User talk:Barkeep49
 Archives (Index) |
BLP NB editnotice
[edit]Thank you; I'd started it using a comment I had posted previously and hadn't really thought about it in a less-argumentative more useful-to-newcomers context. Your edits have made it much better. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @OwenBlacker it's a really good idea for an edit notice. Hopefully it helps lower the temperature in some places (even if we won't know when it did since success will mean nothing happens). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. We do already have {{Pronoun editnotice}}, but that's more "this is a reminder" rather than "dear gods, stop it people!", y'know? :) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Sometimes people need to know that they're crossing a behavioral line that people will notice and care about. Your notice does that nicely. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. We do already have {{Pronoun editnotice}}, but that's more "this is a reminder" rather than "dear gods, stop it people!", y'know? :) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
WikiConference North America 2024
[edit]Hello @Barkeep49! If you feel comfortable, could you please send me an email at jamie.flood2@gmail.com so I can send you correspondence (Acceptance!) about the session you proposed for WCNA 2024? Thank you for your time! JamieF (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
A question.
[edit]Hello @Barkeep49. I had a question and was not sure where to post it so I figured I might as well ask an admin. I have suspicions of undisclosed COI by a user and have uncovered potential off-wiki evidence. While I know not to post such things directly on wikipedia, I was wondering if I should make my case entirely through the provided email or if I should make a section on WP:COIN presenting the on-wiki evidence and only email the off-wiki evidence. Thanks. Yvan Part (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Yvan Part. Great question - and you're not the first to have it. Because your suspicions include off-wiki evidence you should email it to WP:COIVRT. There is a bit of a backlog there at the moment, but that is the right place to handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers. Have a good day. Yvan Part (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
[edit]| New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
BLP-violating draft
[edit]Hi! I'm a little torn here (I also admit to being a little intimidated, having seen your name on things like Arbcom decisions as One Who Speaks Sense). While it's certainly nice to see an admin taking care to consider a speedy nomination instead of just hitting delete, I'm concerned that in this draft you then restored completely unsourced information alleging a named person was responsible for (and convicted of) various heinous offences. I've gone ahead and removed every instance of the name from the draft but remain concerned the surname is still in the title, the offending material is still archived in the history, and also by the question of if simply restoring it unedited was really in compliance with WP:BLPREVERT.
Am I wrong? I probably am, to be fair, but something about this feels not in-tune with BLP policy. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Technically some stuff is cited - there are links in the Infobox to case related materials - including the Oral Argument whcih establishes some of the facts, though you are of course correct nothing is cited in-line. I wasn't going to point that out in the decline because the bigger point remains: this is a US Supreme Court case and so if there are negative facts about a BLP, well that's just the way it goes sometimes and for speedy deletion purposes this was not negative enough to justify deletion. Replacing the person's name with other language until better citation can be done in the draft does seem appropriate to me as well. And thanks for the kind words. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- <nods thoughtfully> Thanks for the quick response. If I were a better writer/researcher I might try and source/expand the draft myself, as it strikes me as a reasonably important question of law. Certainly it seems better than the other drafts I found around the same time (now gone but see my deleted contribs for examples). Unfortunately I don't think I'm competent to do it. Thanks for all you do around here. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi and Talk:Anti-Defamation League on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments, and at Talk:Imane Khelif on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
WikiCup 2024 August newsletter
[edit]The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:
Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.
Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024 on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which
applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
. - A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
- Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
- The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
- Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!