User talk:Barkeep49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barkeep49 (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 15 February 2020 (→‎Race and Intelligence: yes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Growth team updates #12

Welcome to the twelfth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

General news

  • A training for mentors has been published. The training was first tried with the Czech community, and went well.
  • Growth team features have been deployed to Hungarian, Ukrainian, and Armenian Wikipedias. If your community is enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers, we encourage you to contact us so that we can verify together whether your wiki is eligible. Then you can go through the checklist to start the process of configuring the features.

Productive edits from newcomer tasks

We deployed the basic workflow for newcomer tasks to our target wikis on November 20, and the early results are exciting.

Suggested edits by type of edit.
Graph captions (top to bottom):
■ Copyedits
■ Add links
■ Expand article
■ Add reference
■ Advanced edits
  • About 1.5% of newcomers who visit their homepage complete the workflow and save a suggested edit. So far, this has amounted to over 450 edits, on all wikis, coming from both desktop and mobile users.
  • When we look at the edits that newcomers make, we see that they are largely positive! We are pleased to see that this feature does not appear to encourage vandals.
    • 75% of the edits are productive and unreverted.
    • 95% of the edits appear to be in good faith.
  • Most of the edits include copyedits and adding links, with some newcomers also adding content and references. Copyedits are suggested most strongly.
  • Click here to learn more specifics about the results so far.

Topic matching deployed

The results from our user tests showed us that newcomers are likely to do more suggested edits if they can choose articles related to a topic that they're interested in, such as "science", "music", or "sports".

  • On January 21, we deployed topic matching on our pilot wikis. Newcomers are now using it. We expect it to cause more newcomers to try suggested edits, and to keep making more of them.
  • In the coming weeks, we will be making improvements to the accuracy of the algorithm used to topic matching, which is part of the ORES project.

Next steps for newcomer tasks

Prototype of how the help panel will "peek" from the bottom of the page to offer guidance on mobile.

Because we are seeing positive results from newcomer tasks, the Growth team plans to concentrate our efforts on improving the workflow and encouraging more newcomers to use it.

  • Guidance: next, we will be using the help panel to provide guidance to newcomers as they do suggested edits, and to prompt them to do another edit after completing their first one. In user tests for this feature, demo videos were one of the favorite features, and we will think about how these might be added.
  • Starting the workflow: only about 20% of newcomer who visit their homepage begin the newcomer tasks workflow. We are going to be trying out different layouts of the homepage to encourage more newcomers to try newcomer tasks.
  • Additional task types: we are researching methods to recommend more specific tasks to newcomers, such as specific links to add, or images that could be added to articles from Commons.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

page deletion

You deleted "Draft:Prime Suspects: The Anatomy Of Integers And Permutations " But this is being created by a friend of the authors of this book. How can we give the page creator permission in a way that will satisfy Wikipedia? Please email response to andrew@dms.umontreal.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.251.254 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information about donating text to Wikipedia can be found here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review training program

Hey, I would like to enrole myself for the New Page Review training program under you. Please let me know if you have some slots left. The9Man talk 11:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)The9Man I happened across one of your recently created BLPs earlier and removed a ton of inappropriate, unreliable sources here. I would take a read of WP:BLP], WP:RS and WP:V before requesting any advanced perms.Praxidicae (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The9Man, thanks for your interest in New Page Patrol School. I have to agree with Praxidicae that it's a little early as I see some issues with RS that I would wnat to be a little stronger before someone starts. You're still pretty early in your Wikipedia career so that's not too surprising. Take some time, learn some more and come back in a few months. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate that. The9Man talk 05:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review training programme

Hi. I want to get enrolled in this programme under you.  S A H A  10:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'd love to see you get a little more experience in deletion first. Choose either AfD or CSD (you could do both but that's a lot to bite off) and spend the next 4 weeks or so diving in. That should give you some necessary background experience, after which I suspect you'll be far more ready for New Page Review training. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Arnabsaha2212. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnabSaha: You might want to fix your signature as it's kind of hard to ping you right now. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Is my signature very long and complex? Shall I shorten it? Or I remove the ?  S A H A  17:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnabSaha: Your user name is listed in the sig as Arnabsaha2212 when it's not. That's what I was suggesting be fixed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Oh. I changed my username recently. Check this new one. Is this one correct? Also, can I know your timezone? Mine is +5:30 (IST) ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha much better on the signature. I don't think i"ve posted my time zone before and since I like to be careful with what personal identifiable information I post on wiki I apologize for not answering now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: OKay, no problem. I want to proceed with WP:CSD first. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Sir, I have read WP:CSD. Waiting for your next instruction. ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArnabSaha, Great. Now the trick will be to get some experinece doing it. You can use Special:NewPagesFeed to look at new articles. If you find a COPYVIO, Spam, A7, or other speedy deletable article tag it. Watch the article and see if it gets deleted or not. I hgihly recomend using Twinkle for this as you can also turn on a Speedy deletion log. Keeping a log is considered best practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, ok sir. i do use twinkle, and how to turn on Speedy deletion log? ❯❯❯ S A H A 08:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha, you should find them at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, OK. another question sir. what if anyone deletes the CSD template? what to do then? ❯❯❯ S A H A 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha, who is deleting it? If it's the person who created the page (in most cases) that is not allowed. If it's a different editor that is a signal that the tag has been declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, it was the creator. it was a copyvio. later the guy changed the subject, and it is no more copyvio. ❯❯❯ S A H A 15:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha, what article? If it was a COPYVIO it needs to be revision deleted even if the article wasn't completely deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, West Bengal Commission for Women this one. after the creator removed the deletion template, i removed the copied content from the article. ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha, it's been taken care of thanks to the always great Dianna. [[User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js is a great script that can help you request revdel should you find copyvios in the future that need removing but the whole article doesn't need to be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49,ok sir. so, when to tag G12? ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha, if there's not any substantial text worth keeping. Basically the entire article was copied from other sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, ok ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing

Hi, Barkeep49! I see you have a lot on your plate right now, so I'll be brief. I've been "reviewing" articles for a couple of months now, and wanted to gauge whether I had come close to what's expected of a reviewer. I have to say that of the stuff you highlighted before, due to the fact I started from the back of the queue, I haven't gone through many CSDs (I think I remember just one or two, although I have performed a few more PRODs). In any case, I believe my grasp on most policies is fairly decent. I'm quite happy with my AfD record, although I wish I could've done more in some cases. Sometimes the keep/delete debate feels too binary. Anyway, I really appreciate you giving me some feedback again, and I'd completely understand if you're too busy. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PK650, just want to apologize that I haven't responded. I hope to have a more complete response soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PK650, I think your work at AfD is strong and builds on the positive contributions I'd seen before. I have granted you NPR for 1 month. If you haven't already please read WP:NPP. During the month use the flow chart and other resources to do some reviews (30+ is ideal). When you feel like you have a good body of work, even if it's before the month is up, feel free to go to WP:PERM/NPR to ask for an extension/to make it permanent. If you have questions as you begin reviewing - and I had lots of them - please don't hesitate to reach out to me or other reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thanks for your patience while I found time to take a look. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, Barkeep49! I quickly learned Wikipedia had its own rhythm. Thank you for the above; that flowchart is particularly useful and I'm sure I'll return to it often. My first question is whether the Page curation log is the only way of looking at one's reviews? Or is there a tool like the AfD one? Best, PK650 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PK650, your two choices which each have pluses and minuses are patrol log and Page curation log. Nothing as nice as AfD (or AfC). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana NPPSGRFC

I think that the Ghana RfC is as ready as it's going to get. I don't know if you wanted to wait until a less busy time to start the RfC or if you're ok with me pulling the trigger. For reference, I will have limited computer access this weekend, but otherwise will be around and able to help the discussion run smoothly. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, I am 100% onboard with you launching when convienant. Thank you for all the work and sorry I have not been shouldering more of that load. So appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, in that case I'll either start it very soon, or else wait until next Monday. signed, Rosguill talk 01:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, I saw that you added information about redirects to the newsletter. Two things. First I've tweaked the wording - there's been a lot of negative feedback about us "pressuring" people to do NPP so I rewrote it to make it more of an "ad". See what you think. That said I'm wondering if now is the right time to send it. We're near or at a six month high and if I had to pick one I'd pick people doing article patrolling over redirects. On the other hand this could draw some people back in and then maybe they'll do some articles as well. What do you think? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, maybe we can try to tweak the wording to make it more of an appeal to new reviewers? My thoughts are that having new reviewers do more of the (easy) redirect patrolling would free up time for me and other more experienced editors to do more article reviews. Alternatively, we could abandon trying to promote it in the newsletter and instead promote it as part of the NPP Tutorial, where redirects are currently relegated to what is essentially a "see also" link. signed, Rosguill talk 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, What do you think of the current wording? I tweaked it to specifically add an appeal to new editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new wording! signed, Rosguill talk 03:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here's a thought, maybe we should time the RfC and Coordination newsletter so that the RfC goes up the day before? signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:05:38, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mserikajones


I've edited my draft significantly and wish to replace the existing sf.citi wiki with my version. I have been paid for formatting NOT writing. sf.citi has revised the copy so it does not read like a press release. Studying other organizations wiki, this new version seems okay. Can you help? I don't want to irritate anyone. Thank you! msjones (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

msjones (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) msjones Please see the reason for your draft decline. You may edit the current article of Sf.citi with your version. Have a look at Help:Editing - The9Man | (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks The9Man. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thank you Thank you! msjones (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Barkeep49,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No quorum in deletion discussions

Hi there - I recall being involved in a conversation some months back about relist versus WP:NOQUORUM soft deletes - if I remember correctly, the gist of the conversation was that there was a strong consensus that an AfD discussion with no keep votes should be soft deleted rather than relisted. The opposite has happened to me a couple of times lately - once where there was a single delete vote in addition to my nomination, and another where there were no other votes either way, but it became clear (by his own admission) that the author of the article was the manager of the subject (a non-notable musician) - in both cases, an admin has relisted them. I'm not planning to wade in and start an argument with them, but my recollection is that this is discouraged, and if there's a thread where this was clearly established, I thought I might just politely point the people concerned towards it for future reference. Is my recollection faulty, and if not, would you be able to point me in the direction of the discussions where this consensus was established? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Disruptive AFD clerking by User:SS49 and Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Changing NAC Deletion Closures from last March? Levivich 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Levivich - that second one was indeed the very one I was thinking about - I knew I'd read it somewhere, but couldn't remember where/when it was. Much appreciated... GirthSummit (blether) 19:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Levivich for chiming in. Girth Summit there are a few sysops who are regulars at AfD who in my experience are relcutant to enforce NOQUORUM and will relist instead. I will, if a participant, ask sysops about whether they considered a NOQUORUM close. This is definitely on my list of "things that mildly irritate me when I come across it." I admit to straight-out irritation when it happens with a NAC mainly beacuse NACs in general at AfD are things I dislike. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - 'mildly irritate' is probably about right. I'm all for consensus over arbitrary action, but when it's obvious UPE...
While I've got you online - I've been talking to a new editor about a draft for a BLP about a singer/artist/author. I suspect her strongest claim to notability is through NAUTHOR, as her work (children's books) seems to have had some reviews. I imagine you know the RSes in this area well - if you saw this and this, would you be thinking 'clearly notable'? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 20:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit: Yes those kind of capsule reviews are not OK in movie reviews but are a definite sign of notability from book review journals like SLJ and Kirkus. Similar type reviews from Publisher's Weekly are not, in my opinion, signs of notability - unless it's a starred review. Also some Kirkus reviews are paid for - these are clearly labeled (can't think of one off the top of my head) and so would obviously not count for notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, thanks. When I originally reviewed the draft as an AfC submission, there were no sources at all; since then I've had a couple of conversations with the author about sourcing, and I'm at the point where I'm convinced she's probably notable as a children's author (despite some dodgy refs currently used in the draft). If you fancy reviewing with your 'children's author expert' hat on, it's Draft:Tyler Clark Burke. Latest round of conversation is near the bottom of my talk page. No pressure if you're too busy. GirthSummit (blether) 21:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, I was getting ready to accept but then ran into the failed verification issues that I noted in my decline. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, thanks for taking the time. That's roughly where I was - probably notable, but too many assertions and sources that didn't check out. Hopefully they'll take my advice, trim the dodgy refs, focus on the good ones, and resubmit. GirthSummit (blether) 23:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Intelligence

Seems like you might be involved in some sort of AfD/DfV thing. Are you impartial to the subject? Like, the subject doesn't matter you're just going to evaluate arguments based on how they match up to our rules? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher, what do you mean involved? Do you mean WP:INVOLVED or just that I'm taking part? When closing a discussion my goal is to reflect back the consensus (or lack of consensus) expressed by the participants of the discussion. If in the process of closing I find that I have something to say, I will generally participate rather than close. I am confident in this case that I am appropriate closer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
taking part, not INVOLVED. I take it that you mean reflect back consensus of people making policy/guideline based arguments, and discounting people who's votes are not. If so, great! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriately weighting !votes is an important part of determining consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49&oldid=940846617"