User talk:Barkeep49: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

New Page Review training programme

I am a new page reviewer and want to see if you have room to take me on as a trainee in your NPP training. As a life-long educator, I believe in the power of learning, and while I have read all of the online materials and tutorials it has been suggested for NPP work, few things take the place of having some guided assistance and a dedicated area for questions while I am learning. Thanks for the consideration. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT my most successful NPP School participant was a British educator so that bodes well for you. The truth is that since you already have the permission, albeit on a two week go, I'm not sure if my NPP curriculum makes as much sense for you. However, I am more than happy to help you become a successful reviewer. If you'd like I'd be happy to setup a page for us to work together - you could come and ask questions or simply post reviews you did and look for feedback. What do you feel like will offer you the support you need to help you become a long-term productive NPP? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT I was just looking at articles that had been proposed for deletion in the queue and I came across Ginestra Bianconi which you had tagged with a BLPPROD. As you might have noticed I undid this tag - for purposes of the BLPPROD external links count as references and so it is not eligible for that tag. BLPPROD is a bit of a weird one - there are really strict requirement for what need to be in place, a BLP with no sources in the broadest nature, but then also is hard to remove in that a reliable source must be included in order to remove it. So if those two links hadn't been present before the tag they'd have been woefully insufficient to remove the tag. But since they were present it's not eligible for that tag. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me on this Barkeep49. I replied to you earlier but think a network hiccup or the like happened while working from my car, and it did not appear here. So, two things. Yes, I would love some feedback and guidance on my edits here as I am learning the ins and outs of the NPP work. Whether that means in a dedicated space or elsewhere, this will be most appreciated. I did some work this evening and had a number of questions, so will really appreciate being able to share them with you for guidance. The second issue is on this article. I see what you mean about those external links that were really not sources, but they do counter the BLPPROD so I understand your explanation -- thanks. So, given those sources that really do not substantiate anything in the article outside this person exists -- what do you suggest for this article's review? Sorry, neglected to sign! --- FULBERT (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT it's not eligible for any sort of speedy criteria. If I were patrolling this article I would first attempt to ascertain my thinking on its notability since that would impact what options I'd consider for how to deal with it. If it's clearly notable I would tag with Template:BLP unsourced - there doesn't seem to be anything questionable/controversial enough to need to get out of article space for draftify. In this case there is also the pretty likely chance of a COI of some sort and possibly even an autobiography. I have posed the question on the article creator's talk page and we'll see what we find out. If it does turn to be a COI/auto then suddenly draftify is a whole lot more appealing as an option. But absent that it's all about notability and here I would normally give my opinion but it's NPROF and so except for clearly notable people I tend to give it a wide berth because I have issues with the standards which suggest RS don't matter and because even on its own merits it takes a very long time for me to do the notability search that comes much easier to people who are more plugged in to higher ed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about speedy criteria, it is more about the question you asked related to its notability Barkeep49. I agree with your question you asked on the Talk page and about notability. While you are asking for that, the article is still marked as not patrolled, yet how would somebody know that you are having this conversation or inquiry in this? Likewise, is there a time limit for somebody to reply or otherwise edit the page, before you take further action? I suppose this is more a process question for how something in process related to the review is marked and how it then either gets reviewed or, pending lack of clarification, something else (what?) happens? --- FULBERT (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT So my general view when doing NPP is that I'm looking for reasons to find something notable. Anytime I can mark a page reviewed is a form of victory for me - I'm here to build an encyclopedia and that feels like an act of building it. Of course one of the way we maintain our own credibility is by having the standards that we have and so while notability is a victory, deletion in most circumstances isn't a loss, it's just part of the job. So I would (and have) watchlist the page. If another reviewer (who I knew and trusted which is most active ones) marks it as patrolled in this case I'd be like "phew don't have to worry about notability anymore". In some cases I watchlist it because I think it's likely not notable but foreign language sources might exist and so I've not done a proper enough BEFORE to nominate. In that case I'd just leave a message on a reviewers talk page asking what they found and laying out what I'd found. We're a team and so we'd work together to do right by that article.

In this case the COI can be dealt with independently of any notability concerns. If someone else reviewed it, I might ask their thoguhts about the COI but it wouldn't inherently be a bad thing if it was patrolled while all this went on in the background. I'll talk more about in process for your question below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Before I started typing all that I'd looked at your other patrols and everything you'd marked as notable seemed like good patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Phew! Thanks Barkeep49. --- FULBERT (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@FULBERT: so I see you've done two film fest related patrols. For LGBT film fest that does seem like a likely notable topic - were you able to spot check any of the sources via GoogleBooks or the like to make sure it's backed up appropriately? For Geelong Pride Film Festival can you say more about your thinking while patrolling that one? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I did so on the former, and I looked at the links on the latter and thought they were all credible enough to support the claims that were made in the article (namely, that this film festival itself exists) Barkeep49. --- FULBERT (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Two other review questions Barkeep49. One article I am reviewing Al Qaws, only has one source. If I add the tag "More references" will that still mark it as reviewed with that template added? Likewise, one article I was reviewing earlier that I marked as "Review in progress," Battle of Ronas Voe, has that listed on the page yet I have finished reviewing it and marking it reviewed, though am not sure how to do that (or even how to remember I added that template there as I cannot find it anywhere else except I saved it open in a tab on my browser). I really appreciate asking you these clarifying questions, so thank you for your time with them. --- FULBERT (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, I am truly more than happy to help. I know how much it meant to me to get help when I was starting NPP and I really do like the community of other patrollers.

So for Al Qaws the single source to its own website is not great at all. If I was going to mark it notable I would have had to found, in my own searching, enough evidence, in either English or Arabic, to suggest it met WP:NCORP which is our most demanding standard for a topic. If I did - great it's a victory - and so I would probably say the third party tag on it is good enough and move on.

On the more general question yes if you put a tag using the curation toolbar that also marks it as patrolled including for Battle of Ronas Voe. That article has a bit of some strange stuff going on but if you think it notable just remove your under review tag - by placing that tag you'd already marked it as reviewed (and this tag is is virtually never used in my time as NPP. I tend to have virtually no conflicts when patrolling even without use of that tag).

As for Geelong Pride the question isn't just that it exists - I agree the sources present are enough to verify - but that it's a notable film festival. Is it covered by secondary sources in some significant way? The current sources are just repurposed press releases and so do nothing to establish notability. So if you found that those sources exist while doing a BEFORE - GREAT! - otherwise absent those it might not be notable and thus we'd have to start thinking about AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT as you might have seen CASSIOPEIA, a veteran NPP, has chosen to move Bianconi to draft space which is a reasonable outcome - though one I underplayed because I think it can be too tempting of an option for new NPP (I know it was for me). I still hope we get an answer to my question about the COI but think there's a good chance we won't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Barkeep49. A couple follow-ups on the above: 1) For the Al Qaws, is the option to either leave it or manually add a tag for more sources and add something to the source page about needing more sources to prevent its deletion? 2) For the Geelong Pride, is that the same case, namely to consider my adding something to the page for more sources or otherwise post something on the Talk page about it to avoid its deletion? 3) I initially thought about moving things back to draft space, but was not sure how that tool works related to the Ginestra Bianconi article (now draft). You are suggesting this is not a common thing to do? Finally, I saw one of my Afd requests was reverted for notability. I do not think it is notable in that article, but to your suggestion with working as a team, I will leave it. It now remains unreviewed, on my part as I do not think the article nor the sources demonstrate notability. --- FULBERT (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT: For Al Qaws as a new page patroller your options are: 1. Do nothing - we're volunteers and you're under no obligation to patrol any given article 2. Tag it and leave it for another patroller to make a final determination 3. Do a BEFORE. Hopefully you find something that proves its notability. If you do you can mark it patrolled or even better note the sources in the article or on the talk page. If you don't you are under no obligation to nominate it for deletion but you're back to option 1, do nothing and leave it for another patroller. However, marking that as patrolled with the single self-written source without knowing that there is coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in significant detail is a poor use of the NPP user right. This despite the fact that the organization might truly be notable - assessing notability of non-Roman script topics is harder and takes more time. There are borderline cases where a reasonable editor can come to differing conclusions about notability - that's why AfD is useful - but this isn't one of them at least with the sources we have right now.

For Geelong Pride because it's Australian it's a bit easier to do a BEFORE. Film Festivals don't have any sort of SNG so you're operating under some form of GNG/NCORP (which is in theory pretty much the same but in reality applied more loosely when referred to as GNG and more strictly when it's NCORP). For this one there is the option of inserting a mention of the festival, using one of the sources for verification, in Geelong#Arts_and_entertainment rather than going to deletion.

As for moving something to draft - commonly known as drafity or drafitying - well it's a complex topic. It's a reasonable if less than ideal outcome in this instance (ideal being that it's dealt with one way or another). However, it's really easy for a newer NPP to be like "Well this is a hard one, I'll just draftify" or "I don't want to see this deleted so I'll just draftify". It can be an out from doing the thoughtful work that NPP can require. So be aware of this and think really hard about when your draftify for now.

So what happened here is that your speedy deletion (CSD) was declined. Any user other than the page creator may do so and frankly I think it's a reasonable decline. If he were Ensign Mohammad Moyeenul Haque he'd be an A7. But as a Commodore he's got a credible claim of significance. This is a lower bar than actually being notable. The article has now been nominated for deletion (AfD) which seems like the right outcome there. Once something is sent to AfD you can always mark it patrolled (sometimes perhaps with a tag) - AfD will decide on its notability one way or another about notabiity.

Phew. Sorry for the length, but I hope that was helpful. I hope it was and please feel free to keep the questions coming. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanations Barkeep49. Very helpful and certainly beyond what I have been able to figure out through reading the guidance and training in this area. It is increasingly clear to me that guidelines are interpreted in different ways by different people, and as such there are not clear right or wrong approaches (at least not in the ones I have seen thus far!) as much of the rules seem to be applied through interpretation. All the more reason to continue doing what I have and asking along the way or once my suggestions are reverted. I appreciate your watching my changes in this NPP space, though can you show me how that is done so I can also track my own progress? Also, you mentioned a BEFORE, though I am not really sure what that (acronym?) means. Finally, what is the best way to tag a page without marking it patrolled, via Twinkle? For example, some pages need more sources before I think they should be marked as patrolled, so want to know more about tagging without patrolling and if there is any guidance as to when that may be recommended? Thanks again! --- FULBERT (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT You're absolutely correct that frequently a reviewer has discretion about how to handle a situation. There is a range to this - and limits so you can get it wrong but also lots of different ways to be right in many cases. Anytime you see someone typing in all CAPS it's generally a sign that it's a Wikipedia shortcut. So when I wrote NCORP what I was really talking about was WP:NCORP. Same for BEFORE - it's WP:BEFORE which describes what you should do before nominating something for deletion. As for the logs, if you go to any user page (or user talk page) you should see a link for Logs under "Tools" that'll show you the logs for a person. You can also filter for a specific kind so here's what I'm looking at to see what you're doing with NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

One more thought: You might want to go to my NPP Shchool page and click on syllabus as that will tell you the areas, often with links, to what I think is essential for a starting NPP to know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; will check out those resources Barkeep49. --- FULBERT (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@FULBERT: Let me know if you have any questions about why the G5s got declined or about how you can gather the information in the future. Doing a little detective work on articles is a necessary part of NPP - and frequently one of the parts that I find most intellectually rewarding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49. I have learned a lot about deletions in this process, many things that are just not clear otherwise by taking the guidance and implementing it into practice. Will likely stay away from them in the near future and leave them to others to worry about. Too much hassle in my getting involved in these issues to make it worth my contribution time. There is more than enough to do without facing that unpleasant aspect of Wikipedia editing. --- FULBERT (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Where can I look on an article to determine when it was patrolled and by whom Barkeep49? I keep looking for this but am clearly missing it. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, I recommend installing, if you haven't already, all the core scripts from the tutorial. One of these is Superlinks which provides an ability, while still on the page, to see the history and the logs for an article - including who has patrolled something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have installed all of the core scripts Barkeep49, though a few of them I do not really see what they are adding. I think I still need more practice with them. A question -- this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Foundation_(Global) does not seem to have much content, even after a request for it was added several months ago, and it is still not listed as reviewed. Is this a regular Articles for Deletion request? --- FULBERT (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT If after doing your BEFORE you don't find anything AfD would be the correct next step for that article. I found some info about a crypto currency they offered but nothing substantial about the organization itself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I just searched again Barkeep49, and could locate nothing. Was now my first PROD request. Interested in your feedback on my reasoning there. --- FULBERT (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, I find PROD for articles in the queue to be ineffective and declined enough that I tend to not use it while doing that and instead just go AfD. But a totally reasonable route to take. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49. Will keep an eye on it. --- FULBERT (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I started to review this article Marcella Di Folco and was puzzled with the message on the Talk page. Any idea what that means and if I should pass this one over for a more experienced NPP reviewer Barkeep49? --- FULBERT (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Are there any of those scripts of easy places in the NPP browser to easily request a page image to help improve the article, or does that manually need to be added Barkeep49? Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I just request by NPP Perm, and want to thank you for your ongoing help (and hope to continue asking questions if approved) Barkeep49. Thank you. --- FULBERT (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, I am not aware of anyways to suggest an image is needed either via script or tag but it is a good thought. I will be watching your PERM request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Congrats FULBERT on the extension of your NPP permission. It's well deserved and will, I expect, become permanent. How can I be helpful for you at this point? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thanks for all the help and encouragement. I have found this NPP service surprisingly engaging and appreciate the support. While I have a lot to still learn and work through, I would really like to ask you about your own workflow. Perhaps this single thread has already gotten long enough, so I will begin a new one for this. FULBERT (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

NPP workflow

I am continuing to learn how to review new pages, and am wondering if there is a certain workflow you follow, and if so, is it something easy to share? For example, I would find it helpful to see an example of the process you use from the point of deciding you will patrol some pages to what exactly you do and using which tools to do that. I am having the sense I may be missing a couple steps or otherwise am doing a few things less efficiently than is ideal. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, When I am patrolling from the new end of the queue (as I frequently patrol from the old end of the queue which has its own quirks and workflow), I start by making sure it's not been deleted before - if it has I focus on that area first to see if deletion is again necessary. If it's anything beyond a basic stub, I start by running a COPYVIO check from the toolbar. I then go to the flowchart which I used to literally consult for every patrol but for which I have now largely internalized and adapted for myself. Frequently from there I will need to use some of the various options Superlinks provides (which includes the flowchart with clickable links). If I start leaning towards deletion, I will frequently look at the user who made the article - any indication that they know what they're doing will generally give me extra pause. Hopefully somewhere in this process I've seen enough to suggest policy compliance and notability and I can mark it patrolled and move on.

If you want, pick 2 or 3 articles from the middle of the queue (since it'll be less likely someone else will get to them first) and I will review them and type out for you my process and thoughts as I do so. Ideally these will be English language topics as doing NPP on foreign language topics can get knotty. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I really appreciate your flow for this. I do a number of these steps, though cannot figure out how to do the first one, Writ Keeper, as I cannot find an instructions page for that. I was able to install it though am unclear where to go to use it. Can you help me understand it a bit? FULBERT (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, If you go to Juan Manuel González (racing driver) you'll see what it does next to the article title. There's little blue links for previously deleted and for previous AfDs (which in this case includes the current AfD). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Ahh, I see those blue links now; this is very helpful. Will now be able to be more on the lookout for them. Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I really appreciate your offer to show me your process on a couple articles. How about any of these three? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhara_Rhinos or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Tengo_Nada or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Sejdi%C4%8D or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEBC_international -- Thanks again. FULBERT (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT alright here we go, stream of thought as I do it. So I get to Pokhara Rhinos and I sigh because it is both about a support I'm generally unfamiliar with (though you learn about stuff through NPP; I know so much more about rugby than before I started patrolling) and in a foreign country. If this were a player on the team I would go to WP:NCRICKET to see what it has to say. But it's a team and the Sports SNGs don't include team notability. So I start with going to Everest Premier League and see if they have references and sources about the team and to establish where in the sporting hierarchy it is. Teams from professional leagues are very likely to be notable, teams from the top tier league in a country are less likely but still likely to be notable. The fact that it's Twenty20 Cricket seems like a strike against it as an alternate format but I would need to see what kinds of leagues are important so now I will venture to NCRICKET. And it turns out I'm wrong about Twenty20 Cricket being a lesser form in terms of individual notability so it's back to the Everest article to see what else I can gleam. I see a link to cricnepal which seems promising. Going there still seems promising and I see info about the DPL but not the EPL. Strike against notability here. However, quite a few other teams have articles. Checking out a couple of those I see one directs back to the league and a couple were patrolled by Onel, who is/was a prolific and generally well regarded patroller. His endorsement means something. At this point given that the article is uncited, notability is likely but not guaranteed I feel like I have two options: draftify or BOLDly redirect to the league. At this point knowing more about the editor who made the article would be useful in deciding whether moving it to draft will cause it to be deleted or increase the chances of getting a sourced article. And now I see I really should have checked the article history earlier. The article history between December 15 and March 21 is bizarre and needs more investigation to see what happened. I find an admin deleted the draft on Mar 22, one day after this was created back in mainspace. Hmmm. There's absolutely no clue about why the draft was deleted - normally the deletion log lets you know why. So since there was that strangeness I couldn't unravel and it's more likely than not notable I'm not going to send it back to draft. So do I try and establish notability and mark it patrolled with the unreferenced tag or do I redirect? Given the difficulties of foreign language notability I'm going to take the path of less resistance and see if a redirect works. If it gets reverted I'll leave it for another patroller especially because I suspect - but can't prove with the effort I've put in - that it's notable. If I weren't typing this all out it would have taken me 5 - 10 minutes to do this. That's incredibly long for me right now. As a new patroller it would have taken me 20 - 30 because I would have had to really think through each step of the way rather than knowing some pathways to explore. I might very well have just given up rather than redirect and watchlist it to see what some other patroller did. Alright this is long enough. I'll tackle another one soonish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, This process is incredibly valuabe to see your process of this, and I really appreciate your taking me through it. I am working through each of the examples you provided with some time, so that is why the delay in my reply. FULBERT (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I am on travel this week with my Capacity Building working group engaging in a project related with the Wikimedia Movement Strategy, and shared your responses as an example of dedicated contributions that help through informal mentoring in pursuit of our shared work. I wanted to share this as it is so valuable and would not otherwise be known beyond just my own benefit. FULBERT (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, Ok No Tengo Nada should be so much easier. It's a song. It makes a clear claim to a specific NSONG notability with its chrating claim. If I can verify notability and COPYVIO checks out (which given the amount of text in this article I would be amazed if it doesn't) we should be good to go.Spain is the largest country there and uses a different chart than the other two so I'll look there first. But not before I see that indeed COPYVIO has come back clean. I don't know reputable Spanish charts off the top of my head so it's off to NSONG to click on the link which'll tell me. PROMUSICAE is on there so now it's just verifying the info from the link. No tengo nada is listed on the provided source, but the provided source looks sketch to me so it's back to recommended charts to see what that link says. And there's a handy note telling me I shouldn't trust the source. A quick Google search later, however, and I can verify the info. The sourcing could be better so I'll give it a more references and bare urls tag and move on happy. This whole process would take me a couple minutes were I not also typing it out but even doing so still took me less than 10. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Stopping there for now. I'll look at your other two tomorrow after seeing that they both have foreign language elements meaning they'll require some thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, Alright let's take a look at FEBC international. International reach suggests no A7 and no other apparent CSD on first glance. I then notice is that it uses unusual casing in the article title, but typical casing in the lead. This causes me to look at FEBC International to see if there's any edit history there that's be obscured with this creation. I find a A7 and G11 but nothing to suggest trouble here. Mental note to move this to the correct article title when I'm done. Existing sources aren't great - first three are citations to itself and the fourth is a generic bloomberg citation (or guessing it is without having looked too deep). I'm skeptical about TopHotelSupplier and indeed upon clicking through it's no good for notability. The Supply Chain article is not RS, but could be cited be some as a NCORP compliant source at AfD which appears, at this point to be where this is headed. Edit history of the creator suggests UPE. Let's see what a BEFORE turns out. Best source I can find there is the Supply Chain article. Since this is a creation from a month ago there's some chance a PROD would work and so I move it to its correct name, leaving behind a redirect, and put in the PROD - leaving the article unreviewed per standard NPP procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT, Alright Amar Sejdi. Start by running COPYVIO (FEBC didn't have enough text to suggest issue so I ran it but didn't mention it because it was an unlikely candidate). I see it has a previous deletion which was an expired PROD from just this year, which is suprising as I know from experience that playing in the USL meets WP:NFOOTY. Ahh, but according to the article he hasn't actually played in a match yet. Let's see if that's changed. Indeed it did in May. I also my pet peeve - the Google Infobox picking up information that is under no index. But since this is going to get patrolled that's not the end of the world. I don't liked uncited promotional language in the LEAD so I snip that out. No other apparent issues so I mark as reviewed. This turned out to be a fairly easy one after all - love it when notability is pretty clear like this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about patrolling pages

Hello! I asked DeltaQuad this question a week ago, but she seems a little busy lately. Would you mind helping me out? About a week ago I was given a trial run with the WP:NPP permissions. My plan was to reduce the backlog by approving articles that clearly meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies, but once my week-long trial period expired I decided not to reapply. While looking at my patrol log I noticed that some articles are listed on the log as drafts or sandboxes, even though they were definitely in mainspace when I patrolled them. Do you know why that is? Did I do something wrong? Is there a way for me to fix it without the NPR permission? Thank you. Mcampany (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if I can help. Mcampany, can you give me an example? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm most concerned about Washington Aggrey Jalang'o Okumu. The patrol log says I patrolled the user's sandbox, not the article itself, which is a little strange. the diff that I'm shown when I click on the patrol log is not at all the article that I approved. I patrolled it right after I edited the article.

The other articles are A Lalitha, U & Cube Festival 2019 in Japan, and Kamalō Sugar Plantation. They all say in the patrol log that I patrolled the draft version or a user's subpage. Please let me know if you need any other information! Mcampany (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Mcampany, so I'm not sure which log you're looking at but you definitely patrolled Washington after it was moved from the sandbox and it is showing patrolled correctly. The others appear fine as well. Question though - the sourcing for U & Cube really suggested notability? Just reading the basics of that article I'm very surprised it passes GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I mean this log.

As far as U & Cube, if you don't think it meets GNG then I'm happy to defer to your experience. I was a little on the fence about it, but Excite.co.jp seemed independent and reliable enough to push it over the fence. I don't read Korean very well, but WP:Korea has Naver and Newsen on their reliable sources list. Would news articles on how a concert went be considered routine coverage? Mcampany (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Album notability

Hi! I started a discussion on merging the articles Lovac na čudesa, Neće rijeka zrakom teći, and Malo magle, malo mjesečine (albums) into the article Silente (band). As you already pointed out notability issues in one of those articles, I would like to hear your opinion on the other two articles, too. --Hmxhmx 18:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Ball for Daisy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Ball for Daisy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Ball for Daisy

The article A Ball for Daisy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Ball for Daisy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep them coming

		The Good Article Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your tremendous efforts in both assessing and writing Good Articles. It is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks so much. I try to make sure I do at least one review for every review of mine that is done and you've put me a couple behind. I am also excited that now that I've had a couple entries cleared from the list I will feel OK about writing some new submissions. Thanks for all your work on my noms. That too is appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the work you do. Re any new articles, remember that if you would like someone to look them over for copy editing prior to nomination you can always put a request in at GOCE Requests. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts?

Architectural icon - this is a translation of a page from German Wiki. It's about an architectural term, but since it's a translation all the sources are in German - there's no evidence that the term is actually used in this way in English. I thought about dropping a note at the Architecture wikiproject, but would appreciate your thoughts on whether there's anything else to do. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Well it's pretty low harm any which way. I didn't find any extremely well cited papers that seem to use the term when searching Google Scholar and the ngram for it is uninspiring. As a search term it does substantially worse than Architectural style which we already have an article on. Despite all this it really only needs a few solid sources to pass GNG and I find it hard to believe they don't exist in English so I would mark as reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough - you're right, it's not going to do any harm, I'll make it reviewed and give the author a note that one or two sources in English giving examples of usage would be a good thing. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 13:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

architectural icon

Hi, Barkeep49, you were so nice to add two photos... but on this one there is a copyright info: "This media file has been nominated for deletion since 19 February 2019. To discuss it, please visit the nomination page. needs permission from the architect" - i therefore will beter remove it again, don't you think? --Gyanda (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Gyanda, You're correct that there's a chance it gets deleted from commons. English Wikipedia does have a local picture that could be changed in if necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Do i understand that correct? We leave the photo there and if it gets deleted we add the local one from the english Wikipedia? Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Gyanda,Yes. Or you can just replace it with the local one now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indigenous intellectual property

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indigenous intellectual property. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Big Cat, Little Cat

The article Big Cat, Little Cat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Big Cat, Little Cat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, Smudge and Smidge (well that could be their names:)) thank you for good articling this book. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Path slopu

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at User talk:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Path slopu.
Message added 12:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please answer to my question. Regards.- PATH SLOPU 12:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Barkeep49. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GirthSummit _(blether) 22:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent unblock

You wanted an explantion and things have calmed down faster than I expected.

I explained the core issues at the time of the unblock. The problem is that we have a useful editor in conflict with an admin over the terms of an unblock. The admin has committed themselves to demanding assurances and the editor doesn’t want to give them in return for an unblock. Not an easy situation for either side to move from and since the admin has made the mistake of going for an indef rather than time limited block we can’t just wait it out.

The obvious solution is to remove the block at which point the editor is free to give whatever assurances they like without going back on their previous statement. Conflict resolution.

The reason I chose not to discuss it is that the admin had already made multiple statements making their position clear. This wasn’t a block based on anything secret. Any attempted discussion would have been a waste of time and time was important. For long standing committed editors being blocked hurts. Continuing to be blocked hurts. Hurting an editor while we waste time in a form discussion doesn’t help anybody.

As for why not leave it to Doc James? I have a lot of respect for Doc James’s abilities (even if I did not his record speaks for itself). And it is possible he would have come up with a form of words. But a form of words ground out under duress while an editor is hurting? Again that doesn’t really help anybody.

I’d argue that the outcome so far supports it being the right call.

©Geni (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)