User talk:Barkeep49

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10;

Your GA nomination of Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President

The article Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President 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:Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auldhouse -- Auldhouse (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia:Village pump

(proposals)#rfc_9917FE0|this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)]]. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Management Development Institute, Murshidabad

This is an Educational institute, established in 2014, it is an autonomous Second campus of Management Development Institute.Its not a promotional page. I'm a student of this institute.for verification you can check the site https://www.mdim.ac.in/index. I have'nt put any unlawful information OR biased without any Independent Sources. I hope Respected Org will watch Carefully. Thanks. Santanu Gorai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santanu99 Hi. I saw your message on the talk page. The deletion tag I put is not about whether it exists. It is about whether the page can be considered wholly promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Santanu99: While you can leave a comment on the talk page, please do not remove the template from the article. It is against the rules for you to remove it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing DWMZ, Barkeep49.

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

Sorry but 1 uploaded doc on Scribd is not enough to pass WP:NRADIO this should have been at least tagged as not meeting notability criteria

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

Dom from Paris (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

la chun lindsay deletion

Lindsey is clearly notable, if you feel I have written with promotional language please don't delete please help improve the language. Speedy deletion is unfair. It would be more fair to put a tag for improvement so people can help.

Nejaby (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your template on La-Chun_Lindsay Victuallers (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nejaby and Victuallers: My template was not accepted but I have nominated for deletion. I don't think Lindsay meets our definition of notable, despite the work she's done to make the world better. Nejaby you clearly feel differently (which I respect) and so we can see what the community thinks at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LaChun Lindsay

I really struggle with what you feel would be notable. First you say that I have written too promotionally. Now that has been improved by the community you say she is not notable. She influenced the Welsh community hugely and as such was awarded 3 honorary doctorates in 2 years. From Swansea University that puts her in a class with Hilary Clinton and Rattan Tata. It seems you just want an excuse to remove her. However as you say we will wait for the wikipedia community to decide. Nejaby (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nejaby: I thought the page should be speedy deleted because it was too promotional and because I didn't think she is notable. If I was looking for any excuse I wouldn't have suggested other categories to list the discussion in that the original sorter had missed. I don't think honorary doctorates prove notability. I do respect the work she's done at GE, just as I respect the work some people I know in my personal life have done around advancing LGBTQ rights and issues in my geographic areas and employment communities. Whether that makes them notable is a different discussion and one we can now have at AfD. If you're frustrated and just looking to vent steam I understand, but wanted to respect your thoughts by replying. Hopefully that's been helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC) I am frustrated, as a woman who works in engineering she is amazingly notable to me (and of course that is subjective , but in 20 years of my engineering career she is the first woman I have seen in such a position leading a huge manufacturing business. Hopefully one day it won't notable but today she is trailblazing and I had hoped wikipedia was a place where we can bring together this information so that future generations can be inspired. But maybe that is not the purpose of wikipedia in which case I will be disappointingly mistaken. Thank you for your civility - sorry if I did rant, we have different visions of what wikipedia should be, Nejaby (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you reconsider the deletion nomination. Major universities choose a small number of people every year and give them honorary degrees. These may not be alumni, they may not be famous, but they are what the universities might call notable. I can imagine that Wikipedia might ignore one honorary degree because they may just be a mate of the uni management, but three universities? This is notability. Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so, so much for your patience and help throughout this process. I couldn't have done it without you. Hopefully we can work together on another project some time. Best, Lamblings (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Lamblings[reply]

@Lamblings: Thank you for the kind words. I too hope our editing paths cross again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Westley

I've rewritten the Frances Westley article - now the software says Violation Unlikely 16.0%.

What more do I have to resolve this, I find this process completely confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjushamillabakka (talk • contribs) 12:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Hate U Give

On 19 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Hate U Give, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the shooting of Oscar Grant motivated Angie Thomas to write a short story that became the basis for her debut novel, The Hate U Give? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hate U Give. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Hate U Give), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Barkeep49, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supervise a GA-review

Hi User: Barkeep49, I am considering reviewing a GA-nominee, Gaviidae Common, but I think I should have an experienced reviewer following my work and reining me in if needed. Would this be an imposition? The bad news is that the supervision might take as much time as doing the review yourself, but it would be one step toward adding another reviewer. If you are busy, I would gratefully accept a referral to another reviewer to approach. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe: I would be happy to help. Once you start the review can you do a favor and ping me? I'll then follow along and conduct a parallel review and give feedback either on the page or here, depending on which makes the most sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about rapid response! I will probably start the review in the early am tomorrow. I'll ping you. Thanks! Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe: Will be going through today as time allows but one quick note - I would suggest only including either the general criteria (most cases) oder the quickfail criteria (if you are quick failing)

@Oldsanfelipe: I've gone through and read the article and checked sources. I would suggest it makes sense for you to finish your eval and then I'll chime in with anything additional I notice? Let me know if that works or if you'd like something different from me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK on one criteria or another. If you would like to sit back, that's fine. Unless you see something really wrong, then please issue the corrective right away. thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I hadn't realized at first you'd left your comments. If I were doing this review, I would ask about the use of developer pamphlets for several the sources. I would also reference the idea that the LEAD should summarize the rest of the article - which you alluded to with your footnote comment. I think there are some issues beyond that, including the fact that the name is only explained in the LEAD and not the body. I tend to be on the stricter side of GA reviews so feel free to consider if either or both of those comments feel right for you and this review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of developer pamphlets for sources, I thought their use was restrained. The first two were used for establishing the street locations, basic layout, and the number of parking spaces. I will take another look at the others. The loon was an oversight on my part. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe: So my general philosophy with GA is that there are a relatively small number of things I can insist on but a whole bunch of things I can suggest. I will, however, suggest things to the editor. If they agree, great. If they push back I don't insist on it. Their use of the pamphlets on the whole is for the sort of basic information that I agree is probably fine, though "The skyway adjoining Gaviidae Common I to 33 South Sixth was designed as a "public art" piece by both Pelli and Iranian American architect Siah Armajani." feels close if not over that line given the public art element. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the comments under original research and under the broad coverage category. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) I have completed my comments. What should my next step be? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe: I would ping the nominator to let him know your review is done - many reviewers also will change the template on the article's talk page to be on "onhold" from "onreview" and give them time to improve the article based on your suggestions and to await any questions/thoughts they have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You

can (probably) already test the stuff:-) Have you asked Miller or anyone, to get the patrol flag i.e. the implicit user-group?∯WBG^converse 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I did help do some testing of the feed for the NPP/AfC project so I should have those rights already on the test wiki. Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WIXT (AM)

The protection which I mentioned on the WIXT history (revision) page was told to me by Neutralhomer, and he is a much more experienced editor than I. I was merely repeating his take on the issue.User:Rudy2alan (talk)

Hello

Why are you editing any pages other than the list of science fiction short stories, which you said "can and should be improved, not deleted"?

Improve it. DS (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: I said no such thing. I did, as we've discussed before, however actually put a large number of eligible entries onto the list which had been missing so I would argue that I did improve the article from its previous OR state. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Wolf in the Snow

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wolf in the Snow 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KwikBoost page question

Hello Barkeep49,

I wanted to know if you could help me - this is a revisited page submitted to Wikipedia for KwikBoost, a business that invented and introduced a specific kind of technology to market (much like Lime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_(transportation_company). I'm seeing that there is a warning with "This article does not cite any sources" at the top, but I have 11 references at the bottom, what would be missing here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KwikBoost

Thank you so much for your helpKenrdale (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenrdale: I'm not seeing any sort of unreferenced tag on the page and agree that there are several sources present. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical List of Ethereum Tickers

Seriously reconsider your hasty opinion about a topic not known widely well. You are barring important information, which will benefit society if it is available. Mdpienaar (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdpienaar: I appreciate the passion you have for this topic. Wikipedia is for topics which are notable. Further even if the article is not advertising, which I believe it is, it is certainly a directory which is what Wikipedia is not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia."

Ethereum Tickers is definitely a notable topic and something society should learn about.

"We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."

All the information was from reliable sources. I started the article. The idea is that others who are non-independent can update information without paying the media. It will improve information available to society about an important topic. Independence should not be generalised about because sometimes the most reliable information is supplied by non-independent people. Consider for example logos of businesses. Do you always delete such information because of non-independence. I doubt it.

Not outside the scope of Wikipedia

"The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere."

"Although anyone can be an editor, Wikipedia's community processes and standards make it neither an anarchy, democracy, nor bureaucracy."

In this case your actions were very autocratic. The article was deleted shortly after it was written. You and the editor left no time for discussion to make sure you are correct. It was a one sided deletion, and you should rectify the mistake.

"Wikipedia is not a place to promote things, is not a thought-book, a website primarily used for communication, a freely-licensed media repository, nor a censored encyclopedia."

Any information promotes information. The table that was deleted was not self promotional primarily. The information I added about Africahead Ipparts (AFA) tokens was the most reliable information available, because I have the best knowledge about the token. That is just a logical event on a page about much more than one specific token. The envisaged page should have information from token managers self, as far as possible, because it will benefit society. Mdpienaar (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdpienaar: I am happy, if you wish, to discuss both the notability guidelines and the What Wikipedia is Not policy at greater length if you wish. The interpretations of the quotes you've selected are not the current consensus of the community. I am guessing you are already a bit frustrated so I don't want to respond with a "here's why what you're saying is wrong" response but also don't want to deprive you of an explanation and understanding of the guidelines and the policy. Let me know if you'd like me to dive into those.

Instead let me explain why it was deleted so quickly. Again I appreciate your desire to benefit society - that is what draws many Wikipedians, including myself, here. Having something speedily deleted is no doubt a frustrating experience as there is not time for the kind of extended discourse we're having. This is why it's reserved for a limited set of articles. One problem on Wikipedia has been people attempting to promote certain cryptocurrencies, which they will own and thus have a financial conflict of interest in. The list you created was serving that purpose - even if it was not your intent. This is why it was deleted in the way that it was. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your hasty action caused your mistake and you must undelete the article and then we discuss it. I think we should get an independent administrator of Wikipedia involved. The article stated specifically the purpose of the table is to supply information about all tokens. It was supposed to be a service to all, which can be kept up to date by all of society.

"Wikipedia has been people attempting to promote certain cryptocurrencies, which they will own and thus have a financial conflict of interest in. The list you created was serving that purpose" - You are wrong. The purpose was to add a random number of tokens to get the table going. I have no financial interest in the tokens, except, I manage Africahead Ipparts (AFA). AFA was one of the tokens in the table. It was included to supply information to the public, which is not available elsewhere. Many administrators with small budgets have the same problem and need a place where reliable information is supplied, in one place, for all tokens (Not only tokens with large budgets). One of the main reason of the article was stated in it. Ethereum Tickers and names can be duplicated, therefore a list where tokens are listed, where the public can search for a ticker symbol in an alphabetical list and compare it to a Contract Address, website address, and other relevant information, is something that does not exist currently. You are currently acting autocratically and are withholding useful information.

I was searching for the deleted article just now but could not find it.Mdpienaar (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]