Jump to content

User talk:Barkeep49: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 215: Line 215:


{{tq|''I can make a pitch that being an admin is a pretty cushy position that carries benefits that aren't always appreciated (both by non-admins and by admins who've just grown used to them and don't notice them any more).'' }} I'd be curious to see that pitch - wait until you've been an admin a bit longer, particularly if you continue (as I did) to be highly visible. You were only recently 'promoted' (which I supported, and not lightly[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Barkeep49&diff=914148965&oldid=914148686][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Barkeep49&diff=next&oldid=914148965]) and I hope you last as long as I did - if you do, I probably won't be around to see it though. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
{{tq|''I can make a pitch that being an admin is a pretty cushy position that carries benefits that aren't always appreciated (both by non-admins and by admins who've just grown used to them and don't notice them any more).'' }} I'd be curious to see that pitch - wait until you've been an admin a bit longer, particularly if you continue (as I did) to be highly visible. You were only recently 'promoted' (which I supported, and not lightly[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Barkeep49&diff=914148965&oldid=914148686][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Barkeep49&diff=next&oldid=914148965]) and I hope you last as long as I did - if you do, I probably won't be around to see it though. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

:{{re|Kudpung}} I can only hope to be around long enough to have improved the project as much as you did. The core of my pitch, which I've made onwiki in various places so I don't mind making it here, is that admin get less pushback for equivalent actions than other editors. For instance, in the [[#Kiev]] thread, whoever closed that RfC was going to get some comment from someone unahppy. I suspect that if a non-admin had done it, the pushback would have been more forceful (and might not have had the added benefit of a talk page watcher chiming in for extra support). Some admins perform numerically more controversial actions so they get numerically more pushback - even if at a reduced rate - so it doesn't always seem like that. And some admin can, of course, attract longterm harassers because of their admin work. But it is my contention that it is possible to be a low-visibility active admin and if that's what you are you get a whole lot of social capital (which can include benefits in non-admin ways like low-grade content disputes - the community endorsed your understanding of PAG after all) which helps insulate the admin from criticism and thus makes it a pretty cushy position. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


== NPP School ==
== NPP School ==

Revision as of 15:55, 15 November 2020


Archives (Index)

Checking in

Hello, I've done some NPP and decided to check in with you to see if you have any advice for improvement before I get too far in. No rush and hope things are well.   // Timothy :: talk  15:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue:, happy for you to stop by. Here's what I see.

So overall definitely on the right track. Couple of places where some follow-up discussion might be useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Timmy Allen: The sources in the article from The Salt Lake Tribune, The Arizona Republic, Associated Press, Deseret News, come close to meeting GNG. When the first point about multiple sources under BASIC is considered, I think they cross the mark. Since the article met this I didn't consider NBASKETBALL because of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines second paragraph. Plus anyone with the root name "Tim" is always notable.
  • That's a fair enough interpretation. Whether NSPORT is inclusive or exclusive is an ongoing debate. I don't think you actually did this wrong per se I just wanted to raise college athletes as a controversial area to be particularly thoughtful while patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Kalabanda Ate My Homework: I admit this was an article I personally wanted to keep. Based purely on GNG, its in a grey area as far as sources go. I think this is when SNGs become helpful; rather than use SNGs as an excuse to keep an article when SIGCOV is absent, they help evaluate an article when SIGCOV is questionable. Based on point 3 under WP:NFO, I think the awards it has won make it notable and indicate more sources could be found. I looked into the awards listed and added one award I found [1].
  • Hoo boy do I get a bit scared when we patrol by working backwards from the outcome we want. We're volunteers so you're under no obligation to do an action you don't want but that can often mean it's better to skip an article than to patrol it. Now there's nothing wrong with doing some research, finding information that better establishes notability, and improving the article. I don't know a ton about Ugandan cinema but I am very skeptical that the Film Festival Award on its own meets NFILM criteria 3. But the two awards together are a good sign of notability and make sense to me. So I agree with your endpoint but caution you about the route you took to get there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerlach (company): Sometimes when I'm considering an article for AfD, I bookmark it and come back to it later with a fresh perspective; I wish I had done that with this article. I've changed my mind about it half a dozen times since I started working on it. I put weight on Piotrus opinion/sources because of their experience at AfD and Polish topics. There could be local language sources I'm missing and I could be misinterpreting coverage as promo when it is actually a sign it is well known, but then fame does not mean notability. Ulimately I lost confidence in the AfD and I think when that happens, a withdrawl or a changed !vote is important. Because I've gone back and forth on this, I should have marked the article as unreviewed, so another set of eyes could look at it (I did mark it unreviewed now).
  • Knowing when to leave an article to another reviewer is a key NPP skill. Speaking personally if I was able to verify that a company in a non-english speaking country had been around since 1760 and I couldn't find evidence of notability I would just leave it alone, assuming my ability to search that language (polish in this case) was just insufficient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  // Timothy :: talk  21:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: see my comments inline above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: "Knowing when to leave an article to another reviewer is a key NPP skill." That's the main lesson I'm taking away. Knowing in general when to leave something (anything, NPP, AfD, RCP, ANI, plain editing) for someone else seems to be a golden rule for a happy wikilife. // Agree on the Hoo boy; guilt for breaking a cardinal rule drove me to confession, the means are just as important as the end.   // Timothy :: talk  05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check in

Hello :) Its been about 3 weeks of NPP, so I thought I would check in for a review.

  • I was clearly outside the consensus on Gun serial number (I still think I am correct, but I accept I'm clearly outside the consensus). I'd be interested in hearing what you think of this article and the AfD rationale (AfD is clearly going to be a keep, just wanting feedback from you on WWIN)
  • HBCU Buzz gave me some issues I decided to leave it for someone else.
  • I think a really solid article at Song-Xia wars resulted from a merge suggestion on a series of new articles.
  • Alexander Grigoriev (artist) was an article I was interested in, but I was careful not to work backwards.
  • I merged two articles Luba Royal Mausoleum, Pulau Chermin Royal Cemetery into Bandar Seri Begawan. I figured these could be split if there was enough for stand alone articles, I think this was a good merge, but interested in a second opinion.
I think the major take away from the last two weeks is to think more about possible merges as WP:ATD.
When I first started NPP, I assumed it would be extremely similar to AfD; in this I was wrong, but pleasantly so. I can't put my fingers on the write words to explain why, but its more involved, deeper, than AfD. But perhaps this means the way I have been doing AfDs needs adjustment. Either way NPP will improve my AfDs.
This weekend I'm going to finish a couple of articles I've been writing, so I might be slow in responding. Again thank you for your time and best wishes   // Timothy :: talk  09:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS Question: re: Template:Drafts moved from mainspace it appears that User:JJMC89 bot runs and tags with this automatically. Should we depend on that or should we be manually tagging Draftify articles? 12:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Always good to hear from you. Here are my thoughts:
  • There's always a "what is this harming" element to deciding whether to go to AfD or not. BLPs that are inadequate are harmful. Articles that give legitimacy to topics that might struggle for them (i.e. certain cryptocurrencies) can be harmful. An uncommon but verifiable food dish? No harm at all. Gun serial number basically falls into this last category.
  • HBCU Buzz: I wondered about UPE but in the end I don't think it is UPE. I'm a little skeptical about notability but media publications in general are tricky to ascertain notability. "newspapers of records" for a big enough area are going to be notable regardless of traditional indicators, in my experience. This is more of a specialty publication which counts against it.
  • Song: Not sure what it took to get there but I agree that is a nice article. More on merges below
  • Grigoriev: I think that needs a cleanup tag (I applied) but I agree that he is a notable topic
  • So these topics need coverage. I think BOLD editing is fine. If this was challenged and put up to discussion my gut tells me consensus would go against you. However, if no one challenges and it stands for a while well that's meaningful too. I say that less for this particular situation and more about how you should perhaps approach this in the future. An essay I'll probably write some day is "Out on a limb" which is basically the BOLDer the action the more willing you need to be to let it be undone when challenged. And in this case I think you're out there. I truly believe in BOLD editing so nothing wrong with that just needing to know what to do if challenged.
And yes I think NPP can be an immensely rewarding task. You're getting to help nudge the encyclopedia in really great directions at an important time - the creation of new material. I'm glad you're enjoying it and finding it's helping you as an editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check in 2

Hi Barkeep. Its the end of the month for my trial NPP, so I thought I would check in for a review. Hope things are well.   // Timothy :: talk  03:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue it would probably be good to get some fresh eyes and thoughts. I'd encourage you to post at PERM/NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is England Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by England Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. Botswana The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with New York (state) Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Gondor Hog Farm (submissions), Indonesia HaEr48 (submissions), Somerset Harrias (submissions) and Free Hong Kong Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Is This Called

Can’t for the life of me remember what it is called when, for example an editor A, creates an article(usually non-notable) for a man, then creates another article for his spouse, then creates an article for their business, then creates an article for their kids, then proceeds to link all of them together. I think it’s an essay & I have been trying all week long to recollect the name of the essay that discusses this but for the life of me I just cannot remember. Can you help me out here? Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Walled garden?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007 yes I took was going to say Walled Garden. Thanks Ponyo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo & Barkeep49, exactly! I knew it predominantly as “WP:WALL” thanks for aiding me to remember, nothing more annoying than forgetting something you used to know. Celestina007 (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to be adopted

Information icon Hello, I am ChuksJD, I want to enroll into the NPP Academy and I wish that you become my adopter. 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 ❑❑❑❑ (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuksJD:, New Page Patrol rights are generally given to fairly experienced Wikipedians so that's probably not the right place for your at the moment. Tell me more about what you'd want out of an adoption? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urggh More Questions For You Captain

Hello Captain, I’ve got two questions here, the first is; what is the communities decision on notable articles created by proven UPE editors? Do I mark as reviewed or just indefinitely draftify the article even though the article is a clearly on a notable subject? The second is, when I do page curation & tag an article with the {{Notability}} tag, it automatically marks the page as reviewed but I always manually unreview/un-mark the page, my question Is, is this the right course of action or do I just leave the article as marked/reviewed after affixing the notability tag. I desperately need clarification on the aforementioned scenarios. Celestina007 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: in terms of adding the tag, it depends. Sometimes you want to add the tag and leave it for another reviewer to consider. So in that case it's appropriate to unreview. in other circumstances you want to mark it as reviewed but note that it's borderline and so you want to leave the tag and leave it reviewed. As for UPE it might be helpful to give a specific example you're wondering about rather than talk in generalities. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the notability tag & it’s intricacies, as for the UPE, that was hypothetical & I thought the community might have reached a decision pertaining to that so I thought it wise to ask from you, I was just generally asking. Cheers captain. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that there's not a hard and fast rule as it depends on who the UPE is and what the state of the article is. So DRAFTIFY can be a correct solution but not in all situations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup!!! duly noted. Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mango (Saturday Night Live) (2nd nomination). What do you think of my improvements to the article? Right cite (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Right cite: I actually don't look at articles before I close the AfD. My job as closer is to evaluate the consensus reached by the participants of the discussion. If I look at the article I might substitute my own view for that of the participants (and if I have a view I should be participating and not closing the discussion). But judging by the conversation it did make a difference, so that's something to be proud of (I know I am proud when I "save" an article that's at AfD). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, well, having had a chance post close, what do you think of the article improvements? Right cite (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Right cite: I have had a chance to look at the article. You did some impressive research there. You would probably be close to GA. If anything the page might be overly detailed right now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Right cite (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your version on the notability page

[2] Notice how your version still ignores the fact that many things are notable for the encyclopedia without any coverage every likely to be found, as examples given in the discussion. Also certain people already argue nonstop they can keep nominating something for deletion even if it meets a subject specific guideline. Need to be perfectly clear to avoid problems, and just point out what's listed at the top of the Notability page and has been for years, that its notable if it meets one or the other, never has to do both. Dream Focus 00:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: You write ignores the fact that many things are notable for the encyclopedia without any coverage every likely to be found. I'm confused. Are you suggesting things which are not verifiable can be included in Wikipedia? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage verifying them, just not "significant coverage". Many species articles just list a few stats about them, there no significant coverage of them. Dream Focus 01:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I agree that some topics can, under our current guidelines and current practice, be notable even without significant coverage, as long as it remains verifiable. If you want to delete that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic), or that sourcing will likely be written for the topic in the future due to the strength of accomplishment (such as winning a Nobel prize). I would not revert you as my goal was to see if we could agree on explaining that SNGs exist without getting into the rather complicated and contentious area of how they convey notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did so but then someone else reverted me who hasn't participated in the discussion yet. Oh well. Dream Focus 01:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And my attempt was reverted as well. Double oh well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong about Zamora

Hi! At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebeca Flores you state that the bundling of Zamora was not correct. I am 99% sure that it was totally correct, and participants stated delete both. It was this nomination where Zamora's nomination was incomplete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana Rivadeneira. Now, on the other hand, after I duly renominated Zamora and consensus was to delete, can you please delete it? Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte I can understand your frustration here. I am being a stickler for the rules, because deletion is such a major action for an article. But you didn't use the la template for Zamora so it didn't look like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today's Railways UK, for instance, which is a successful bundle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do it

Do the thing where you run. I liked that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I liked that too. CThomas3 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Hello, a while ago you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 and it is now being used as a precedent for deleting a similar article 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle and with others to come. I was hoping to relist the discussion to form a clearer consensus since it is being used as a precedent. You know I respect your judgment, value your counsel, and mean no disrespect.   // Timothy :: talk  14:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

good close & explanation at Del Rev. -- DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:José Arechabala

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

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing to me because it looks like you moved this draft to main space but you were still listed as the page creator of this draft so this notice was posted to your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of stuff happens with some regularity so I'm not too surprised or confused. Hope you're doing well, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casey_Trees

Thank you. In the meanwhile, I asked off-wiki a person whom I know with significant experience in the NFP world of DC and he wrote to me, that "it is well known and reputable." Bearian (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: thanks for sharing. When I get a ping with an AfD for the topic my first thought is "oh no, someone is unhappy with a close." Glad that wasn't the case here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teach me your dark magick

This edit is tagged "Reply", but I thought the Reply Tool was not yet available on enwiki, even as a beta. What spell did you recite to perform this magick? Lev!vich 00:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich:, if ( $( '#ca-addsection' ).length ) mw.loader.using( 'ext.discussionTools.init' ); is what you seek. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can already feel my power growing! Lev!vich 00:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Gentrification in the United States

Hello, I was writing a note to the article author about drafting Gentrification in the United States and noticed WilyD reverted the draft. Given the content forking and copied material from Gentrification [3], I thought Draft was the best place for it to be worked on.

I thought Draft was correct, but the revert was from an experienced admin that said "Draftication was obviously inappropriate". How should I have handled this?

WilyD: Barkeep49 has been mentoring me at NPP, which is why I left the question here, but any feedback that you can provide me would be welcome and helpful.

Best wishes,   // Timothy :: talk  11:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If copying is done within Wikipedia, you can use a dummy edit to the page to add a note about the copying; that'll resolve the licensing issues. Otherwise, I can't begin to guess why you draftified it; it seems very unlikely to me the current version, as is, would've been deleted at AfD. Certainly not by any speedy deletion criterion. WilyD 12:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi WilyD, the report in the NPP panel [4] indicated it was 75% (4,526 words) copied from Gentrification. If it was a minor amount I would have used the null edit instead of draft, but 75% seemed like it was not ready for mainspace and Draft was a good ATD since the author indicated they would return (but obviously there could be no guarantee). The combination of the fork and the duplicate content along with a new editor seems like it will require some time to work on and draft is less discouraging to a new editor than AfD. It does seem like it could be a great summary style split, so AfD might be hasty given the potential. So I thought drafting and an encouraging note to the author would have been best. Thank you for your time helping me understand situations such as this.   // Timothy :: talk  13:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gentrification is over 100kB of readable prose, so it should be spun out into smaller articles, which the author indicated they were doing in the edit summary. Sending an article to draft space is very discouraging for a new editor, it sends a clear signal that they're not wanted, and if the author wasn't required to do this for a course, you'd have probably already driven them off. Of course, when the only possible alternative is deletion, draftification is a slightly less hostile choice. But the page is question isn't eligible for speedy deletion, and it's very unlikely it'd be deleted at AfD. WilyD 13:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev

In my comment, I pointed out that the proposal sets the rules that are different from what our guidelines and policy recommend. In connection to that I am wondering why this my opinion was not taken into account. A local consensus cannot overrule policy. The policy (WP:UCRN) says that recognizable names are preferred. so the decisions of some authorities cannot affect Wikipedia directly, only through reliable secondary sources. In addition, a decision of the Ukrainian commission is a primary source, so the local consensus is questionable from the point of view of another core policy, NOR. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert: your comments were taken into account and I agree that a local consensus cannot overrule policy. I had been getting ready to close the RfC but waited more time after your November 2nd comment to see if it would attract any further comments. It did not. Your comments in both that thread, and elsewhere including the comment above, suggest you are attempting to relitigate the outcome of the RfC itself, which was not a local consensus (for instance it was listed at WP:CENT). I'm sorry you weren't around for the RfC itself and that you are frustrated with its result but that does not change the considered consensus of the Wikipedia community for at least a year. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The last RM (I was not participating in) was about a change of a single article (Kiev). The current RfC was about expansion of the result of that consensus on the whole category, and setting some date, which is OR. These are totally different things, and the policy explicitly says that if one name has changed, other articles do not necessarily change their names, so everything is depends on context. Therefore, my failure to participate in the last RM is irrelevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) There's nothing OR about the suggested dates as they're merely suggestions, not the final word on article content. Closing comments like that are just rough outlines of likely outcomes given the community's perspective on a given point. There's a general, if possibly sour, consensus that Kyiv is appropriate for the modern city, and this most recent RfC established that editors generally oppose renaming historical uses of the city name to the new spelling. The suggested cutoff dates merely make legible which dates are relevant to the updated spelling convention, so that editors not intimately familiar with Eastern European history can get a sense of what changes are likely to be contested. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your need to drop the stick about the name is relevant; you have suggested re-opening the RM elsewhere on that talk page and I am considering the entirety of your comments when replying. As for the dates, several editors agreed with you about them, and this is why I separated them out in my close, unlike in the original RfC. Rule of thumb was the best phrase I could come up with for "here's an idea but you don't have to stick to it". If you have a better phrase/word I would be open to that suggestion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

advice/feedback

So I've reread ANI advice. I've made a revised proposal, and I'm wondering if what I should have done in the first place was just have made that as a standalone, easy-read post like this:

Proposing one-month block with a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. This has already achieved a level of consensus in this discussion which was followed by a very clear final warning here that blocks of increasing length would follow the next incident.

Is that what ANI advice is saying I should have done? Thanks for any advice. (And, yes, I walk away after this. I've done my best. Not my monkeys.) —valereee (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I think that would have met with more success than what you did. I think dropping the names of the admin who had been involved in this was helpful in that it shows it's not just you. I would have tried something like
Sample ANI wording
Pasdecomplot has been warned multiple times over months by Usedtobecool (diff), Cullen (diff), me (diff), and GirthSummit about making accusations of bad faith, both at talk pages and in edit summaries (example (diff1), (diff2), (diff3) but there are many more).
I am proposing one-month block with a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. This has already achieved a level of consensus in this discussion which was followed by a very clear final warning here that blocks of increasing length would follow the next incident.
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, thank you! Even if nothing comes of it, at least I managed to learn a few things. So that's a win. :) —valereee (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lol, sorry to ping you to your own talk —valereee (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I can make a pitch that being an admin is a pretty cushy position that carries benefits that aren't always appreciated (both by non-admins and by admins who've just grown used to them and don't notice them any more). I'd be curious to see that pitch - wait until you've been an admin a bit longer, particularly if you continue (as I did) to be highly visible. You were only recently 'promoted' (which I supported, and not lightly[5][6]) and I hope you last as long as I did - if you do, I probably won't be around to see it though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I can only hope to be around long enough to have improved the project as much as you did. The core of my pitch, which I've made onwiki in various places so I don't mind making it here, is that admin get less pushback for equivalent actions than other editors. For instance, in the #Kiev thread, whoever closed that RfC was going to get some comment from someone unahppy. I suspect that if a non-admin had done it, the pushback would have been more forceful (and might not have had the added benefit of a talk page watcher chiming in for extra support). Some admins perform numerically more controversial actions so they get numerically more pushback - even if at a reduced rate - so it doesn't always seem like that. And some admin can, of course, attract longterm harassers because of their admin work. But it is my contention that it is possible to be a low-visibility active admin and if that's what you are you get a whole lot of social capital (which can include benefits in non-admin ways like low-grade content disputes - the community endorsed your understanding of PAG after all) which helps insulate the admin from criticism and thus makes it a pretty cushy position. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPP School

Hi, I wanted to enroll for NPP School. Can i be your student? :) - Tatupiplu'talk 13:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

according to the protected article

I added the new sources for Amber Martinez but someone deleted that, the sources was reliable and independed can you please review that? 212.47.220.173 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49&oldid=988841474"