User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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)

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

• Holy Synod of the Albanian Orthodox Church - Y
• Timmy Allen - strictly by the SNG he doesn't really qualify. I don't know which way this would go at AfD as I haven't seen any college athletes that I can recall there recently.
• United Nuclear Corporation - Y
• Midway Business Park, Motu Patlu in Wonderland!, - I'm assuming you know how to AfD so not looking into these.
• 94.2 FM - Y
• A Kalabanda Ate My Homework - Can you describe what you review process was for this article?
• Durlabhavardhana - Y
• Balinese copperplate inscription - Y
• JRMSU Hymn - Good merge. Y
• Gerlach (company) - Curious about your process here given the AfD that wasn't.
• Maria Bird-Browne - Y
• Isagani S. Amatong - Y

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: Discussion would be helpful, especially on Gerlach (company).

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

  // Timothy :: talk  21:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: see my comments inline above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Wikipedia:Walled garden?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 yes I took was going to say Walled Garden. Thanks Ponyo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

Requesting to be adopted

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Yup!!! duly noted. Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Thanks very much, Right cite (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

And my attempt was reverted as well. Double oh well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Do it

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

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

@Amorymeltzer, @Cthomas3: hopefully you like what I'm doing. If you do, would you mind leaving some kind words for others to read? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Levivich:, if ( $( '#ca-addsection' ).length ) mw.loader.using( 'ext.discussionTools.init' ); is what you seek. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I can already feel my power growing! Lev!vich 00:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

(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)

Rosguill, it is quite correct that editors generally oppose renaming historical uses of the city name: that is just what the policy says. That means the JzG's #2 just reiterates the policy, and, therefore, it is redundant. JgZ's #3 is also quite non-controverisal, because it just reiterates our policy. That means ##2&3 could not face any opposition from the community, because we all respect our policy. However, JzG's #1 is questionable, because the last RM related to the name of one concrete article, not about all articles related to Kiev. The last JzG's proposal sets some threshold based on a primary source (official document), and it is not based on the analysis of secondary sources, as our policy requires. Therefore, this RfC propose users to support the rule that contradicts to our policies (the name policy and NOR). --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

Take a look at the questions again:

• For unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred

Keeping in mind the word "preferred", it is just a recommendation, which is totally toothless, because RfC is recommended in each questionable case (see below);

• For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content

Indisputable, but non needed, for that is what WP:TITLECHANGES says.

• For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended;

That is recommended by our policy, and there is no need to reiterate it;

• In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.

Why not to add that we must avoid personal attacks or other self-evident things?

Therefore, all of that could not face any opposition, does not add anything sufficient to already existing rules, and is totally redundant.

The only meaningful proposal is the proposal about a threshold date. Both dates are proposed based on some official documents, and they are not supplemented by any analysis of secondary sources, which is required by our policy. Therefore, the whole RfC is partially redundant, and partially it aimed to affirm some proposal that is against our naming policy and NOR/NPOV.

My major objection is that the RfC mixed totally obvious and non-controversial proposals, which were not expected to face any opposition, and some very questionable one, which contradicts to our policies. In my opinion, that is a flawed approach.

With regard to better phrase, I cannot propose anything, because I see no need in that RfC. I suspect it was dictated by the desire to stop wholesale renaming of Kiev related articles, but a simple reference to our policy would be sufficient. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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. Support as proposer —valereee (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

lol, sorry to ping you to your own talk —valereee (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

NPP School

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

@Tatupiplu: I'm not sure how much time I'll have and will have a better sense in a few days of what my capacity is. Can you tell me more about why you're interested in New Page Patrol and NPP School? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I'm actively contributing to AFC, and AFD and I wanted to also help with NPP. I've gone through the guidelines. But I'll be happy if I join NPP school and learn more about it from you. :) - Tatupiplu'^talk 17:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tatupiplu: so that thing where I said I didn't know how much time I'd have? Well that was me knowing I might run for ArbCom, which I have now decided to do. As such I won't have capacity to take on any new NPP students at this time. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

My page protection was not because of the sources - to be honest I did not look at them and cannot say if they were reliable and appropriate or not. My page protection was about the removal of the tags and about the external links being added. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbert_Rietbroek

Hi Barkeep49, in the recent AfD discussion for subject Robbert Rietbroek the argument is made that subject is a "notable CEO". Upon review of all available information in the public domain including references listed on the page the determination can be made that subject is in fact the General Manager and SVP of the Quaker Oats company, which does not have its own CEO, as it is a division of PepsiCo. The latter has a different CEO. Subject as such might not meet WP:N and WP:BASIC guidelines. Would you consider to reopen the AfD discussion based on this information.

It was a marginal close already and since it only had 2 relists, I've gone ahead and relisted the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)do

Clarifications on NPOL

Hello captain, could you clarify this for me; Per NPOL, Politicians are presumed notable, (with emphasis on the word presumed) if they satisfy the criteria listed there, but I ran into a problem sometime back when the politician did satisfy a criterion but a before search barely turned up any three RS of value to GNG. My question is this, with the word “presumed” used in NPOL, is NPOL in itself an SNG for politicians or does it merely point to GNG? Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 this is a source of great debate at the moment at Wikipedia talk:Notability. How confident are you that offline sources don't exist? It's possible to challenge npol but like anytime you challenge an sng you need to make sure your case is very strong and be prepared for pushback and disappointment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I was indeed disappointed because my case was indeed a strong one as a before search majorly discussed the woman’s father & she very briefly without SIGCOV, which is required by GNG. I pointed this out severally but the editors in the AFD clearly refused to take into account that the word “presumed” & “certified” are not synonymous, to them in so far as she satisfied a criterion from NPOL it was automatic notability I doubt if they even bothered to google the definition of the words “presumed notable” which in my own understanding of the English language means “is/are supposed to be notable” “supposed to be” & not “are notable” & in that case the subject of the article honestly wasn’t. Perhaps to avoid such confusion in future, is there a way NPOL can be made into an official SNG as PROF currently is? & the word “presumed” removed so that “are notable” remains so like I said this sort of confusion be eradicated completely? Thanks for your time captain. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Presumed" in the WP:NPOL sense means "we are able to write an article on this person since the sources almost certainly exist." At AfD, you have to make a reasonable showing sources showing significant coverage don't exist, which is not the easiest hurdle. It's also contextual - I recently !voted keep on a legislator from the 19th century who received some coverage in the press of the day but would have failed SIGCOV had we required 21st century-quality sources. I would not support removing the word "presumed" since it implies that "you are notable, unless we really can't find sources." SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOL has had a bunch of recent discussion because of the recent US election. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Theresa_Greenfield for more on this. I wouldn't be surprised if that SNG gets changed though I don't believe there has been anything concrete proposed yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for D. S. Bradford

An editor has asked for a deletion review of D. S. Bradford. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. THBAO (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

since I was mentioned

FWIW, no objection to reopening the ANI on PDC and allowing them to respond, though they were indeed notified by EdJohnston moments before I realized I'd better do it myself (and for which I thanked them); PDC responded at length to that notification of the reopening. No objection also to marking both RfMs as to remain open for another month. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)