User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

story · music · places

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about a tune used by Bach and Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today I wanted to write a happy song story, on a friend's birthday, but instead we have the word of thunder on top of it, which would have been better on 2 June, this year's first Sunday after Trinity. The new lilypond - thanks to DanCherek - is quite impressive. As my 2 Jun story said: Bach was fired up. - Today's Main page is rich in music, also Franz Liszt and a conductor. I try to avoid the topic infoboxes, really, but compare Liszt and Schumann: which difference do you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. - The attempt by Wugapodes to get MoS/infoboxes more in line with current usage was closed as no consensus, as you will have seen. It looks like before it could gain consensus, infoboxes would have to stop being regarded as contentious. Until then, we'll live with a MoS that is not in line with current usage, as we have done for the last 10+ years ;) - (I'm writing a bit more to get the image next to the text:) I would prefer if infobox discussions were kept factual. "ignore ignore ignore", helpful advice by a friend who was desysopped for protecting Laurence Olivier because of edit-warring over the hidden text about no infobox although he was of course not neutral - is not so easy when you face comments such as in Talk:Gustav Mahler where I think I made a neutral statement. I mind two things in the responses: being described (which has nothing to do with the question at hand), and (more) the proud statement to have retained the infobox for Robert Schumann while expanding for FA, when (looking closer, and not obvious) it wasn't retained but made almost worthless by removing the link to the list of his compositions. When Brian Boulton came up with a compromise "identity box" for FA Percy Grainger, it had this list, as suggested in {{infobox classical composer}} in 2010, well before I even knew what an infobox is ;) - Laurence Olivier received an infobox per RfC, as you may remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is a feast day for which Bach composed a chorale cantata in 1724 (and we had a DYK about it in 2012). Can't believe that Jodie Devos had to die, - don't miss her video from the Opéra-Comique at the end, - story to come. The weekend brought plenty of music sung and listened to, and some of it is reflected in the last two stories! + pics of good food with good company --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the sad story today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are the requirements for declaring a Contentious Topic? Thanks for any thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: each arbitrator would have their own standard but generally a pattern of disruption where the normal processes are insufficient to counter. This is often some combination of amount of articles/forums being disrupted and the amount difficulty caused by the disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the answer. Last follow-up, I promise: Can this be done by motion or does there need to be a case? And is a request for a case the right thing to file either way? Also, difficulty for whom? Elinruby (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done by motion but often arbs want a full case. A case request would be the right place to go. I would recommend reading the new Guide to ArbCom before filing any request (in this case probably part 2 is the crucial one for what you need to know to be successful). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You recently left a warning on my talk page for offering Saqib some money to accept the page. That was my mistake. I did that out of frustration because I worked on it for months and he rejected it twice. Would it be possible for you to review the draft? Draft:Adil Raja

Please check it out and tell me if you think it's ready to be submitted. I believe that it's ready and has enough references. Also, could you ensure that Saqib doesn't edit the draft anymore? He seems biased against Adil, as he immediately rejected the draft twice. When I asked him to help me improve the draft, he told me to wait. I waited a whole month, and even then he said he was busy. Things don't add up. Please assist.

Thank you so much! WarriorYt43 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WarriorYt43 I know how frustrating it can be to wait for a draft to be reviewed. Unfortunately I am not reviewing drafts at this time and cannot help you. My general advise would be to improve the article based on the suggestions left to you before trying again - often the drafts which are clearly notable (the standard Wikipedia uses about who gets an article) are accepted faster than drafts where notability is more borderline. Good luck with your writing, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WarriorYt43, Normally, I don't edit drafts, but I made changes to this one, like cleanup to remove WP:GUNREL sources and WP:OR hoping to get it approved. If I were biased, I would've not even bothered improving the bio. or have simply stopped you from editing this draft because you declared your COI so accusing me of being bias without evidence is unfounded and unhelpful. Just because I declined the draft doesn't mean I'm biased. The draft is on my watchlist, so naturally, I reviewed it and declined because it was not ready. Fwiw, I declined it, not rejected it. Anyway, I won't review it next time you submit it, but I've the right to edit it as I see fit (and I hope @Barkeep49 is cool with that) because we don't allow POV or poorly sourced BLPs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and I guess that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying your position and the steps you took to improve the draft. @Saqib WarriorYt43 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, you imposed a two-way IBan between me and ElinRuby (ER), and I am addressing the correct person:

Today, at RSN, I spotted a thread on the reliability of Dorchester Review, opened by ER. I vaguely remembered a familiarity with the the magazine's name and the topic (Kamploops School grave) and discovered that the previous RSN discussion on the issue was motivated by this article-t/p thread. Long story short, it was me who had questioned the reliability of the source and initiated the debate.

Now, ER ought to know of the previous RSN discussion on the magazine (the section header goes "Dorchester Review, again", emphasis mine) and my involvement on the narrow locus, but I do not seek any sanction whatsoever and deem this a trivial mistake. Further, Kamloops Indian Residential School has been significantly edited by me and ER before the IBan but now that ER has significantly edited it after the IBan, I perhaps cannot edit it anymore. Once again, I do not claim any wrongdoing of ER; it is unfeasible for them to check the article-history of all articles they plan to edit, articles might exist where I have been guilty of the same, and the text of IBAN generally allows editing the same pages.

However, I would like to know if there is any way to partake in the current RSN discussion and the article since my involvement — on what is arguably a very narrow locus — predates ER's. I am not pinging ER to avoid breaching the IBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam I didn't impose it (that was Bishonen) but am now the responsible administrator so the result is the same. I think the answer to whether you can participate in the RSN is no because it's clearly a discussion started by ER and so pretty much any reply is going to violate the IBAN rule of reply to <the other person> in discussions. You have 1 edit to Dorchester review in the last 500 so it's not some great amount of editing. You both edited Kamploops School before the iBan and can after as long as you don't revert each other. Thanks for checking and let me know if you have any follow up questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, I am appealing for the IBan to be vacated unless ER wishes for it to stay.

It is quite hilarious that an issue which was first raised by me at the article t/p (and subsequently discussed at RSN) gets raised by ER — of all people — and I do not get to opine. Fwiw, it appears (to me) that I and ER have rather-aligning views on the broader locus though I am unsure about their opinion on the particular RSN question and won't speculate. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, @Bishonen. In case, you have anything to say. With apologies for the ping, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you to appeal. You need to demonstrate that the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. You can do that with me or you can go directly to one of the community forums to make your appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I and ER do not edit a common set of articles and, hence, I do not really see the conflicts resuming. In any case, I plan to not engage with ER and ask for a waiver of the IBan primarily (only-?) to participate in the rare content-dispute threads started by him where I had already partaken earlier. That said, I do not know if ER wishes for the IBan to stay. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam after thinking this over, I think this should get wider feedback, including from ER and I do not want to be singly responsible for policing that interaction, and so I suggest you formally appeal this to a notice board. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a CT IBan? Where is this to be appealed — AE? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this thread. Without getting into the merits of the original sanction, which I have previously disputed, there is now and RfC and an ANI thread titled "Riposte97: time sink". I think TB is mistaken about who edited the Kamloops article first but more to the point for the record I have zero, zilch, negative infinity objections to TrangaBellam helping with the denialist disruption that is going on in the residential school articles, and am intelligent enough to accept help that is clearly needed since Riposte97 last I checked was still actively disrupting Canadian Indian residential school gravesites Kamloops Indian Residential School even as this has been grinding through RSN and ANI. I am confident that collaboration can take place without unseemly and counterproductive squabbling. Right TB?

that said I would really appreciate it if you would get my name and gender right. And I dislike ER and would prefer El if you don't want to type All That.

Barkeep, is there such a thing as dropping the i-ban by mutual agreement? TB is right, it did not occur to me to check the history of Dorchester Review at RSN, and I appreciate the graciousness about it. Meanwhile, pending the paperwork (NOTBURO?) if TB wants to chime in on these denialist threads I am starting I absolutely welcome the help. Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elinruby; I agree that there will be no counterproductive discourse. So, given our mutual agreement, Barkeep49, are you willing to vacate the I-Ban? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let's try it. I'll strike the log in a moment @Elinruby @TrangaBellam. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the reversal of the wrongful speedy deletion of 2024 Kissena Park sexual assault case. As per WP:G10:

Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living personthat is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.

The stub created was sourced by ABC, NBC, CNN & the New York Post. It did not contain libel as it was sourced directly from these reliable and prestigious sources. It hadn’t even named the perpetrator in the content of the article yet so you cannot claim that it was targeted - or even claim it was unjustly written given the fact that the case as since swept the media coverage of the Northeastern United States.

You could have nominated it for deletion. The misuse of speedy deletion was inappropriate, uncalled for and in violation of Wikipedia policy. 9t5 (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@9t5 The article when deleted had been nominated by another editor and on my review I found it to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I see you have re-created the article. In the re-created article you avoided the serious issues that justified the previous deletion, but continued to have violations of the Biographies of Living People policy, specifically WP:BLPCRIME and so I have had to revision delete much of your creation. I suggest you review the policy to avoid other issues. In addition I will be alerting you to our contentious topic procedures. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Your revision was absolutely justified. Other editors keep including the name of the suspect. I am going to revert those edits, and I will keep a close eye on it. I apologize. I thought you were the one who tagged it for speedy deletion. 9t5 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just blocked and tagged Threeseven29 as a sock of Christophervincent01. I didn't tag the master, mainly because I have no idea why he was ArbCom-blocked. Nonetheless, I thought you might like to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert @Bbb23. By tag the master what do you mean? I see that Threeseven29 links back to Christophervincent01. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag Christophervincent01.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another heads up. The new account admitted being a sock and left a diatribe on their Talk page. I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]