a life-long educator, I believe in the power of learning, and while I have read all of the online materials and tutorials it has been suggested for NPP work, few things take the place of having some guided assistance and a dedicated area for questions while I am learning. Thanks for the consideration. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT my most successful NPP School participant was a British educator so that bodes well for you. The truth is that since you already have the permission, albeit on a two week go, I'm not sure if my NPP curriculum makes as much sense for you. However, I am more than happy to help you become a successful reviewer. If you'd like I'd be happy to setup a page for us to work together - you could come and ask questions or simply post reviews you did and look for feedback. What do you feel like will offer you the support you need to help you become a long-term productive NPP? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT I was just looking at articles that had been proposed for deletion in the queue and I came across Ginestra Bianconi which you had tagged with a BLPPROD. As you might have noticed I undid this tag - for purposes of the BLPPROD external links count as references and so it is not eligible for that tag. BLPPROD is a bit of a weird one - there are really strict requirement for what need to be in place, a BLP with no sources in the broadest nature, but then also is hard to remove in that a reliable source must be included in order to remove it. So if those two links hadn't been present before the tag they'd have been woefully insufficient to remove the tag. But since they were present it's not eligible for that tag. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for pinging me on this Barkeep49. I replied to you earlier but think a network hiccup or the like happened while working from my car, and it did not appear here. So, two things. Yes, I would love some feedback and guidance on my edits here as I am learning the ins and outs of the NPP work. Whether that means in a dedicated space or elsewhere, this will be most appreciated. I did some work this evening and had a number of questions, so will really appreciate being able to share them with you for guidance. The second issue is on this article. I see what you mean about those external links that were really not sources, but they do counter the BLPPROD so I understand your explanation -- thanks. So, given those sources that really do not substantiate anything in the article outside this person exists -- what do you suggest for this article's review? Sorry, neglected to sign! --- FULBERT (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT it's not eligible for any sort of speedy criteria. If I were patrolling this article I would first attempt to ascertain my thinking on its notability since that would impact what options I'd consider for how to deal with it. If it's clearly notable I would tag with Template:BLP unsourced - there doesn't seem to be anything questionable/controversial enough to need to get out of article space for draftify. In this case there is also the pretty likely chance of a COI of some sort and possibly even an autobiography. I have posed the question on the article creator's talk page and we'll see what we find out. If it does turn to be a COI/auto then suddenly draftify is a whole lot more appealing as an option. But absent that it's all about notability and here I would normally give my opinion but it's NPROF and so except for clearly notable people I tend to give it a wide berth because I have issues with the standards which suggest RS don't matter and because even on its own merits it takes a very long time for me to do the notability search that comes much easier to people who are more plugged in to higher ed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you mean about speedy criteria, it is more about the question you asked related to its notability Barkeep49. I agree with your question you asked on the Talk page and about notability. While you are asking for that, the article is still marked as not patrolled, yet how would somebody know that you are having this conversation or inquiry in this? Likewise, is there a time limit for somebody to reply or otherwise edit the page, before you take further action? I suppose this is more a process question for how something in process related to the review is marked and how it then either gets reviewed or, pending lack of clarification, something else (what?) happens? --- FULBERT (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT So my general view when doing NPP is that I'm looking for reasons to find something notable. Anytime I can mark a page reviewed is a form of victory for me - I'm here to build an encyclopedia and that feels like an act of building it. Of course one of the way we maintain our own credibility is by having the standards that we have and so while notability is a victory, deletion in most circumstances isn't a loss, it's just part of the job. So I would (and have) watchlist the page. If another reviewer (who I knew and trusted which is most active ones) marks it as patrolled in this case I'd be like "phew don't have to worry about notability anymore". In some cases I watchlist it because I think it's likely not notable but foreign language sources might exist and so I've not done a proper enough BEFORE to nominate. In that case I'd just leave a message on a reviewers talk page asking what they found and laying out what I'd found. We're a team and so we'd work together to do right by that article.
In this case the COI can be dealt with independently of any notability concerns. If someone else reviewed it, I might ask their thoguhts about the COI but it wouldn't inherently be a bad thing if it was patrolled while all this went on in the background. I'll talk more about in process for your question below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Before I started typing all that I'd looked at your other patrols and everything you'd marked as notable seemed like good patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Phew! Thanks Barkeep49. --- FULBERT (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@FULBERT: so I see you've done two film fest related patrols. For LGBT film fest that does seem like a likely notable topic - were you able to spot check any of the sources via GoogleBooks or the like to make sure it's backed up appropriately? For Geelong Pride Film Festival can you say more about your thinking while patrolling that one? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I did so on the former, and I looked at the links on the latter and thought they were all credible enough to support the claims that were made in the article (namely, that this film festival itself exists) Barkeep49. --- FULBERT (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Two other review questions Barkeep49. One article I am reviewing Al Qaws, only has one source. If I add the tag "More references" will that still mark it as reviewed with that template added? Likewise, one article I was reviewing earlier that I marked as "Review in progress," Battle of Ronas Voe, has that listed on the page yet I have finished reviewing it and marking it reviewed, though am not sure how to do that (or even how to remember I added that template there as I cannot find it anywhere else except I saved it open in a tab on my browser). I really appreciate asking you these clarifying questions, so thank you for your time with them. --- FULBERT (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, I am truly more than happy to help. I know how much it meant to me to get help when I was starting NPP and I really do like the community of other patrollers.
So for Al Qaws the single source to its own website is not great at all. If I was going to mark it notable I would have had to found, in my own searching, enough evidence, in either English or Arabic, to suggest it met WP:NCORP which is our most demanding standard for a topic. If I did - great it's a victory - and so I would probably say the third party tag on it is good enough and move on.
On the more general question yes if you put a tag using the curation toolbar that also marks it as patrolled including for Battle of Ronas Voe. That article has a bit of some strange stuff going on but if you think it notable just remove your under review tag - by placing that tag you'd already marked it as reviewed (and this tag is is virtually never used in my time as NPP. I tend to have virtually no conflicts when patrolling even without use of that tag).
As for Geelong Pride the question isn't just that it exists - I agree the sources present are enough to verify - but that it's a notable film festival. Is it covered by secondary sources in some significant way? The current sources are just repurposed press releases and so do nothing to establish notability. So if you found that those sources exist while doing a BEFORE - GREAT! - otherwise absent those it might not be notable and thus we'd have to start thinking about AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT as you might have seen CASSIOPEIA, a veteran NPP, has chosen to move Bianconi to draft space which is a reasonable outcome - though one I underplayed because I think it can be too tempting of an option for new NPP (I know it was for me). I still hope we get an answer to my question about the COI but think there's a good chance we won't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Barkeep49. A couple follow-ups on the above: 1) For the Al Qaws, is the option to either leave it or manually add a tag for more sources and add something to the source page about needing more sources to prevent its deletion? 2) For the Geelong Pride, is that the same case, namely to consider my adding something to the page for more sources or otherwise post something on the Talk page about it to avoid its deletion? 3) I initially thought about moving things back to draft space, but was not sure how that tool works related to the Ginestra Bianconi article (now draft). You are suggesting this is not a common thing to do? Finally, I saw one of my Afd requests was reverted for notability. I do not think it is notable in that article, but to your suggestion with working as a team, I will leave it. It now remains unreviewed, on my part as I do not think the article nor the sources demonstrate notability. --- FULBERT (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT: For Al Qaws as a new page patroller your options are: 1. Do nothing - we're volunteers and you're under no obligation to patrol any given article 2. Tag it and leave it for another patroller to make a final determination 3. Do a BEFORE. Hopefully you find something that proves its notability. If you do you can mark it patrolled or even better note the sources in the article or on the talk page. If you don't you are under no obligation to nominate it for deletion but you're back to option 1, do nothing and leave it for another patroller. However, marking that as patrolled with the single self-written source without knowing that there is coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in significant detail is a poor use of the NPP user right. This despite the fact that the organization might truly be notable - assessing notability of non-Roman script topics is harder and takes more time. There are borderline cases where a reasonable editor can come to differing conclusions about notability - that's why AfD is useful - but this isn't one of them at least with the sources we have right now.
For Geelong Pride because it's Australian it's a bit easier to do a BEFORE. Film Festivals don't have any sort of SNG so you're operating under some form of GNG/NCORP (which is in theory pretty much the same but in reality applied more loosely when referred to as GNG and more strictly when it's NCORP). For this one there is the option of inserting a mention of the festival, using one of the sources for verification, in Geelong#Arts_and_entertainment rather than going to deletion.
As for moving something to draft - commonly known as drafity or drafitying - well it's a complex topic. It's a reasonable if less than ideal outcome in this instance (ideal being that it's dealt with one way or another). However, it's really easy for a newer NPP to be like "Well this is a hard one, I'll just draftify" or "I don't want to see this deleted so I'll just draftify". It can be an out from doing the thoughtful work that NPP can require. So be aware of this and think really hard about when your draftify for now.
So what happened here is that your speedy deletion (CSD) was declined. Any user other than the page creator may do so and frankly I think it's a reasonable decline. If he were Ensign Mohammad Moyeenul Haque he'd be an A7. But as a Commodore he's got a credible claim of significance. This is a lower bar than actually being notable. The article has now been nominated for deletion (AfD) which seems like the right outcome there. Once something is sent to AfD you can always mark it patrolled (sometimes perhaps with a tag) - AfD will decide on its notability one way or another about notabiity.
Phew. Sorry for the length, but I hope that was helpful. I hope it was and please feel free to keep the questions coming. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanations Barkeep49. Very helpful and certainly beyond what I have been able to figure out through reading the guidance and training in this area. It is increasingly clear to me that guidelines are interpreted in different ways by different people, and as such there are not clear right or wrong approaches (at least not in the ones I have seen thus far!) as much of the rules seem to be applied through interpretation. All the more reason to continue doing what I have and asking along the way or once my suggestions are reverted. I appreciate your watching my changes in this NPP space, though can you show me how that is done so I can also track my own progress? Also, you mentioned a BEFORE, though I am not really sure what that (acronym?) means. Finally, what is the best way to tag a page without marking it patrolled, via Twinkle? For example, some pages need more sources before I think they should be marked as patrolled, so want to know more about tagging without patrolling and if there is any guidance as to when that may be recommended? Thanks again! --- FULBERT (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT You're absolutely correct that frequently a reviewer has discretion about how to handle a situation. There is a range to this - and limits so you can get it wrong but also lots of different ways to be right in many cases. Anytime you see someone typing in all CAPS it's generally a sign that it's a Wikipedia shortcut. So when I wrote NCORP what I was really talking about was WP:NCORP. Same for BEFORE - it's WP:BEFORE which describes what you should do before nominating something for deletion. As for the logs, if you go to any user page (or user talk page) you should see a link for Logs under "Tools" that'll show you the logs for a person. You can also filter for a specific kind so here's what I'm looking at to see what you're doing with NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
One more thought: You might want to go to my NPP Shchool page and click on syllabus as that will tell you the areas, often with links, to what I think is essential for a starting NPP to know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; will check out those resources Barkeep49. --- FULBERT (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@FULBERT: Let me know if you have any questions about why the G5s got declined or about how you can gather the information in the future. Doing a little detective work on articles is a necessary part of NPP - and frequently one of the parts that I find most intellectually rewarding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49. I have learned a lot about deletions in this process, many things that are just not clear otherwise by taking the guidance and implementing it into practice. Will likely stay away from them in the near future and leave them to others to worry about. Too much hassle in my getting involved in these issues to make it worth my contribution time. There is more than enough to do without facing that unpleasant aspect of Wikipedia editing. --- FULBERT (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Where can I look on an article to determine when it was patrolled and by whom Barkeep49? I keep looking for this but am clearly missing it. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, I recommend installing, if you haven't already, all the core scripts from the tutorial. One of these is Superlinks which provides an ability, while still on the page, to see the history and the logs for an article - including who has patrolled something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I have installed all of the core scripts Barkeep49, though a few of them I do not really see what they are adding. I think I still need more practice with them. A question -- this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Foundation_(Global) does not seem to have much content, even after a request for it was added several months ago, and it is still not listed as reviewed. Is this a regular Articles for Deletion request? --- FULBERT (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT If after doing your BEFORE you don't find anything AfD would be the correct next step for that article. I found some info about a crypto currency they offered but nothing substantial about the organization itself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I just searched again Barkeep49, and could locate nothing. Was now my first PROD request. Interested in your feedback on my reasoning there. --- FULBERT (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, I find PROD for articles in the queue to be ineffective and declined enough that I tend to not use it while doing that and instead just go AfD. But a totally reasonable route to take. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Barkeep49. Will keep an eye on it. --- FULBERT (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I started to review this article Marcella Di Folco and was puzzled with the message on the Talk page. Any idea what that means and if I should pass this one over for a more experienced NPP reviewer Barkeep49? --- FULBERT (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Are there any of those scripts of easy places in the NPP browser to easily request a page image to help improve the article, or does that manually need to be added Barkeep49? Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I just request by NPP Perm, and want to thank you for your ongoing help (and hope to continue asking questions if approved) Barkeep49. Thank you. --- FULBERT (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, I am not aware of anyways to suggest an image is needed either via script or tag but it is a good thought. I will be watching your PERM request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Congrats FULBERT on the extension of your NPP permission. It's well deserved and will, I expect, become permanent. How can I be helpful for you at this point? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thanks for all the help and encouragement. I have found this NPP service surprisingly engaging and appreciate the support. While I have a lot to still learn and work through, I would really like to ask you about your own workflow. Perhaps this single thread has already gotten long enough, so I will begin a new one for this. FULBERT (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about patrolling pages

Hello! I asked DeltaQuad this question a week ago, but she seems a little busy lately. Would you mind helping me out? About a week ago I was given a trial run with the WP:NPP permissions. My plan was to reduce the backlog by approving articles that clearly meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies, but once my week-long trial period expired I decided not to reapply. While looking at my patrol log I noticed that some articles are listed on the log as drafts or sandboxes, even though they were definitely in mainspace when I patrolled them. Do you know why that is? Did I do something wrong? Is there a way for me to fix it without the NPR permission? Thank you. Mcampany (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if I can help. Mcampany, can you give me an example? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm most concerned about Washington Aggrey Jalang'o Okumu. The patrol log says I patrolled the user's sandbox, not the article itself, which is a little strange. the diff that I'm shown when I click on the patrol log is not at all the article that I approved. I patrolled it right after I edited the article.
The other articles are A Lalitha, U & Cube Festival 2019 in Japan, and Kamalō Sugar Plantation. They all say in the patrol log that I patrolled the draft version or a user's subpage. Please let me know if you need any other information! Mcampany (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Mcampany, so I'm not sure which log you're looking at but you definitely patrolled Washington after it was moved from the sandbox and it is showing patrolled correctly. The others appear fine as well. Question though - the sourcing for U & Cube really suggested notability? Just reading the basics of that article I'm very surprised it passes GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I mean this log.
As far as U & Cube, if you don't think it meets GNG then I'm happy to defer to your experience. I was a little on the fence about it, but Excite.co.jp seemed independent and reliable enough to push it over the fence. I don't read Korean very well, but WP:Korea has Naver and Newsen on their reliable sources list. Would news articles on how a concert went be considered routine coverage? Mcampany (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Album notability

Hi! I started a discussion on merging the articles Lovac na čudesa, Neće rijeka zrakom teći, and Malo magle, malo mjesečine (albums) into the article Silente (band). As you already pointed out notability issues in one of those articles, I would like to hear your opinion on the other two articles, too.  --Hmxhmx 18:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Ball for Daisy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Ball for Daisy 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep them coming

  The Good Article Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your tremendous efforts in both assessing and writing Good Articles. It is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Thanks so much. I try to make sure I do at least one review for every review of mine that is done and you've put me a couple behind. I am also excited that now that I've had a couple entries cleared from the list I will feel OK about writing some new submissions. Thanks for all your work on my noms. That too is appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for the work you do. Re any new articles, remember that if you would like someone to look them over for copy editing prior to nomination you can always put a request in at GOCE Requests. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts?

Architectural icon - this is a translation of a page from German Wiki. It's about an architectural term, but since it's a translation all the sources are in German - there's no evidence that the term is actually used in this way in English. I thought about dropping a note at the Architecture wikiproject, but would appreciate your thoughts on whether there's anything else to do. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 06:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Well it's pretty low harm any which way. I didn't find any extremely well cited papers that seem to use the term when searching Google Scholar and the ngram for it is uninspiring. As a search term it does substantially worse than Architectural style which we already have an article on. Despite all this it really only needs a few solid sources to pass GNG and I find it hard to believe they don't exist in English so I would mark as reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough - you're right, it's not going to do any harm, I'll make it reviewed and give the author a note that one or two sources in English giving examples of usage would be a good thing. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 13:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

architectural icon

Hi, Barkeep49, you were so nice to add two photos... but on this one there is a copyright info: "This media file has been nominated for deletion since 19 February 2019. To discuss it, please visit the nomination page. needs permission from the architect" - i therefore will beter remove it again, don't you think? --Gyanda (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Gyanda, You're correct that there's a chance it gets deleted from commons. English Wikipedia does have a local picture that could be changed in if necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Do i understand that correct? We leave the photo there and if it gets deleted we add the local one from the english Wikipedia? Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Gyanda,Yes. Or you can just replace it with the local one now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indigenous intellectual property

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indigenous intellectual property. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Big Cat, Little Cat

The article Big Cat, Little Cat you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Big Cat, Little Cat 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 
Hi Barkeep49, Smudge and Smidge (well that could be their names:)) thank you for good articling this book. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Path slopu

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at User talk:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Path slopu.
Message added 12:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please answer to my question. Regards.- PATH SLOPU 12:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

 
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GirthSummit (blether) 22:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent unblock

You wanted an explantion and things have calmed down faster than I expected.

I explained the core issues at the time of the unblock. The problem is that we have a useful editor in conflict with an admin over the terms of an unblock. The admin has committed themselves to demanding assurances and the editor doesn’t want to give them in return for an unblock. Not an easy situation for either side to move from and since the admin has made the mistake of going for an indef rather than time limited block we can’t just wait it out.

The obvious solution is to remove the block at which point the editor is free to give whatever assurances they like without going back on their previous statement. Conflict resolution.

The reason I chose not to discuss it is that the admin had already made multiple statements making their position clear. This wasn’t a block based on anything secret. Any attempted discussion would have been a waste of time and time was important. For long standing committed editors being blocked hurts. Continuing to be blocked hurts. Hurting an editor while we waste time in a form discussion doesn’t help anybody.

As for why not leave it to Doc James? I have a lot of respect for Doc James’s abilities (even if I did not his record speaks for itself). And it is possible he would have come up with a form of words. But a form of words ground out under duress while an editor is hurting? Again that doesn’t really help anybody.

I’d argue that the outcome so far supports it being the right call.

©Geni (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Geni. As you might have already seen I responded on your talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

Your GA nomination of A Ball for Daisy

The article A Ball for Daisy you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:A Ball for Daisy 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetical Ticker List of Ethereum Tokens

You are generalizing about "promotional", against research. The list is primarily to make a research list available, where any Ethereum token can be listed and links for research found. No such list exists on the Internet as far as i know. Mdpienaar (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Mdpienaar, thanks for your message. This is a tricky thing. In the abstract a complete list of Ethereum tokens would be useful. However, Wikipedia is not the right place to do it. Wikipedia has had to balance covering topics, like Ethereum, well and the fact that there are many people who wish to use Wikipedia's credibility and high search results to promote their own cryptocurrencies for financial gain. This means that I, and many other editors, view cryptocurrency related topics with "is this neutrally providing information on a topic or is it being used (or provide easy opportunity to misuse it) for promotional purposes. In this case it seemed to me, and the deleting administrator, that such a list would be misused for promotional purposes. Wikipedia has settled on a standard, called notability. If a cryptocurrency isn't notable we are probably not going to include information on it. Does that make sense? If not please ask questions and I will do my best to answer them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

NPP workflow

I am continuing to learn how to review new pages, and am wondering if there is a certain workflow you follow, and if so, is it something easy to share? For example, I would find it helpful to see an example of the process you use from the point of deciding you will patrol some pages to what exactly you do and using which tools to do that. I am having the sense I may be missing a couple steps or otherwise am doing a few things less efficiently than is ideal. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, When I am patrolling from the new end of the queue (as I frequently patrol from the old end of the queue which has its own quirks and workflow), I start by making sure it's not been deleted before - if it has I focus on that area first to see if deletion is again necessary. If it's anything beyond a basic stub, I start by running a COPYVIO check from the toolbar. I then go to the flowchart which I used to literally consult for every patrol but for which I have now largely internalized and adapted for myself. Frequently from there I will need to use some of the various options Superlinks provides (which includes the flowchart with clickable links). If I start leaning towards deletion, I will frequently look at the user who made the article - any indication that they know what they're doing will generally give me extra pause. Hopefully somewhere in this process I've seen enough to suggest policy compliance and notability and I can mark it patrolled and move on.
If you want, pick 2 or 3 articles from the middle of the queue (since it'll be less likely someone else will get to them first) and I will review them and type out for you my process and thoughts as I do so. Ideally these will be English language topics as doing NPP on foreign language topics can get knotty. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I really appreciate your flow for this. I do a number of these steps, though cannot figure out how to do the first one, Writ Keeper, as I cannot find an instructions page for that. I was able to install it though am unclear where to go to use it. Can you help me understand it a bit? FULBERT (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, If you go to Juan Manuel González (racing driver) you'll see what it does next to the article title. There's little blue links for previously deleted and for previous AfDs (which in this case includes the current AfD). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Ahh, I see those blue links now; this is very helpful. Will now be able to be more on the lookout for them. Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I really appreciate your offer to show me your process on a couple articles. How about any of these three? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhara_Rhinos or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Tengo_Nada or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Sejdi%C4%8D or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEBC_international -- Thanks again. FULBERT (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT alright here we go, stream of thought as I do it. So I get to Pokhara Rhinos and I sigh because it is both about a support I'm generally unfamiliar with (though you learn about stuff through NPP; I know so much more about rugby than before I started patrolling) and in a foreign country. If this were a player on the team I would go to WP:NCRICKET to see what it has to say. But it's a team and the Sports SNGs don't include team notability. So I start with going to Everest Premier League and see if they have references and sources about the team and to establish where in the sporting hierarchy it is. Teams from professional leagues are very likely to be notable, teams from the top tier league in a country are less likely but still likely to be notable. The fact that it's Twenty20 Cricket seems like a strike against it as an alternate format but I would need to see what kinds of leagues are important so now I will venture to NCRICKET. And it turns out I'm wrong about Twenty20 Cricket being a lesser form in terms of individual notability so it's back to the Everest article to see what else I can gleam. I see a link to cricnepal which seems promising. Going there still seems promising and I see info about the DPL but not the EPL. Strike against notability here. However, quite a few other teams have articles. Checking out a couple of those I see one directs back to the league and a couple were patrolled by Onel, who is/was a prolific and generally well regarded patroller. His endorsement means something. At this point given that the article is uncited, notability is likely but not guaranteed I feel like I have two options: draftify or BOLDly redirect to the league. At this point knowing more about the editor who made the article would be useful in deciding whether moving it to draft will cause it to be deleted or increase the chances of getting a sourced article. And now I see I really should have checked the article history earlier. The article history between December 15 and March 21 is bizarre and needs more investigation to see what happened. I find an admin deleted the draft on Mar 22, one day after this was created back in mainspace. Hmmm. There's absolutely no clue about why the draft was deleted - normally the deletion log lets you know why. So since there was that strangeness I couldn't unravel and it's more likely than not notable I'm not going to send it back to draft. So do I try and establish notability and mark it patrolled with the unreferenced tag or do I redirect? Given the difficulties of foreign language notability I'm going to take the path of less resistance and see if a redirect works. If it gets reverted I'll leave it for another patroller especially because I suspect - but can't prove with the effort I've put in - that it's notable. If I weren't typing this all out it would have taken me 5 - 10 minutes to do this. That's incredibly long for me right now. As a new patroller it would have taken me 20 - 30 because I would have had to really think through each step of the way rather than knowing some pathways to explore. I might very well have just given up rather than redirect and watchlist it to see what some other patroller did. Alright this is long enough. I'll tackle another one soonish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, This process is incredibly valuabe to see your process of this, and I really appreciate your taking me through it. I am working through each of the examples you provided with some time, so that is why the delay in my reply. FULBERT (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I am on travel this week with my Capacity Building working group engaging in a project related with the Wikimedia Movement Strategy, and shared your responses as an example of dedicated contributions that help through informal mentoring in pursuit of our shared work. I wanted to share this as it is so valuable and would not otherwise be known beyond just my own benefit. FULBERT (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, Ok No Tengo Nada should be so much easier. It's a song. It makes a clear claim to a specific NSONG notability with its chrating claim. If I can verify notability and COPYVIO checks out (which given the amount of text in this article I would be amazed if it doesn't) we should be good to go.Spain is the largest country there and uses a different chart than the other two so I'll look there first. But not before I see that indeed COPYVIO has come back clean. I don't know reputable Spanish charts off the top of my head so it's off to NSONG to click on the link which'll tell me. PROMUSICAE is on there so now it's just verifying the info from the link. No tengo nada is listed on the provided source, but the provided source looks sketch to me so it's back to recommended charts to see what that link says. And there's a handy note telling me I shouldn't trust the source. A quick Google search later, however, and I can verify the info. The sourcing could be better so I'll give it a more references and bare urls tag and move on happy. This whole process would take me a couple minutes were I not also typing it out but even doing so still took me less than 10. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Stopping there for now. I'll look at your other two tomorrow after seeing that they both have foreign language elements meaning they'll require some thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49 This is also incredibly helpful. Sorry for the delay in my replies here due to travel and some non-wiki personal issues I was sorting. This all makes a lot of sense. --- FULBERT (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, Alright let's take a look at FEBC international. International reach suggests no A7 and no other apparent CSD on first glance. I then notice is that it uses unusual casing in the article title, but typical casing in the lead. This causes me to look at FEBC International to see if there's any edit history there that's be obscured with this creation. I find a A7 and G11 but nothing to suggest trouble here. Mental note to move this to the correct article title when I'm done. Existing sources aren't great - first three are citations to itself and the fourth is a generic bloomberg citation (or guessing it is without having looked too deep). I'm skeptical about TopHotelSupplier and indeed upon clicking through it's no good for notability. The Supply Chain article is not RS, but could be cited be some as a NCORP compliant source at AfD which appears, at this point to be where this is headed. Edit history of the creator suggests UPE. Let's see what a BEFORE turns out. Best source I can find there is the Supply Chain article. Since this is a creation from a month ago there's some chance a PROD would work and so I move it to its correct name, leaving behind a redirect, and put in the PROD - leaving the article unreviewed per standard NPP procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, and it has since been deleted. Thanks for the explanation. FULBERT (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, Alright Amar Sejdi. Start by running COPYVIO (FEBC didn't have enough text to suggest issue so I ran it but didn't mention it because it was an unlikely candidate). I see it has a previous deletion which was an expired PROD from just this year, which is suprising as I know from experience that playing in the USL meets WP:NFOOTY. Ahh, but according to the article he hasn't actually played in a match yet. Let's see if that's changed. Indeed it did in May. I also my pet peeve - the Google Infobox picking up information that is under no index. But since this is going to get patrolled that's not the end of the world. I don't liked uncited promotional language in the LEAD so I snip that out. No other apparent issues so I mark as reviewed. This turned out to be a fairly easy one after all - love it when notability is pretty clear like this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I cannot find what happened to this one, though it also appears to have been deleted. Where can we go to see the history of it? --- FULBERT (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing happened to it FULBERT. I linked the wrong article here. You can find the correct article at Amar Sejdič.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Barkeep49! --- FULBERT (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Katherine

After your explanation, I still didn't understand. After Katherine's agreement with you and some more words, I still didn't understand. It was only as I was writing a comment about not understanding that I finally understood. As a result, I aborted my comment. I have a strange and literal brain, and sometimes that limits my understanding of what people say, particularly if their phrasing doesn't comply with my demands (smile). In any event, I have not commented on any of the Fram pages during this lovely period. I should have stuck to my "rule". Take care and thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks for the feedback on my writing. I try to be clear and it's helpful to know when I miss the mark for people (even if you eventually got what you needed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
No, no, my comments above were intended principally (1) to express my own limitations and partly (2) to explain that I didn't understand Katherine's phrasing until later. Why should you (or Katherine for that matter) be "criticized" for not feeding me precisely what my poorly developed, pea-sized brain required?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Two similar articles

I was reviewing a new page today and noticed some odd behavior. The article Pride Parade in Nepal existed and is related to a new article on a different topic, Nepal Pride Parade. Both related, and both different. However, they seem to point to the same Talk page, and while I believe they are different and both notable, I am not sure I can make sense of the overlap. Your guidance will be appreciated on this one. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, So what seems to have happened is that Nepal Pride Parade had been a redirect to Pride Parade in Nepal. This came as a result of a page move so the article page and (crucially in this case) the talk page both were redirected. When Nepal Pride Parade was created as an article, rather than just being a redirect, the talk page remained a redirect. You could tell this because you got the redirect message when clicking on talk and once you got to the actual article the r from move template was present (see [4]). Hope that clears this up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks. How can this be fixed Barkeep49 ? --- FULBERT (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, I already fixed it before replying to you. But basically when you get redirected there's a little blue link notifying you under the article title. If you click on that you will be able to go the actual redirect page without being redirected. See for instance WP:AN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Barkeep49. I see what you mean in that example, though have no clue how you did the redirect. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Barnstars for you!

The Good Friend Award
Thank you very much for training me at NPP-School. I am very thankful to you. You taught me several aspects like notability, deletion, NPP, AFC, etc. Thank you so much. PATH SLOPU 11:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  The Guidance Barnstar
This is for the guidance and advices given to me in NPP school. Thank you very much for that. You helped me to understand notability, RS, etc. But I want to improve it. Hope that you'll give guidance in future also. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


  The Original Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


  The Reviewer Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Grezon

I was have a look at this article - totally unsourced, horrible layout, probably COPYVIO image (haven't checked yet), very little content. I don't think there's enough promo language for an unambiguous G11 though, so I was going to draftify it - but Draft:Grezon already exists (in a pretty similar state to the article). Is this a situation where your page mover magic might be useful, or is there something else I should be thinking of? GirthSummit (blether) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I tagged A7. 13 stores is not a significant claim to notability imo and the walton connection would be but a (admittedly basic) search did not corroborate that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks. GirthSummit (blether) 17:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Have you clicked on the link to their official website? They probably want to sort that out before spamming wikipedia - all their delicious-looking chocolatey products are described as 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...' GirthSummit (blether) 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, I had not clicked through. Quite amusing and all the more reason to justify A7. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, are you still working on closing the SNC-Lavalin Affair scandal RfC?

Since ArbCom said in one of their findings of fact that the RfC was opened on May 8th by one of the involved editors, but discussion became contentious and it did not come to a resolution, I was thinking that we would just restart it. Dump the pages and pages of back and forth, ping the editors who've voted already, and move forward. But if you're close to a decision already and you think it's the better route, then that's cool. Safrolic (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Safrolic, for contentious RfCs like this I tend to do a complete reading, set it aside for a day or so, and then come back re-read and close. It is my intent to close it not withstanding that finding of fact - though no consensus is obviously a possible outcome for the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

NOT COPYVIO

i did not copy this text from the sources, this text have been entirely written by a previos user a long time ago, if this is a case of copyvio please delete the entire article of Nazi Germany, thank you 2A00:801:381:B7:15FC:44CA:1AF1:DB0A (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The article you restored came from a copyrighted source. You indeed weren't the first to do it (which I didn't realize when I put the template on) but there it is. Sorry for the template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
no it doesnt, as you can see there are several sources and this article was written in its own words based on the several sources, so it cannot possible come from a "copyrighted source" as you claim it 2A00:801:381:B7:15FC:44CA:1AF1:DB0A (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
are you sure we are talking about the same article? 2A00:801:381:B7:15FC:44CA:1AF1:DB0A (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
As we had this conversation I was continuing to investigate. In the end I found that the source had copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around - this was somewhat hard to determine in this particular incident. Sorry for any confusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
interesting, can you please link me this source, thanks 2A00:801:381:B7:15FC:44CA:1AF1:DB0A (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
also since you are sorry, please revert yourself at my talkpage, thanks 2A00:801:381:B7:15FC:44CA:1AF1:DB0A (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
also please revert both my and your edits at Authoritarian democracy back to my version so it does not confuse the editors and prevent this problem from recurring, thanks 2A00:801:381:B7:15FC:44CA:1AF1:DB0A (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I reverted at your talk page - something you could have just deleted yourself which I suspect you know full well. There's nothing to revert at the article considering your undo of my undo is still present. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
i created an account according to suggestions on my talkpage, so notify me there from now on, also people could get the impression that i did something wrong if the user does not revert his warnings himself, also people might revert me according to your edit summary and this problem will rise again, so please lets do the right thing Gooduserdude (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Gooduserdude, welcome back to Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

New message from Kudpung

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools.
Message added 00:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

As I recently mentioned here, it seems there is still a demand for us to seek out new admin candidates and see if anybody wants to run the gauntlet at RfA. I've seen you talk a good argument all over the place, and your track record at NPP and AfD is excellent. In particular, I recall one instance where you told me off about something, and you were right and I was wrong, and anyone who can do that has exactly the right qualities to be an admin in my view. Are you interested? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, thanks for the kind words. I am going to go ahead and reply via email. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

BLPPROD

I've seen this before--I guess one day I should actually look at the text there. Are you sure? Drmies (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, this was what it looked like when the BLPPROD was placed. I think BLPPROD is a pretty powerful tool as it actually forces use of a reliable source to be removed but the tradeoff is that it needs to be placed conservatively. The official website, in my opinion, acts as a citation. It's an unacceptable one but BLPPROD doesn't care about that in terms of when it can be placed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, "no sources whatsoever"--so a Bandcamp thing would be acceptable, for instance. I guess I'm a deletionist in the sense that I'd like for BLPPROD to require a reliable source... Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, indeed bandcamp thing could be (if it could be used to cite information). I like to say that I'm an inclusionist at heart and a deletionist in practice and finding improperly placed BLPPRODs are one of the few times that I feel like I can actually honor my inclusionist heart. I also think the no cites at all is for the best - so many editors don't understand what a reliable source is would just invite more people to use the tag wrong, imo. Draftify remains an option (and a good one) when there aren't RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, CambridgeBayWeather BLPPRODed the article here. Bearian re-BLPPRODed it again with this diff. Neither of the two BLPPRODs was admissibke. The WP:BLPPROD policy, has not changed since it was established. It is clear and unambiguous, but as the WP:NPR right is included in the admin toolbox, some admins and grandfathered patrollers may be forgiven for not be fully aware of the BLPPROD policy although it was, and remains, one of the most hotly discussed new policies ever on Wikipedia (500+ participants), leading up to its roll out ten years ago.
Ideally, now thgat the Draftspace exists, such a new page should be draftified using the tool, which is what I have done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think Barkeep was right to decline the BLPPROD. The most obvious example I can think of from my watch is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Deletion of Micaela Schäfer which didn't meet the letter of the policy, no matter how much the spirit of it wanted me to take the article (at least before it was rewritten by SoWhy) outside and shoot it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. I should have looked at the article's history before Prodding it. I won't make that same mistake again! Bearian (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Kunal Agarwal

User:Barkeep49 Looks fine to me? In the past, my articles for Indian singers, such as Aditi Singh Sharma, have the notability due to prominence of the contributions. Having a news article on Billboard - clearly a big reference. Inclined to keep it as per guidelines under WP:COMPOSER Ngagethesoul (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ngagethesoul, the billboard reference is a good reference. If there was another reference of that quality I wouldn't have reverted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I've done some more digging, and we can add the following references, AllMusic, DailyCalifornian, and ZDNet. Seems to be a good base. Alright with you to rev?Ngagethesoul (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ngagethesoul, if you have more references go for it and I will happily leave it for another reviewer to take a look at. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I think we are going back and forth on this, but as per guidelines this is fine. Ngagethesoul (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Ngagethesoul, the last part was not me but another editor, Onel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, my mistake. As an editor, can I please request your help to put this matter to bed? Would like to be fair to all the articles I’ve seen in this category and this one seems to make sense.
@Ngagethesoul: What do you mean by put this matter to bed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:, I believe it makes sense to keep this article up given contributions to the *very* notable musical artists and works, and would like to move forward with that. Given you are also an editor, requesting you to support this Ngagethesoul (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Someone has restored Davey Suicide as an article, removing the redirect. --MrClog (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, thanks I saw that. I'll let another reviewer take a look and see if they agree with me (and from looking at the edit history Bbb). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

New NPP Questions

Greetings again, and thanks for your ongoing help with feedback and guidance. I have 3 questions for you about recent NPP work and want your input. I will try to number these for easier replying (as we are both expert replyers). Thanks.

  1. I reviewed two articles yesterday and moved them both to draft space in part because they were unclear -- one had a lot of information in it though I had no idea what exactly it was, while the other had many references that were so incomplete I had no way of determining if they were even real references. I think they are both very fixable, though need to be attended to before going live as in their current state I found them both problematic and beyond my ability to specifically fix or offer more feedback. Can you give me some feedback on them? I cannot find my comments on the pages themselves, but they are available on the author Talk pages themselves here and here. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    FULBERT, well that first one, about the Quran, is created by someone who is check user blocked. It is also more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. The first piece might have made this speedy deletable (depending on the details) the second makes it worthy of action. I don't think DRAFTIFY is a wrong result for it. But on ths topic do you use the Strike out blocked users widget? I find it generally helpful.
    That second article definitely needs work but I think its topic is Cockey family in Frome. This seems like a weird scope and I think with a little bit of cleanup, namely moving it to Cockey family, moving the lead to its own section, and writing a brief first sentence, it could have stayed in mainspace. In theory the first action (moving the article) is all that's required (the rest could have been tagging). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for this! --- FULBERT (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. One article I recommended for Prod had the tag removed by the author, and later marked as reviewed, though I know the content to be factually inaccurate as it is stated right now. I hate leaving incorrect information on wiki, though am not sure about next steps. What do you suggest? --- FULBERT (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    FULBERT, So .edu exists. If this were merely a duplicate topic it could be A10 or redirected. However .edu as a secondary domain (technically a Country code second-level domain is a distinct topic as defined in the article. So is this topic notable? The answer seems to me to be probably and as such I think the review after the DEPROD is correct. As for how to handle next steps after a DEPROD in general your only step is AfD. As anyone, including the creator, can remove a PROD I tend to not use it very much when doing NPP, especially for articles that are 2 or less weeks old. As for how to handle incorrect information, I also hate to leave it on WIKI and take a WP:SOFIXIT attitude in most cases - I try to make it correct either by changing the writing or removing the incorrect info. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    Many thanks for these insghts as well. --- FULBERT (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. My user rights were recently changed to autopatrolled, yet I think that there may have been an overlap when an article I recently created is still listed as unreviewed. Is that how it should still be listed? Not sure about the process itself as this part is new for me. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    FULBERT, that is how it should be. Autopatrol happens at the time of article creation and is not applied retroactively. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    D'oh! Happened in process. Thanks as well. --- FULBERT (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fiat Mirafiori

Can you revised and correct the article Fiat Mirafiori? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.99.111 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Large parts remain uncited so I have changed the template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of WWE personnel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of WWE personnel. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Newbery / Caldecott update

Hey there! What were the results of the Newbery / Caldecott author creations from this past June? I didn't end up making any author articles during this time period. Hopefully, there was a reducal in redlinks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333, I had set it out as a June/July project so I haven't run the numbers yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I did read you mentioned 6 weeks in the newsletter so I thought it was over this week. I'm interested in learning the stats whenever they get completed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Heliosxeros. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, The D&E, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

EROS message 11:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Heliosxeros, it is standard npp practice for AfDs to be marked as reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my page

Hello User talk:Barkeep49, I would like to thank you for reviewing my first Wiki page Malik Ofori. Please let me know if you have any questions or tips in improving the article. My page has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of WP:PROMO which I don't think it violates. Your assistance and help is welcomed and if you have time you can leave a comment on the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Ofori to help save my page. Thanks Kofipedia (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Kofipedia, thanks for your note. "Review" is a word which gives a false impression. What I did was "patrol" the article saying it does not need to be looked at by another new page reviewer. In this case it was because the article has been nominated for deletion that I could patrol it - the community will decide in that discussion whether it should be kept or not. From what I read in the article it would by guess that Ofori does not quality for a Wikipedia article (that is he's not yet notable as we use the word). Sorry and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying he has to be featured in article like CNN before he can qualify for notability? Kofipedia (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Kofipedia, Yes or major newspapers and sources like that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow - thanks

I guess in marking those pages, I was hoping that I might be able to tempt reviewers to take a look at them - I didn't expect you to whizz through them all in one swoop! Much appreciated. I'm getting close to the minimum threshold for auto-patrolled, and eager to avoid adding unnecessarily to the NPP queue, but at the same time I'm troubled at the idea of being seen as hat collecting. Would you advise me to hold off for a while and build up a bigger body of work, or make an application once I've done 25 that were all my own work (currently working on the 24th)? GirthSummit (blether) 08:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you articles are pretty easy to patrol so I would advise holding off for the time. nd it ws my pleasure to patrol those. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again for the advice - I'll carry on as I am. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #9

14:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

New message from Masumrezarock100

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at MER-C's talk page.
Message added 07:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Masum Reza📞 07:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Odd opinions of NPP

Keep an eye on Masumrezarock100 if you have time and offer some help if needed. Their enthusiasm is in the right place but they have a long way to go. I've offered to help if I can but I have a busy week ahead of me. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I have his user talk watch listed and will lend support if I can. His heart is indeed in the right place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Mercieca

Here's your award for being the second editor within a few hours to fail to check the article's history before requesting a previously declined speedy deletion:

  Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Seriously though, there is a reason why checking the page's history is advised before adding tags to an article, so in future, please be more careful. A new editor who innocently recreated a page just to have a G4 tag appear is bad enough but unavoidable. The same tag being added three times and the same message being posted to their talk page three times is discouraging and something we should really avoid. Regards SoWhy 15:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

SoWhy, you're correct. I didn't check the article history. I did check a cached version of the deleted article and saw it covered substantially the same claims to notabiliity. I did read the AfD discussion from less than 2 months ago. Are you really suggesting that community consensus, which was discused at length and which, if the AfD notice is correct, was subject to off-wiki canvassing needs to have another AfD discussion? A new user who decides to undertake requested articles has some obligations too. Where is your advice to the new user after the first one of these to go to DRV which they could reasonably not know is the correct place but which we both know is the right venue to discuss recreation? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
And let me further add I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that recreation can be appropriate after AfD. I literally just made this argument yesterday. But there is a difference between 4 years and 2 months especially after was hardly a REFUND sort of AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
If you had checked the history, you'd have seen that the first G4 request was made by me, so yes, I do agree that G4 applies here.   But another admin did not and that's fine by me but it bars further retaggings, by me or anyone else. Regards SoWhy 15:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The new user found it on requested articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession&diff=prev&oldid=908390761 (from their talk page). --kingboyk (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Kingboyk, I responded on your talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

Please comment on Talk:Wikipedia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Adminship?

Ok, I know Ritchie333 asked you about a month ago, but Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barkeep49 is still a red link - I hope that isn't because you don't want to run an RfA :/ I think you would be an excellent candidate, and was digging through your talk page archives because I was thinking of nominating you when I saw Ritchie had already asked you. You are one of those people who when I see commenting, I wonder why they aren't an admin yet. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, while that's kind of you to say I think not every message on this talk page would suggest I should turn that blue. But I truly appreciate your taking the time to write those kind words. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Frédéric Luz

Hello. Would you have a moment to check Frédéric Luz to see whether the issues have been addressed? New citations and sources include recent discussion / interviews / coverage in The Guardian, El Pais, Le Point etc. Vintage-vintner (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Vintage-vintner, thanks for checking in but if you feel that the concern has been addressed you can remove the tag. If someone reverts you (it won't be me as I'm not watching the article) you can discuss it on the talk page. Sorry for my very tardy response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. Vintage-vintner (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Different Pond

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Different Pond 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Teamwork

  The Half Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself I present this pair of half barnstars jointly and severally to Barkeep49 and Masumrezarock100 in recognition of their fine editing and admirable teamwork on A Different Pond; which resulted in its promotion to Good Article. You are both fine examples of what Wikipedia is about. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide of Leelah Alcorn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black and White (picture book)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black and White (picture book) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black and White (picture book)

The article Black and White (picture book) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Black and White (picture book) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Millennials

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Millennials. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution

I am still kicking around ideas in my head for a new proposal. I outlined some of the characteristics I thought would be desirable on an old version of User:Isaacl/Community/Fostering collaborative behaviour: see [5]. (I've since re-purposed the page to focus on general idea collection around the theme of changing our processes so that poor behaviour is a losing strategy, thereby reducing the need to enforce behavioural standards.)

I've previously discussed ideas for professional mediation (see User:Isaacl/Community#Professional mediation), though moderation was probably the word I should have used. In the context of requests for administrative privileges, I've made suggestions on how to structure the discussion in a way more conducive to determining consensus (see User:Isaacl/Community#Problems with multi-threaded conversation, and Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#N. Determine granting of adminship based on consensus of pros and cons). I plan to incorporate some ideas from here into my proposal. I have zero illusions that the proposal will get accepted, but I'd like to lay out in writing its pros and cons, as a basis for exploring other ways of managing content disputes. isaacl (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks for all this. I look forward to exploring and thinking about it all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Different Pond

The article A Different Pond you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:A Different Pond 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide methods

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suicide methods. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Donated imagery

Hi - I'm writing an article about a listed building (I know - I'm nothing if not predictable), and since there weren't any images of it available on Commons, I contacted the current owners, Walkers Shortbread (it's now their head office). Their marketing person has responded, using an official company e-mail address, saying that they are happy o donate some imagery. I wanted to make the process of donating as easy as possible for them - can they send an e-mail to OTRS with the images attached, and is there any specific form of words they need to use to indicate that they release them under a CC license? Or is this something that I can do myself if they just e-mail the pictures to me?

(I realise that, as an 'OTRS agent', I really ought to know the answer to this already; I'm afraid that you were right with regard to how difficult that interface is to get your head around, I'm in two minds about whether to persevere with it or just ask for my rights to be revoked, it's really not simple...).

Any advice you can give would, as always, be greatly appreciated. GirthSummit (blether) 11:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The magic words you want are:

I hereby affirm that I represent NAME OF COMPANY, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

NAME OF REP PERSONS POSITION of NAME OF COMPANY 2019-08-23

They should email that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Hope that helps. For future reference if you need to get this kind of language again WP:DONATEIMAGE is your friend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Super, thanks! GirthSummit (blether) 13:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Holymoorside Primary School

Hi, I see the page I created Holymoorside Primary School redirects to the page for Holymoorside. What could I do to improve the article for the primary school to warrant it having its own page? Thank you SMHS History (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

SMHS History, hi there and thanks for finding your way here and asking the question. What schools should have Wikipedia articles is a long contentious area. In nearly all cases the current consensus on Wikipedia is that secondary schools may have articles but primary schools should not. In this particular instance I would encourage you to incorporate some of the information from the primary school article into the article for the village. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Locomotive (book)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Locomotive (book) 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 Mz7 -- Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Hi Barkeep, I wonder if you would be willing to take a quick look at something for me. See Still Nasty. It was marked as patrolled, but it contains no assertion that it would meet WP:NALBUM, and it's entirely unreferenced except an EL to a track listing (no review) on AllMusic. I can't find anything at all online except for UGC fan sites, and a couple of passing mentions in articles about the artist. I think it ought to be redirected to Fresh_Kid_Ice#Discography, but I've already had a run in with the author about another very similar article they wrote recently, and I don't want to give them the impression that I'm hounding or harassing them. Would be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, my first stop would be to ask Meatgains about it as they might have found something before marking it reviewed that would indicate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I should have mentioned - that was my first step as well, I left a message on their talk page a couple of days ago but they haven't replied. That's why I thought of reaching out to you, to see whether I'm barking up a dubious tree before pestering Meatsgains or taking further action myself. GirthSummit (blether) 20:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, my searching, which i admit is not my strongest area when it comes to music topics, doesn't indicate notability and would suggest a redirect to the artist is indeed appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll drop Meatsgains another note, just to be on the safe side in case they found anything. GirthSummit (blether) 21:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you denying my suggestion?

Hey,I got your message. Are you telling me not to make a merger? MrCoolGuy159 (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

MrCoolGuy159, I am not in a position to deny your suggestion. I am, however, suggesting myself, that we shouldn't be trying to merge two existing articles into a non-existent article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I've made a bit of a mess

Hi - sorry for bothering you with this, but I've screwed up and am somewhat embarrassed about it. I've finished the draft article I mentioned previously ([[6]]), just waiting for those pictures to be sent across. I was going to publish it, but there was already an article at Aberlour House, about a school that used to operate out of the building, and which retained the name after it moved to new premises. I think what I should have done was start a discussion at WP:RM about it; what I actually did was move it myself, not once but three times as I wasn't happy with the names I chose, and then realised that of course it leaves a redirect in place so I couldn't perform my move anyway.

I do think that the description of the building should be at Aberlour House, and that Aberlour House (school) is the better title for the article about the school; I guess an alternative would be to have my article at Aberlour House (building), and a disambig page at the main title pointing at each of them. But either way, I can't do any of that as I don't have the necessary privileges. What should I do - start a conversation at WP:RM and describe what I've done? Or is it too late for that now, and I need an admin's help to mop up the mess that I've made? Cheers... GirthSummit (blether) 12:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, getting your draft to where you want is definitely something I can help with, but the question of what, if anything, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is most important here. What's your thinking behind the building being the PTOPIC? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help. So, the house was built in 1858, and has been called Aberlour House since then. It's a Category A listed building, and is described by some of the leading scholars in Scottish architecture (such as Charles McKean) to be William Robertson's masterpiece. The house itself is therefore a pretty significant building.
In 1947, it was sold to be used as a school (a prep school connected to Gordonstoun), which took its name from the building. The school operated out of the building until 2005, when they moved into Gordonstoun's campus. They continue to operate their junior school under the name Aberlour House, but it no longer has a connection to the building.
So, we've got a notable building, and a school which was named after that building, each as separate entities. Googling the term gives hits for both of them - trying to establish which is the more common is complicated by the fact that they were one and the same for most of the school's existence - so, anything written about the school prior to 2005 is also about the building itself. In terms of PRIMARYTOPIC, it would be difficult to demonstrate that the building's name is more significant in terms of usage, but I think that in terms of long term significance and enduring notability, the building should be the primary topic - it had been called Aberlour House for almost 100 years before the school was founded. I'd be open to alternative views, and would be happy to engage in a RM discussion if this was contested though, and I won't rage quit if others think it should be called Aberlour House (building). Thanks again for any advice. GirthSummit (blether) 17:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, thanks for the background. My suggestion would be to move the draft to (building) turn Aberlour House into a dab and then start the RM. I think the case you make is pretty compelling but given that the school was at the page for more than 10 years some discussion seems called for. While technically (school) wouldn't need to be notified of the RM in this case, given that you BOLDLY moved it I think it's the right thing to do. The fact that there weren't many incoming links for the school does support the idea of it not being PTOPIC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll do as you suggest. Regarding the incoming links at the school's page, I've already been through the ones in mainspace that I think ought to target the school and retargeted them to its new name; the other ones are either old talk page conversations, or ought to target the building, so I'll clear them up once this is sorted out. Thanks as always for the advice. GirthSummit (blether) 17:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/

Hi! I recently acquired the New page reviewer right. I was told about your school in a discussion about one of my mistakes during AfC/NPP. So, I was wondering if you were taking in students at this time, and if you are, whether you would consider me. Thanks! Usedtobecool   10:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, thanks for finding your way here. I read over the discussion that sent you this way and I would like to help. What it would entail is some discussion of CSD as a whole, some made-up hypotheticals, and some real-world practical work. This last bit is a bit hindered because I am not a sysop but I'm confident we can make it work. I've gone ahead and setup a space for us to work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks! Usedtobecool   16:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black and White (picture book)

The article Black and White (picture book) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Black and White (picture book) 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 El Paso shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 El Paso shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alma and How She Got Her Name

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alma and How She Got Her Name 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you! Musicsinging (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Musicsinging: Thanks. My review of the Youth Choir was procedural and not a true critical appraisement. As the choir is at AfD I would recommend participating in that discussion. Out of curiosity what is your connection to the choir? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Drive

Hi there, I see you created the GA Drive. Could you check the instructions as it says the following should be entered {{Div col|cols=3}} but ‘cols’ shows up as an unkown parameter? Also see Template:Div col. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234, looks like those instructions are outdated as the template now automatically adjusts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I just thought I respond on your talk page so as not to clog up the already busy talk page, feel free to ping any relevant users who it may concern. I definitely agree with what you are saying - good quality reviews are important however long they may take. That being said, some reviews may take a short amount of time (the article may have a majority of references as books, so cannot be checked; there are few images, so it doesn't take long to check each image for fair use; the article is an easy read and everyone reads at different paces etc.) so it isn't fair to base the quality of reviews on the time a review may take. Also, there are 3 participants, only one of whom has actually reviewed (last I checked) so imposing strict 'rules' for something as low-key as this isn't really worth the time (in my opinion). Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is always something to comment on. Article prose is very important, and the level for Good articles is a lot higher than what I think you expect them to be. For instance, your review of Laurent Eketebi didn't mention that the lede was just one paragraph, and contained only one wikilink. That you could not have any comments on a review like this is a little short sighted. For instance, why is "He later married Béatrice Lifela Y'Aekesako and had nine children with her." in the "early life" section. The article has a section for "later life" which is 12 words long. This sort of thing is the things you would usually bring up in a GAR. It might be worth checking out some other user's GARs to see what sorts of commentary are used on articles. I hope this is helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment on checking Elfern GA review

Barkeep49, I noticed that you added I'm confused about timing of this given some of the sig dates when checking Lee Vilenski's review in the GAN drive. Here's what appears to be happening:

Lee Vilenski has boilerplate that they insert in their review, and unfortunately this text has hardcoded sig dates. So the introductory section up top just under the standard review header is signed with a February 2018 date, and the request near the bottom that the nominator consider taking a look at Lee Vilenski's own GA noms is signed with the June or July 2019 date (I'm too lazy to go back and check which). What I'd like to suggest is that Lee Vilenski change these hardcoded dates in his boilerplate file to the standard four tildes, so the dates are newly generated when they copy the pre-existing text in when creating the new review page—it'll be less confusing not to have dates from last year in a new review. (Short answer: you can ignore those two way early dates; if you need to check further, just View history for the review page.)

I've also updated the article name links in Lee Vilenski's subsection in the Participants section of the GAN drive page so they're formatted as specified in the previous section: the review page to the left and the article name to the right, including for the review in progress, of 7/27. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thanks for that explanation. It's helpful. I had checked the history dates on the GA review page which was part of my confusion. I didn't bother to go in and really look at that first diff. Changing a hardcoded sig does seem appropriate. Thanks again and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, February 1, 2007 (just kidding) Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, when.i saw the message, I took the times out of my template. I had never thought about this previously, apologies.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for GAN assistance

Hello, and apologies for the super random message. I noticed that you are active with children's literature articles, and I was wondering if you could look over my current GAN for Little Eva: The Flower of the South. I completely understand if you would prefer not to, as I do not think we have ever interacted before and I do feel bad for randomly asking for help. I hope you have an excellent rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47, I had noticed this nomination when it first went up and normally I do try and claim Children's lit related articles. I ended up not claiming it because I would only have ready access to the three Project Muse sources thanks to the Wikipedia Library. Obviously given your editing record AGF would not be uncalled for but it's less than I normally would claim. I'm a little tied up at the moment wiki-wise and the first new dibs on my time is from an editor a couple sections up with whom I need to start NPP school with. Let me give it a real read this weekend and see if I think I can be a good reviewer for it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response, and I completely understand. Good luck with the RfA! I think you would make an excellent administrator. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Locomotive (book)

The article Locomotive (book) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Locomotive (book) 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 Mz7 -- Mz7 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

List of film director and actor collaborations

Hi Barkeep, do you think that this article could be deleted by WP:TNT like what happened with the List of box office bombs (2000s) articles? I only want to start an AfD here if there's an indication it would be successful. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, it seems like an indiscriminate list. List of box office bombs was a 100% notable topic done in a way that no editor was willing to save. That film and director list does not seem to pass WP:LISTN to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Communion and Liberation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Communion and Liberation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Big Mooncake for Little Star

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Big Mooncake for Little Star 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

NPP/School

Hi Barkeep49, I am aware that you currently have one student at your NPP School. I dropped a message to the other trainer (that I found at NPP School), but it looks like they might be away. Is it possible to take me as well at the same time? Bishal Shrestha (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Bishal Shrestha, thanks for stopping by. Insertcleverphrasehere is quite busy in real life and so I'm not surprised you didn't get an answer. NPP School works best for people who have a solid grasp of at least 2 or of the NPP school topic areas of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, Communications, Deletion procedures, and Reviewing Procedures. The fifth area, Notability, there needs to be a solid grasp of Notability as a concept (which means at least passable understanding of GNG) and the work can then fill in the holes. I see you requested the permission in late August and were turned down. What have you taken from the feedback offered by Chetsford? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was declined in late August because of my AFD history combined with one of the recent article being deleted for WP:NOTSTATS. I have gone through the Deletion policies and notability multiple times since then. I have a solid grasp on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, communications and reviewing procedure. I was recently given new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer and rollbacker by Lourdes. As suggested by him ([here]), I would like to go through NPP School to fill up the gaps on Notability to avoid any mistakes during review. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Bishal Shrestha, I wasn't sure if you were aware that you already had the NPP PERM already or not. So I would definitely be happy to help you. I am fairly tied up on-wiki right now. I anticipate I will have more time early next week and will start a page up for us to work then and ping you there. In the mean time, please read (really read) WP:NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing. I will get back to you early next week. Thanks mate. Cheers! Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Bishal Shrestha, I've setup a space for us to work. More there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Doubt on NPP

Hi greetings, I've a doubt on reviewing an article named Michal Plocek. It is about a rower, but only have one line. Is it notable? Since there is no notability criteria for rowing in WP:NSPORT, I think it is in the coverage of WP:SPORTSPERSON. There is no citations in the article. What may be the righteous step for this type of instances- draftification or CSD or pass patrolling? Please help. Regards--PATH SLOPU 05:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi and greetings. Why you do not ask me, @Path slopu:? Of course he is notable because he participated at World Senior Championships. The article is short but the articles in German and Czech contains a lot of material to translate, and his early death.-Arorae (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu - I would agree that participation in the international rowing championship means someone is incredibly likely to be notable. The fact that an article is very short doesn't change the underlying notability. Arorae it's not unusual for New Page reviewers to check-in with each other rather the article's creator about an article as frequently people who create new articles are well intentioned but not necessarily conversant on our notability policies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification. PATH SLOPU 08:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Congrats and nudge

Hi. Your RfA seems to be sailing along :) I read you are interested in writing about Children's lit -- no doubt, you already have this on your radar (and are going to be busier soon) but just in case, when I read someone is interested in CL I like to nudge them into filling out all things Coretta Scott King Award related. Best wishes Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, thanks for the nice wishes. I definitely agree that Coretta Scott King Award is something that deserves comprehensive Wiki coverage. My current list related priority is bringing Caldecott Award up to featured list joining Newbery as the two most prestigious US awards. Working on the King subsequently is on my longterm todo as it is certainly an incredibly important award. you might have noticed I did some work on it and also helped support a BYU edit-a-thon around these books. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hi Barkeep49, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for both your successful nomination and for your place on WP:RFX200 - very impressive! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin help pages are most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck! Acalamari 12:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your RFA

Welcome to the admin corps.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Barkeep49/Archives,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Nifty little Admin sidebar tool

If you don't already have this in your common.js, it's a nice convenience:

User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper

Good luck. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alma and How She Got Her Name

The article Alma and How She Got Her Name you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Alma and How She Got Her Name 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Pointless pedantry

Please forgive the following needlessly pedantic comment: in this close, it is not true that IM has been "banned" (in any of the technical meanings of that word), only that they have been blocked. All the best, JBL (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, you're correct. I assiduously ensured that I did it correctly - as an indef consensus there would have been a ban - except in the very first statement. I'll fix. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! (And what a response time! :) ) All the best, JBL (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
I'm the creator of Indian School Ajman, which had been recently put up for speedy deletion - wrongly, since it was written carefully, adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. Thankfully, you removed the deletion tag. I'm so grateful that there are great editors like you here on Wikipedia. Thank you! ZennieG (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Any way I can help

Hello Barkeep49,

Is there any way I can help with reviewing peoples GA reviews? I can determine if they were old nominations and see if they were accurate. I want to help the drive as much as possible.

Best, AmericanAir88(talk) 19:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

AmericanAir88, I think Lee and I are in good shape with checking submissions. But I do have one thing I'd love to compile and am not sure I'll have the time to do it. I would love to know how many "backlog days" this drive is accomplishing. E.g. how long had nominations been sitting in the queue before being reviewed. I've seen at least one nomination that was there for about a year so I'd expect this number to be rather large. Would you be willing to add this number up for all the completed reviews? It could be a great way of trumpeting the hard work people have been doing with the drive. Let me know if that's of interest to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I'll do it. How would I achieve this task? Would I just find the date it was posted and add the days? Where would I post the day? AmericanAir88(talk) 19:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
AmericanAir88, great! I was thinking exactly as simple as subtracting the days so for Tri-County Mall it would be 147 (or 145 if you prefer to do it from when the review starts). As to where to put it I'd leave that to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I'll get started on it later today. Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Hows does it look? I did it for my reviews. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
AmericanAir88, Looks good except for clarity I would add the days and your sig after mine rather than in the middle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: What do you mean? Isnt that how it is now? AmericanAir88(talk) 22:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
AmericanAir88, think my browser just rendered it weird when i looked at it last. I am not seeing any issues now. Sorry about that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Phab

The 'boss' of Phab has been making odd comments again. He appears to be in charge there and have the final word, but he seems to forget that the devs are our servants and not our bosses and is probably not aware either how much the WMF has sunk in the Community's esteem in recent times. I have a complaint drafted about his regular dismissal of volunteers (IIRC, he banned Winged Blades of Godric once) but I am at loss to know where to post it. I doubt whether it would do any good anyway - the WMF is a law unto itself and considers itself beyond reproach. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, this is where your knowledge of the players and the politics far surpasses mine.It's the only foundation we have and so finding ways to ensure that they keep the volunteers who make Wikimedia run on their minds is important to me as well. I've really liked the handful of staff I've had the chance to interact with but sometimes, as with their strategic working groups, I just raise my hands in disbelief. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a tiny handful of staff who are nice people and do a good job, but they are very rare. In the past, apart from the dismissive way the WMF regularly treats the volunteer communities online, they have used disgustingly inappropriate behaviour towards various editors at Wikimanias (e.g. 2012, 2013, 2016, to my first-hand knowledge). This concerns C-Level as well as contractors and juniors. The problem is that when we need something doing, if we upset them, they will just not do it. (ACTRIAL being the knee-jerk, milestone exception, nothwithstanding after a 6-year fierce battle) The WMF appears to have no internal management structure whatsoever, as we have become critically aware after three years of Wishlists. The staff list is here but any clear lines of responsibility or arborescence are kept deliberately vague even if you quietly question them about it over a coffee at a conference. Funds Dissemination, Tust & Safety, and product support and development are areas where the office floor has a fast revolving door policy and are an exasperation to those of us unpaid minions who really try to get things done.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
We can neverthless be humbly grateful for the work the WMF has put into AfC and NPR this year and I will just hasten to add that MusikAnimal is often between a rock and a hard place straddling that razor sharp and dangerous line of being an employee on the one hand, and doing a lot of truly excellent work for the Wikipedia community (especially for us at NPP) in his own time on the other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, yeah overall (and I shouldn't say this too loudly with Musik perhaps about to see it) the foundation has delivered more than I'd hoped they would out of the wishlist. They've done some really good work. And yes Musik has been great to work with as he truly gets it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

PERM

You'll probably want to try your hand according some of the rights at PERM and that would be good because it will be one place less for me to watch - nowadays I generally confine myself to the NPR right. There is a handful of admins who work at PERM, not with much regularity, but they do a good job and there are rarely any backlogs. You may want to put the individual PERM pages on your watchlist. If you are interested, I have a personal set of NPR criteria here. MusikAnimal has made the work so much easier with his scripts and bots. The new time-limited feature is useful - it's one way of avoiding permanent hat collectors, I just wish it had been thought of right from the beginning. PERM is not RfA, I don't take much notice of non-admin comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks for all the tips and advice. I've had NPR and autopatroll on my watch list for some time as those are the areas that most impact NPP. I'll likely add pending changes because that's such a simple right. I completely agree with you about the virtues of time limited grants - you might have noticed I've used time grants on both of bits I've granted so far. Developing some written criteria for myself would be useful and so building off yours is great. Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Late but I'll sign in

Congrats on the mop, I was confident you'd make a good administrator relatively easily. Pretty sure you've had your share of congratulations already but I wish you all the luck.   Swing by SPI sometime, we always need admins over there. --qedk (t c) 07:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, thanks for the kind wishes. I have admittedly not done a careful, or even cursory, look at your editing history but as long as you're here I would urge you to consider some of the points I'm trying to make here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I did read it and it was an interesting read, to understate. To paraphrase what I told my colleague who pointed me to it, "that essay does indeed hit home (minus the aspect of actually making it through)". Thanks again, ofc.   --qedk (t c) 17:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silence_Day_(2nd_nomination)

There was a clear consensus to delete (and then redirect, per discretion). I, GSS, Rockphed, Vanamonde and Sitush were in favor of deletion while Epinoia was in favor of redirect. Hyperbolick made a !vote w/o any reason (I still provided a rebut) and shall be outright discounted. That leaves us with Nemonoman who is the creator of the article and Randy, both of whom wanted to keep it. Even if I consider the sheer pathetic quality of Randy's arguments (which coiled down to the fact that since the article had stayed for so long, we shall let it remain), I see a 6:2 ratio or a 75% percentage in favor of deletion/redirect, numerically. That's enough to pull the trigger than relist it. WBGconverse 09:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

In general, it's not advised to relist protracted AfDs; relisting ain't a substitute of NC and all that .... WBGconverse 09:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finding your way over here WBG. I agree with your general thinking about the value, or notm of relists. The kind of extended discussion that has happened at Silence Day would not normally be the kind I would think to relist. In that case as I was reading the discussion I saw a delete consensus emerge and was ready to close as such, but, with respect, felt that the IAR argument Randy advanced was not as absurd as you're presenting it. If that doesn't gain any traction after the relist I would expect it would still be closed as delete. If it does, well then consensus had more time to emerge. Hope that is helpful in explaining my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; am satisfied :-) WBGconverse 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks as well. And of course the number of "votes" counted as a percentage shouldn't ever (well, maybe not ever) be taken into final consideration when a good "ignore all rules" point is made. Barkeep49, is there somewhere else to mention this page and specific argument to get a wider opinion, or will that have to wait for a close on either "side" to take it to review? Hopefully it will attract more editors, and will stay open long enough to give it a good chance of being seen by new non-participant editors. Thanks for giving it that chance. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
p.s. may have answered my own question. Since this discussion has entered into main page territory, would it be okay to put up a neutral message on the main page talk page? p.s. to the p.s. The Rambling Man has been summoned to the discussion, which adds to the weight of the link being added to the main page talk page as well as the "On This Day" talk page (does it have a talk page? I guess it must). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, a neutrally phrased message to a central place is not canvassing and can be OK. I would make sure to do so with caution. And just to note formally for you, or anyone else watching, I believe it's best practice for a sysop to only interact with any given AfD once and so given my relist any further actions will be taken by a different person. Hope that helps, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. And I like your personal policy, it keeps things moving or not with different points of view. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks for relist and your takeaways. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

 
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Onel5969 TT me 23:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

 
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Bishal Shrestha (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Successful RfA

  • Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 
Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CAPTAIN RAJU for the kind words and the fun t-shirt. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hooray! Well done. Haukur (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Haukurth. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll add my congrats here as well. Good luck with the mop.Onel5969 TT me 12:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Onel5969 and also thank you for taking the time to leave the comment you did during the RfA. It's appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Masumrezarock100. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats - and on the over 200 supports! Nosebagbear (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I would have bet against myself reaching over 200 supports Nosebagbear so what a pleasant surprise and honor. Your early support was appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Zlea. I have a lot of reading to do ahead of me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Lee Vilenski. Your help with the GA drive is also sincerely appreciated by me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I've not done much. Your idea, and it's going great... and you went and RfA'd you maniac! Any help I can be, let me know. Congrats on the mop again. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW, much better than a crappy T-shirt, you are now entitled to some genuine administrator bling! You already have the userbox (look how shiny and beautiful it looks!). You can also can put this - {{Administrator topicon}} - at the top of your user page if you want. And you are going to want to create your adminstats page and put it, or a link to it, somewhere on one of your pages. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There really is no greater place than WP:COA. ~ Amory (utc) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd not seen it before. What a delight it is to be included. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

To say publicly what I've written in email, I am forever indebted to the work you, PMC, and the third person who we both know, the assistance you offered before and during the RfA, and the knowledge that I can turn to you in the future with questions. I am proud to have had who I had as my noms. Thank you and the admin stats page is awaiting its bot update. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Congratulations Barkeep49! – bradv🍁 14:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bradv for your early support and your friendship without which I would not have run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Girth Summit and thank you for the time you took to write such an extended support. Becoming friends with you this year has just been a pleasure and I look forward to opportunities to speak again and work together again soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Fuck yeah ~ Amory (utc) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Amorymeltzer. I hope we get the chance to chat on IRC again sometime soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats Barkeep - Well done! I noticed this on your updated user page: "If you have a concern or need help please me on my talk page and I'll be happy to answer or assist. I assumed it was a typo, but I did note your 98% support on the hall of fame. ))) Regards, IP75 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    IP75, thanks for pointing out that poor writing. I have now fixed it. MelanieN was a bit at her wits end a few times with me around stuff like that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats! SQLQuery me! 19:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks SQL. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congatulations on a well run RfA of the kind that should encourage more editors of the right calibre to throw their hat in the ring. If you take a look at User:Kudpung/vector.js you'll find a collection of many useful scripts , some of which only work on admin accounts and which I have come to rely on as indispensable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Kudpung, for your thoughtful and detailed support, and for the kind wishes. I agree 100% that hopefully we can encourage others to run and have now written an essay that goes into detail about my experience and how I think this is a good time for people on the fence to run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations Guru ji! Can't wait to see the new face of a school, unencumbered by a lack of admin tools   Usedtobecool TALK  19:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Usedtobecool, thanks! When you're ready there should be a new set of speedy scenarios for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations and well deserved! Polyamorph (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words here and at the RfA Polyamorph especially coming as they did early on in the RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you AmericanAir88. I look forward to our paths crossing, whether at GA or elsewhere, in the days to come. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Glad I'm not too late to congratulate you like I was with Bradv. Congratulations (to the both of you) ( )! If you ever have any questions, there are plenty of very knowledgeable admins out there (...then there's me  ) out there to support you! Congrats again, very well deserved on both counts. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words and for the offer of help TheSandDoctor. I will certainly not be reluctant to take you up on that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well I'm late to the party per usual. Congrats B. Very well deserved. Enjoy the T-shirt as well as the mop and pail :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I've never had a party like this on my talk page before so I think you're just fashionably on-time. Your kind words here are truly appreciated MarnetteD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Shoot, looks like I just missed it. Congrats anyway. Sro23 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Sro23 Thanks for taking the time to come here and wish me congratulations, I really do appreciate it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you HeartGlow30797. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Felicitations and welcome to the team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Felicitations. How fancy. Thanks Ad Orientem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for volunteering your time and energy in running for adminship, congratulations on your successful RfA, and thanks for your work to help maintain Wikipedia. North America1000 04:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Northamerica1000. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats from me too. When you get bored of scrabbling down the back of the sofa to find the most apt block message to go with each block, check out my monobook, some kind soul installed a script there for me that makes much of that easier. ϢereSpielChequers 06:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers: thanks for that message because it reminded me I needed to raid Kudpung's .js which included the easy block script you like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"scrabbling down the back of the sofa to find the most apt block message" aww WereSpielChequers, that's half the fun!  . Come to think of it, I forgot to raid your monobook....will have to look into it  . --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations to the new administrator of English Wikipedia. Words can neither qualify nor quantify how helpful your guidance and advice has been. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:


  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

18:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


49?

What happened to the other 48 barkeeps? Enquiring puppies want to know. KillerChihuahua 18:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were sad you missed out on being the 50th anniversary barkeep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Well I registered in 2005. Barkeep (who regularly gets pings meant for me) registered in 2007. Make of that what you will. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Bishal Shrestha. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bishal Shrestha (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Bishal Shrestha. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bishal Shrestha (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

New Pages Review Coordination - congratulations

Congratulations! You have been unanimously accepted as the official coordinator of NPR. You know all the tasks that await you already so I'll try to step back again and spend more time at my piano. Nevertheless, as 'emeritus' I'm always on call for help or even advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks for organizing that. As I've noted before the job is too big for one person so any help you still have time and interest in offering is appreciated. And know that I'm sure I will have questions. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hi greetings, I've a doubt on the notability of a draft in AfC--Draft:Smitha Antony. Kindly please help. It is about a violinist. It is only mentioned about one award received by the person. It seems a minor award (but it is given as a memorial of a renowned violinist named Balabhaskar). There is no mention about any other awards (poorly pass ANYBIO). The sources given are much reliable. It gives the validity of the achievement of award. Also, I think the draft slightly violates the NPOV. Other issues (underlinked, bare URLs, etc) can be fixed. Also kindly please see this thread. Hope you'll help. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 13:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu, this is a mixture. You are right that the award doesn't show notability. However, the coverage about her might. The first external link doesn't Translate for me so I can't read it. The second article from the Hindu Times does look like the kind of article that shows notability. If the first article is of equal quality it would be worth an AfC accept - it stands a good chance of surviving at AfD - and then getting a second opinion through NPP in my mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the advice. The first external link from Manorama is also like from that of Hindu times. It is similar to Hindu times an help to pass notability. So I'm accepting it. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 15:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi Barkeep49, here is a kitten to cuddle in your downtimes, or anytime for that matter:))

Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Bargain accepted by community?

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Bargain accepted by community?. WBGconverse 06:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

NPP

Hey Barkeep, I would like to become a new page reviewer on wikipedia so in order to gain experience in new page patrolling I would like to join the NPP/s academy under you. I will be glad if you could take me as a trainee.Andrew Base (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Base, hi there. I saw that you've completed Girth's CVUA. I currently have 2 NPP students and have been finding myself short on time for Wikipedia as of late. I would suggest reaching out to CASSIOPEIA who just added themselves as a trainer and might have better capacity to take you on right now. If that doesn't work circle back and we'll see what we can work out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Hi Barkeep I have reached out to CASSIOPEIA.Andrew Base (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

GAR of Bengal famine of 1943

Hello. This is spam, forgive me. I'm gonna go through various GAR pages and look for people who appear active. All I'm asking for is a review, not asking for any specific outcome (i.e., not begging for a KEEP). The GAR is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bengal famine of 1943/1. If you review and Delist, that's OK, so long as it gets a meaningful review...

The article is big, detailed and has a terrible history in various Content Review forums. In fact, it has been residing in Content Review Hell for a couple years now... In return for a review (not a specific outcome) I'll do any kinda gnomish or research work you wish. Forex, I love converting inconsistent referencing into {{{sfn}}}, regardless of article size. I also help with all the errors that show up as described User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. And so on. Thank you for reading this; forgive the intrusion. Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, it looks like Vami has picked up the reassessment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply... and the offer still stands: need any gnomish work or research or whatever done, esp. w. respect to standardizing inconsistent refs to {{{sfn}}} or fixing refs, just ping me. I'll be glad to help if you need someone to do some kind of yeoman work. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User of me

Don't delete my user page. Can you give me a reason? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, you had several pieces of identifiable personal information. As someone under 18 policy is to keep this information private. You're welcome to recreate the page with a focus on your contributions. Let me know if you have further questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh no. Maybe I need to be reworked. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Benjaminkirsc, a rework that focuses less on you and more on what you did on Wikipedia would work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, maybe reworking would be okay. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

NPP request

Hi. Would you be willing to flag DannyS712 test as a new page reviewer, so that I can test out some things? Stuff like unreviewing someone else's review, or re-queueing a page that someone else reviewed. I promise not to use the rights to evade scrutiny / bypass autopatrol requirements (and, by the way, DannyS712 bot III is already flagged as a reviewer for some bot tasks, and that hasn't caused any issues). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712,   Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much --DannyS712 test (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review questions

Hi! I was just wondering why my GA reviews of Slabinja and Mill Basin, Brooklyn were marked down for the GA backlog drive. Was there an issue with the reviews? I can't imagine they were too short. Let me know! Thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ganesha811, Slabinja defeinitely falls below the "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews." criteria from the WikiCup. I'll take a closer look at Mill Basin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Big red X on the GAN drive page

Barkeep49, I hope you don't mind, but I had trouble seeing the new tiny red X on the GAN drive page, so I made a modification to your change of  N to on the GAN drive page—I changed it to  N, which had been used for a couple of entries (Kges1901 and Willbb234), and seemed to be a good compromise between the aggressive "cross" template and the nearly invisible "n&" template.

If you want to fine tune the size—if the "n" template is still a bit too much—the cross template allows you to specify the size (default is 20), though it is proportionally taller and redder than the "n" template. In either event, you'll want to change your Gacheck template, and let Lee Vilenski know so their review-checking sig template can be updated to use the same X template. (I'm not pinging here because I figured you'd want to decide on which template to use before having them go through the trouble of updating their sig.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I thought about which one was correct and had intentionally decided on the least intrusive one. We're all volunteers and I'm not looking to shame users. In reality the checks and the x's only matter for what barnstars people recieve and I know that is going to be important to some number of users but I would hope the bigger commitment to reducing the backlog is important too. I'm not going to edit war over this but I'm also not going to change the template and will probably use N& for myself going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of 2019–20 NCAA Division I women's basketball season

Same question as above: Why was this deleted? The corresponding men's page has been active for several months, and several of the headlines and events (such as conference changes) apply equally to both men and women. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Additional comment: I was actively editing this page before it got deleted.

@Dale Arnett: - same answer as above but I missed this when I looked at the list of creations. Given its broad topic and unsurprising interest from other editors, I have restored. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Just as a quick question..

Why are there huge red x's beside my listing of Im Frieden dein, o Herre mein and Matteo I Visconti? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, well in theory the x's shouldn't be any bigger than the checks - but I'm sure they feel that way. For purposes of counting reviews for the backlog the reviews were below the "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews." standard we copied from the WP:WIKICUP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
It is as I thought. The Bach article... I learned a lot while doing the second (and yet ongoing) review that I wish I had known for the first. So on the first review, in my ignorance, I overlooked details that I shouldn't have. I am sure I will revisit one day with Gerda Arendt; we are kinda working on [[[User:Lingzhi2/Recitative and aria]] as a result of the ongoing (slowly ongoing, alas) discussions. As for Visconti, I spent a lot of time pulling sources and looking at them. That doesn't show up on the review... if you are feeling masochistic one day, ask me why I haven't done a GA review in years... better yet, don't... anyhow, all is well. Carry on. Nothing to see here. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi2, Do you think we should use  CY instead? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
No, that would be confusing. "X" means "X". Just find a less aggressive "X".:-) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi2, turns out there are many x's and so I have gone ahead and made that change per your suggestion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

() that one looks quite dainty and refined. The kind of "x" that would brew & sip tea during intermission at the opera. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • FYI, the reason why I stopped doing GAN for years: WT:GAN. Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page 2019–20 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team

Why was this page deleted? Can it be re-instated as the new season is starting? Chadmb2003 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Chadmb2003, it was deleted under speedy deletion criteria WP:G5. I have refunded it to Draft:2019–20 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team. Before moving to mainspace I would ask that you find some sources that substantiate content in the article beyond the schedule which is the only reference right now. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The Louisville season's page should be restored too (with appropriate sourcing of course). I had to go off-site to view the schedule. Mhults7791 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Mhults7791, I'm happy to refund any where an editor is committed to improving the articles. As we're not an almanac so the loss of a schedule alone is not a compelling reason for content to stay in contradiction of a banned editor repeatedly violating their ban. I have restored the article to Draft:2019–20 Louisville Cardinals men's basketball team where you or another interested editor can appropriately fix the problems to have it return to mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way you can restore all the pages, at least to a draft? I acknowledged that some of them need work and/or sources added. A lot of other editors have spent time adding to those articles after creation and this mass deletion puts Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball way behind on the goal to get all 700ish articles created before the season starts. ThanksMjs32193 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Mjs32193, this does impact the work of the project and ultimately our readers. It is certainly unfortunate. As our banning policy says "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad". I admit to some mixed feelings about this but that is our policy. A few of the articles had non-trivial work by an IP editor and so I have restored those articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I second the desire to get all the pages restored. There were probably dozens of articles and it's a waste of our editors time to make them reproduce all that perfectly good content from scratch. At the very least, WP:IAR applies here. The articles clearly improved Wikipedia, and deleting them clearly detracts from it. I fail to see what purpose it serves. Smartyllama (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Smartyllama, as I wrote I have mixed feelings. You are certainly free to discuss changing the banning policy. I am not willing to IAR when the policy explicitly lays out this scenario. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you please explain how deleting these articles improves the encyclopedia, then? Smartyllama (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure.

"Editors are site-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. A site ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.
A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Even if such editors make only good edits, they will be rebanned for evasion."

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a policy too. And I'm not contesting the ban, only the deletion, so the banning policy is completely irrelevant. In any event, CSD is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions, and the fact that multiple editors have objected shows it's not uncontroversial. Smartyllama (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Smartyllama, both the banning policy and G5 were written with IAR on the books. This scenario was contemplated and I don't see unique characteristics about this set of facts to justify IAR. I understand it's frustrating. I understand our readers lose out. This is why I have mixed feelings. I also am not an editor who regularly deals with the harm of LTAs which caused this set of policies into existence. My options here were to follow policy or do nothing and let another sysop follow policy. I choose to be the one. I would suggest you look at the footnotes on the policy which can offer you some history about why this is the way it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, can you please explain how the deletion specifically (not the ban of the puppet, which is up to the user in question to contest) improves Wikipedia? Because so far you haven't. Smartyllama (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Smartyllama, I have answered the question. The answer hasn't resonated with you so let me try one more time. It takes a lot to be banned so the decisions are not arrived at lightly. Further, it's not like a banned user is some 100% nefarious editor. Many will have the skills to edit in productive ways. This then creates a tension - what do we do with editors who've earned a ban, but then further violate policy by creating a sockpuppet if that sockpuppet edits in productive ways. Some people feel as you do - that good content is good content regardless of who creates it. Others suggest that we should do nothing which rewards banned editors - that we need to stop these editors from having further opportunity to inflict harm on Wikipedia. Over time, consensus, and policy, have leaned towards this second position and so G5 was created to allow for speedy deletion as a means of protecting the encyclopedia from editors who've done enough harm to be banned. As someone who is a content creator first and vandal fighter maybe 9th this doesn't sit completely well with me, but it is the policy. When I received an IRC request to do this action, I expressed my mixed feelings, looked into the policy, and decided that sending him away was not why I was given the mop. And here we are. I hope this version of the explanation is more helpful to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
And that is a very good explanation of why the user should continue to be banned. That was not my question. Additionally, I asked for your opinion, not other users' opinions. Do you believe deleting this content improves Wikipedia? If so, why? If not, why did you delete it despite WP:BOLD and WP:IAR? Smartyllama (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Smartyllama, when I am acting in my administrative capacity I have no opinion only discretion about how to follow policy and guidelines. In this case I had the discretion not to act or not to act. I admittedly decided to act. I have explained why I was uncomfortable using IAR - policy was crafted for this set of facts and I thus did not feel comfortable overriding that consensus. In my short tenure as a sysop much to my surprise I have run into a case where I used IAR which you can read on this very talk page to show you how I approach that policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Can I at least have a list of articles deleted to take to DRV? I'd imagine it's easier to pull up a list when you have access to administrative tools, and given that two editors have expressed opposition on this talk page and a third on WT:CBB, this was clearly not in my opinion an uncontroversial deletion as required by any CSD criterion, including G5. Smartyllama (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The pages which remain deleted are:
2019–20 West Virginia Mountaineers men's basketball team
2019–20 Boston College Eagles men's basketball team
2019–20 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team
2019–20 Florida State Seminoles men's basketball team
2019–20 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's basketball team
2019–20 Louisville Cardinals men's basketball team
2019–20 Syracuse Orange men's basketball team
2019–20 Virginia Cavaliers men's basketball team
2019–20 Virginia Tech Hokies men's basketball team
2019–20 UCF Knights men's basketball team
2019–20 Texas Longhorns men's basketball team
2019–20 Kansas State Wildcats men's basketball team
2019–20 Oklahoma State Cowboys basketball team
2019–20 Baylor Bears basketball team
2019–20 South Florida Bulls men's basketball team
2019–20 Temple Owls men's basketball team
2019–20 Tulane Green Wave men's basketball team
2019–20 Tulsa Golden Hurricane men's basketball team
2019–20 Wichita State Shockers men's basketball team
2019–20 DePaul Blue Demons men's basketball team
2019–20 Creighton Bluejays men's basketball team
2019–20 UConn Huskies men's basketball team
2019–20 Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball team
2019–20 Providence Friars men's basketball team
2019–20 Seton Hall Pirates men's basketball team
2019–20 St. John's Red Storm men's basketball team
2019–20 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team
2019–20 Cincinnati Bearcats women's basketball team
2019–20 Xavier Musketeers men's basketball team
2019–20 Davidson Wildcats men's basketball team
2019–20 Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball team
2019–20 Arizona Wildcats women's basketball team
2019–20 Arizona State Sun Devils women's basketball team
2019–20 UConn Huskies women's basketball team
2019–20 East Carolina Pirates women's basketball team
2019–20 Houston Cougars men's basketball team
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: @Chadmb2003: @Mhults7791: the DRV is up Here.

Thanks

I can't deny it - I like hats. I've got an old bowler hat that lives on a shelf in the classroom, to be brought out once per year when I do 'Victorian day' with Year 4 - the anticipation of seeing me in it makes the whole thing that little bit more special for them, but secretly I get a real joy out of putting it on - the right hat changes your outlook. :) GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I decided that as convienant as it is for me that I can find articles of yours in the queue when I need to test something, it's probably more helpful to just throw autopatrol at you as someone did to me back in the day. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, well, if you want to keep testing, feel free to take it off me - I won't be offended! I just published my first patrolled article though, so I might have slipped one under the radar if you weren't watching! GirthSummit (blether) 22:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

  For pitching in on Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. -- Worldbruce (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Special Barnstar
Congratulations to the new NPR Coordinator. Your efforts are a gift to the NPP.. Regards. PATH SLOPU 16:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

NPP awards

One of the things that is generally incumbent on coordinators is checking out the performance logs from time to time and handing out the appropriate barnstars. It's something that somewhat lapsed when ICPH was no longer so available, but I had the impression that it made a difference. Of course it's entirely up to you depending on the time you have. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, great point. Would definitely be a morale booster. I'll add it to the todo list. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

NPP Question on Talk page

Greetings, @Barkeep49:. I have a NPP question for you about something I have not seen before, namely a note that a reviewer left on an article Talk page that produced an email icon I have not come across before. The page under review in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Parker_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe) and I have not seen this email / question feature before that generated this (helpful) note. Can you shed some light on this manner of adding a comment that appears in the NPP Curation tool? Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, that's a new feature. If you click the review button, type a message, and click add a message for the creator it will cross post that to the talk page and give the icon. It's a way for reviewers to communicate with each other. Let me know if you have follow-up questions or I didn't answer this one well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Thanks. Trying to reproduce that on my own, though I am not finding it. Where was it announced and discussed in more detail (as I must have missed it) where there is more information about it? FULBERT (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, I don't think there is documentation beyond what's in the phab ticket. Try this. Go to Super Pumped. The page curation toolbar should load. Click the check. In the text box leave a message and click "Add a message for the creator". Note that it will appear here and on Talk:Super Pumped. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Ahh. Thanks. This means that a message gets added to the Talk page of the article in question while it is also marked as reviewed. Is there a way for this to be automated prior to its being reviewed? That would be helpful automation of communication if something were needed prior to the review itself. FULBERT (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
FULBERT, it's actually two separate actions. So you can leave a message or review the article with any single click. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Thanks; will try it out. FULBERT (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Conventional wisdom on RFAs

I saw your comment on Fram's RFA, and I realised that I didn't know there was "conventional wisdom about reconfirmation RfAs". I have to admit that I've only paid sporadic attention to the various discussions about RFAs over the years, and I realise that I have no idea what the conventional wisdom is. On one hand, I could see a tendency to rally around your own - if you know the kind of thankless task adminning can be, you feel the need to support other admins. On the other hand, because admins have been around longer than the average editor, there's more time to acquire and hold grudges.

So I'm curious - what's the conventional wisdom on this? Guettarda (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda, as I understand it the conventional wisdom about reconfirmation RfAs is that even the best sysop will upset people faithfully doing the mopping and those editors will come out in force against the sysop. I would expect other sysops to be sensitive to the realities of the position and thus less likely to revenge vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I suppose my option 2 is a relic of the old days, when everyone was an admin. Guettarda (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I updated your count, and it looks like it's 31 (support), 40 (oppose) and 5 (neutral) among admins. Also fascinating to see who's an admin who I didn't realise, who's not an admin who I thought was, and what people's edit counts/tenure are. Now to stop wasting time :) Guettarda (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Guettarda, Thanks for doing that, you saved me from wasting time :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Check out this script User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/adminhighlighter. I wouldn't be without it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung I used one that {{u|L235}] had made when I was doing my counting. It made things way too colorful for me so I went back to plain old stuff after I counted :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Guettarda, there are admins who like yourself, do huge amounts of article work and generally stay out of the trenches and the firing line on contentious issues, and there are others who have exhausted their passion for providing content and specialse on dispute resolution, deletion, and behavioural issues. They gain a lot of enemies for just doing their job and it would be foolhardy to run a reconfirmation RfA (or even higher office such as Bureaucrat or Arbcom) without an exceptionally good reason. If you've deleted 10,000 articles at CSD, rejected 1,000 drafts, and blocked 2,000 users, all in the line of duty over 10 years, it only takes a handful of them to come out of the woodwork and tank an RfX.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

Please comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of largest hospitals. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying

Can I ask how you concluded that there was a consensus to merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying? From my perspective as the nominator of the AFD, the arguments made in favour of merging Jr qualifying draws "at best" would be put at the bottom of the Jr draws, not as a separate entity. and their is still some use for these results instead of just deleting it outright are weak and not policy based. IffyChat -- 12:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Iffy, you have your delete based argument. You have a comment which seems at points to lean both more lean delete and lean merge and ends with saying both, a keep, and a merge. Given that WP:AtD is policy, merge seemed to be the consensus. Even re-reading now with a "can I see a delete consensus" I can't even if I give the keep !vote the weight its argument merits. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, I'll take a weak merge consensus over a no consensus closure any day. IffyChat -- 15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Big Mooncake for Little Star

The article A Big Mooncake for Little Star you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:A Big Mooncake for Little Star for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Just as a reminder. Only two minor issues remain to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Big Mooncake for Little Star

The article A Big Mooncake for Little Star you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:A Big Mooncake for Little Star 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Doubt on NPP

Hi greetings, I've a doubt on an article Max Lord (baseball) while reviewing process. The article is about a baseball player who had participated in Olympics. Thus we can see the notability. But there is no references in the article and it is only a single line. Can we review it or move it to draftspace? Please help.--PATH SLOPU 11:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu, this would definitely be an article eligible to be draftified. I was able to find, however, a pretty good source without too much trouble and so I have added it to the article and as reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. PATH SLOPU 16:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #10

18:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

thanks for your help

thanks for your help at least you give feed back rather than delete it straght away — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwsforlife (talkcontribs) 07:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Violation on Draft:Newfields and Indianapolis Museum of Art

The text of the Newfields draft is based entirely off of the Indianapolis Museum of Art article, as discussed here. I looked back at the latest revision before the article in question was published on 3/23/2016, and found that the wikipedia text predates the ArchiTravel. In fact, the text was first introduced in 2011 with this edit that completely overhauled the article. I just wanted to show that there was no copyright violation on my or anyone on Wikipedia's part in this instance and make sure the current version of the Indianapolis Museum of Art goes untouched, as the part in question is very well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebral726 (talkcontribs) 13:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not realized you were the deleting admin, not User:Creffett. I believe the draft should be fully restored as it seems clear to me that this is a case of plagiarism in the opposite direction.Cerebral726 (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Cerebral726, I had seen the note on your user talk but had not had time to investigate it - thanks for beating me to that punch. I will admit that while I saw your note that it was based on the Indianapolis Museum of Art it didn't compute for me that it was literally from that article. If that had sunk in I'd have done the same investigation you did here. I agree with your analysis that Architravel copied from the same place you copied from. You actually noted it they did not which is all our license requires. One suggestion I would have is that you hit tired sysops like myself over the head with language like "Based on XYZ, see that article for attribution history" (bold for emphasis as it's the key phrase). Regardless, I have restored the deleted versions and will after this be noting this on your usertalk page as well just so someone looking through that history doesn't think you had done any copyright violations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the explanation on best practice and for rectifying the whole thing, I'll make sure to keep that phrase in mind. It was a very confusing situation on all sides, so glad we could get it all straightened out! Cerebral726 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Bit of a sticky wicket

Hey there. Here's a bit of a weird one. Enköpings SK is an article about a multi-sports club. However, the vast majority of the article focused on their football team. The title for the football team, Enköpings SK FK, is a redirect to the main sports club. A rather new user cut and paste most of the info from the club article onto the redirect, creating a page. It is a cut and paste move. But you can't really move the club page to the football page, since there is history which pertains to the club only. Perhaps a WP:SPLIT? Onel5969 TT me 18:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, we could split but in my assessment the football team is driving overall notability. I don't think there is necessarily enough notability to support two articles. Did you find something different? I think for now your redirect serves and if it's undone would suggest going the Page Move route as a way of sorting out PTOPIC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer review volunteering

I'm willing to help out with the NPP peer review task, not sure how you wanted people to volunteer. signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, are you willing to coordinate or just be part of the cohort? Either way great. If coordinating I see it mostly as the person who matches up cohort participants and answering any questions which might arise. If as a cohort participant just add yourself to the list. How exciting to have a volunteer even before I get a chance to post to WT:NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I meant for coordinator. I've already put myself down as a cohort participant. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Done! Thanks so much for volunteering. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Harrassment following NPP activity

Hi Barkeep, as NPP coordinator I hope you don't mind me asking you for some help. I'm feeling harrassed over at Talk:Scientists for Future, to the point that it is upsetting me. I would like to walk away but feel I need to defend myself against false accusations of disruption and being subjected to some blame game that I'm simply not interested in participating in but at the same time will not tolerate the harrassment I'm getting for this. I encountered the page Scientists for Future in the NPP feed, I noticed a whole section that had been copied from a website, removed this section with justification that we shouldn't reproduce content verbatim from another source and that it was somewhat promotional to do so. Then I marked the page as reviewed. Another editor objected, and reverted my removal of the content. I removed the content a second time repeating my justification which I think is sound but was again reverted. The editor involved took it to the article talk page and I engaged in discussion. I un-reviewed the page to get a second reviewers opition. In the meantime an uninvolved admin revdel'd the copied content. But since then I'm still getting attacked for removing the content in the first place and editors are arguing with the admins over non-negotiable copyright policy. As I said, I want to walk away, but if my username and my actions are being mentioned I feel compelled to defend myself. What should I do? Polyamorph (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Polyamorph, I am sorry with all you're experiencing and can feel the intensity with which you're feeling it. My attention is focused off-Wiki today and I hope you'll take a break from that talk page (which I have skimmed over) and be assured when I have a bit more time for Wikipedia I will be giving you a longer response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks Barkeep, I'll take a break from looking at that page.Polyamorph (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Polyamorph: I'm sorry that the article has caused you so much distress. Let me start by saying I think your actions were both policy compliant and thoughtful. In your latest reply this frustration shows through but is probably a good reason to step away. In this particular instance you have multiple other experienced editors, including two administrators, involved. The good news is I don't think you're really being attacked at this point as the conversation has refocused on the problem at hand. I have found it, in general, helpful to try and reframe attacks on me as "this person is upset about the content not me" even if that's not what they're saying. Sometimes this works for myself and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't I try to bow out as you can do here. For now I think this matter is wrapping up and you can consider your involvement done even if they ping you in response to your last message. Know that if you find yourself in other tough situations you can reach back out as if things are less settled I would be happy to weigh in myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Barkeep, bowing out of this now, I think I've said enough. But I'm reassured that you feel my actions were inline with policy. I possibly could have articulated what I meant better, but I don't think it would have helped, I think anyone would have encountered hostility there, and indeed the other involved admins did, although they were better at responding to it (or ignoring) than I. Anyway, back to more important NPP duties. Best wishes and thank you for understanding. Polyamorph (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Help in discussion on naming

Talk:Jesus water miracle § Title Hi greetings, I am asking you for a help. If you like please consider this discussion about the naming of an article. The article is about a hoax. Your suggestions may help. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu, my personal opinion is that hoax doesn't need to be in the title. It might need better coverage in the LEAD but I agree with those saying it doesn't need to be in the title. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. Regards PATH SLOPU 01:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Hi. I'm late to the party because I only discovered it in the depths of my watchlist this morning. Your initiative is excellent in wanting to move this issue along but I think it needs more work first. See my comments there. I have sent out a mass message to all the members of the workshop that was already created three years ago to address these issues, inviting them to your discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, frankly I'm agnostic on whether we should really merge them or not. However, at least one sysop has been defacto merging them and since there's been general thoughts that's where we're heading I thought it worth another discussion. I have mostly been away from wiki for the last day for religious purposes and so I have a bunch to catch up on including that discussion but I look forward to reading your thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

AFC blacklist

Hi! (I did not want to bring this up publicly without knowing the relevant history of discussions) This one user, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/0lesson, has persistently tried to publish a blogger's bio and now their "book". After however many usernames, now they are just bouncing around with IPs. Before I can CSD their creations/submissions (which is basically copy-paste for them at this point), drafts get reviewed multiple times. I'm thinking that if we had a user blacklist or a topic blacklist for AFC, for reviewers to occasionally peruse, it might save reviewer time. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK  14:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, AfC isn't really my specialty but could be worth a discussion at that project. I have, however, applied a mild form of page protection for the blogger. I can't find info specifically about draftspace but it's definitely disruptive so let's see if that does anything. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thank you for that, let's see how well it works out over the few days, in the meantime. I'll look over and decide on how to pursue the issue after I get back to regular editing again. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK  08:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

  The Teamwork Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present this barnstar jointly and severally to Barkeep49, Lee Vilenski and AmericanAir88 in recognition of the work they have together put into conceiving, organising, running and coordinating the 2019 GAN Backlog Drives. A fine example of Wikipedia at its best. Thanks guys. Gog the Mild (talk)

Taki's Magazine RfC

Hi Barkeep49, and thanks for closing the Taki's Magazine RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard. In your opinion, would it be more accurate to designate Taki's Magazine as "generally unreliable" or "deprecated" on the perennial sources list based on the result of that RfC? — Newslinger talk 22:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, the RfC was not written or discussed in RSP terms and I'm loathe as closer to amend my close, even informally, to do so. I hope that the line "There is also agreement that even as an opinion publication this source should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions" is helpful to you or others in translating it to RSP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll classify Taki's Magazine as deprecated, and I'll take responsibility for this designation if another editor questions it. — Newslinger talk 00:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49. Leaving aside my belief that the RfC was bad, I focus on your closing remark: "There is also agreement that even as an opinion publication this source should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF)." I looked at editors' comments containing the word "opinion" and mark them as (agree) or (disagree): (agree) 1. "Opinion is never a reliable source for anything other than the view of the author, and I don't think their authors are notable enough to have views worth including."; (agree) 2. "its published opinions are very likely to constitute undue weight"; (agree) 3. "mostly UNDUE for opinion"; (disagree) 4. "so this is an attempt to prevent cites of opinions not cites of facts. Read WP:NOTCENSORED."; (disagree) 5. "Use only for attributed statements of opinion"; (disagree) 6. "So then at worst its RS for its own opinions ..."; (agree) 7. "it doesn't have much use an opinion piece" (disagree) 8. "to be potentially used exclusively as the source of original opinion material". Thus, using a very generous interpretation of remarks saying "likely" or "mostly" or "much" as "agree", I see that four agreed and four disagreed, i.e. said opinions are okay. Therefore I am asking: how did you come to your conclusion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've refactored your comments slightly for ease of my reply by adding numbers. I hope you'll forgive this. Importantly an RfC is not a vote. If we can both agree to that, let's take a look at what I saw, We agree on your characterization of 1, 2 (which had further stronger commitment to no opinion use in a reply), 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. I read 9 "Terrible source that shouldn't be used for anything, except limited primary source use" as support and 10 "Avoid. Only as limited primary source may be of some help." as support. For 5 given the per statement I read it as agree with 9. Without getting into any sort of weighting, which again I hope we both agree ie necessary given that an RfC is not a vote, I count 7-3. FWIW 3 is somewhat less than a whole agree in my count so it's probably closer to 6.75-3.25 which is another reason we don't just headcount. When further considering the weight of the involved policies, including DUE, ABOUTELF, NOTCENSORED, and to a lesser extent QS, awe get to the close I made that it "this source should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions". I hope that's helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
So you decided that Adoring nanny who said "Use only for attributed statements of opinion, with in text attribution per David Gerrard." was agreeing that "even as an opinion publication this source should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF)". And you decided to add two participants who didn't mention "opinion" (and might well agree), but not other participants who didn't mention "opinion" (and might well disagreee). Given that the RfC didn't ask specifically about opinion, I'll suggest that it would be fair to ping all participants (except "agree" editor #3 who was banned before you closed). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: FWIW I considered whether the banned editor's opinion should be given weight and decided because the actions which lead to the ban were not related to this and occurred after his participation that there was no reason to discount what he said. Returning to the substance of what you've suggested I considered all participants in writing the close. As a closer I feel it's my obligation to reflect back the consensus, if any, reached in the conversation. Participants are not limited to reaching a consensus about what is asked. As you can hopefully see from the comment which started this thread we're in, I will not make a judgement beyond what was discussed. However, whether or not it is an opinion magazine was discussed and did reach a consensus in the view of this closer. I will note that I decided I was an appropriate closer for this topic because I understand the general principles of WP:RS and consensus but had no preconception or opinion of Taki prior to looking at this RfC (indeed I'd never heard of it before). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The question was not whether it is an opinion magazine, but whether there was general agreement that all its opinions should be censored. I see that I won't persuade you otherwise, and I acknowledge that my interpretation of one participant's comment was incorrect. I won't pursue this matter further. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Barkeep49/Archives/2".