User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey Barkeep! Let's coordinate! I just got an edit conflict with one of your Newbery articles. Which ones do you want me to work on? Shall we split by decades? Joyous! | Talk 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, since you seem to be trucking along pretty fast, would it be better if I came in behind you and expanded the articles a bit? Joyous! | Talk 16:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have a pretty decent reference book here for books up through 2000. I can come along behind you and add a sentence or two of detail to the articles. Joyous! | Talk 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While doing my job as a new article patroller, I have noticed that you and Joyous! are creating several articles about Newbery winners. I am sure there are some in the Wikipedia community that would feel that the list of recipients in the Newbery Medal article is sufficient and that each book having its own article is overkill and not encyclopedic. For now, I am going to indicate that each new article has been patrolled, on the basis that each book article should be improved in the future to include at least a basic story line. That is the kind of information our Wikipedia users would be looking for, and that is why we are all here, isn't it. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good luck to both of you creating these stubs, and good luck turning them into articles. This is useful stuff! Drmies (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In the future, would you please use the {{Reflist}} template instead of the <References /> tag in the Reference section. Usage of the template is preferred and has several advantages. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for assessing the article Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis after a long wait on the Articles for Assessment list. Thank you for your comments, which have been very helpful as I have recently updated and extended the article. The only querie I had was about your third point: formatting the article into a table. While I can see some of the benefits of this, I am not sure how it could be implemented in this particular context. Do you have any suggestions? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 22:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI - were you aware of Category:Newbery Honor winners (book)? Might be useful to you.

Happy editing, and keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure and it's my pleasure - happy new year! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your contributions. Just so you know, I nominated you for the autoreviewer permission at requests for permissions because you have been creating a significant of valid stubs and seem to have a solid understanding of what is acceptable content at Wikipedia. This will help out new page patrollers like myself by preventing your articles from appearing in the "unpatrolled" queue. If you do not want this permission for any reason, you may want to check WP:RFPERM and leave a comment. Thanks for your contributions! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to say whether a source is reliable without knowing what it is and what the context is. The best place to ask is at the the reliable sources noticeboard. The best source for an award is generally the website of the award or the awarding organisation or a newspaper or magazine report of the award. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You said a few days ago that there had been "there has been substantial improvement to the list". Could you clarify (on the FLRC page) whether this means you think the list can be kept at FL status or whether there are more issues? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and thanks for the tip. -- James26 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And here I almost thought you didn't like the article. As for DYK, I actually tried submitting there the other day. I was told that I'd done something wrong in the process. I'd never submitted anything there before (or even heard of DYK really), so I didn't much know what I was doing. Anyway, I appreciate your kind words about the article. I certainly did research and revise it for about 12 hours, non-stop, so it's nice to hear that from someone. Now I have to figure out how to keep the image around... Thanks again. -- James26 (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What is this DYK thing for exactly? I know it has something to do with the main page, but I'm simply not all that familiar with it. -- James26 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I've attempted to contact the author for permission to release the image freely. It'll be nice to keep that around. I appreciate your efforts to bring the article recognition. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for everything you did regarding DYK. -- James26 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you are trying to organise bot tagging of categories for WikiProject Children's Literature, so I thought I should let you know here that I have just adapted the Category I mentioned into a list of possible Categories to include (please see User:Strdst grl/sandbox). While there are probably other categories which could be included, I thought I would suggest this as a reasonable starting point. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively you could just submit Category:Children's literature and all its sub-categories. But quite a few of them are irrelevant, and would have to be checked by hand - although probably so are a few of the categories I have listed. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, 'Unsure' generally means I need to check precisely what the category name is referring to before I am certain it fits in the project. As for using this as the main list or not, I don't mind, but I will keep checking through it and if you want to add any categories, feel free to do so. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you still interested in organising this? Because I've got plenty of time on my hands at the minute, so I would be happy to take over the organisation part. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That was swift, thanks!--Plad2 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you have another look at this, please? I've added a proper, authoritative reference (from 20th Century Children's Writers) and more detail to the background. Would be posible to expand something on King's writing influences but I think this is something I will come back to at a later date.--Plad2 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice you are a wiz with citations and references. I have added more content to this page but find that I'm referencing the same source several times over, which is creating a long reflist. I wondered whether you might feel like helping me fix this. Don't worry if you don't have time - I will work it out eventually myself.--Plad2 (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. I understand the general point that a subject's own website may be suspect as a source of info in many cases. In this case I don't think it is but I will try to find some alternatives. Pity about the press releases. I thought since they came from the publisher, they might be as acceptable as a information on the publisher's website.--Plad2 (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Um. Just read the policy on citations and, unless I'm misunderstanding something, it says "Never use...websites...unless written or published by the subject" and refers to WP:SELFPUB criteria in the section below. Since the biog from the author's website has "copyright 2002-2008 Peter Sis" at the bottom, it appears that he has written the piece himself and so it does pass the criteria. There is no reasonable doubt about its authenticity, for instance. Re the Press releases. Since they come from the publisher, don't they count as a third party publication and therefore the biograpghical information within them can be treated as reliable (also in the Using the subject as a self-published source policy section?--Plad2 (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the key word in the 4th criterion is "primarily", which I take to mean "mainly", so it seems that it's the proportion of the references which rely upon this source which matters. And I agree, I probably have used that source primarily. So to fix this situation, one would have to find alternative sources which make the same point, or find more references for other points so that the proportion which relied upon the author's website diminishes to less than half - at which point, the author's website ceases to be the primary source. An interesting wrinkle. I'll try to come back to this in due course but in the meantime, I'm going to finish tidying up the awards on the Sis page and then get back to the unloved pages on the unreferenced BLP pages. Thank you for your help.--Plad2 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as far as I know - at least, not a project-specific one, although I've given out a few generic ones for work on the project. Why - do you think we should have one? I considered making one in the past, but I'm not great with images... strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 21:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There now seems to be a page for the children's author Jennifer Armstrong which doesn't seem to be the one you were thinking of creating as per your post on the Children's Literature Project page on 8 Feb. It's carrying an "Advert" tag and clearly needs some work. I'll take it off my list of possible PRODs.--Plad2 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have recently proposed some extensive changes to the layout of project pages in WikiProject Children's literature. The changes can be viewed in my sandbox, and are summarised on this talk page. The proposed changes include major reformatting of the main project page, the creation of five new project sub-pages, and moves to two existing sub-pages. Please look over these proposals, and join the discussion. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice that User talk:Mhjohns has recently created a number of single line pages for several Newbery Honor books. I believe you have expressed an interest in this area previously and I thought you might like to know.--Plad2 (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I assessed this as Stub class was essentially because there are no inline references, and very few references at all. Plus, the plot summary section, which makes up most of the article, is overly detailed, needs wikifying, lacks encyclopedic tone and occasionally makes very little sense, for example: "The first night he chose a bed against the wall, but a hand woke him up and the disturbing things said kept Jack in constant fear the whole time he was there, because of the unusual level of violence in his environment that he wasn't prepared for, and he's never forgotten it."

Also, there are a lot of redlinks for an article which has so few links in total. I still think the article is a good quality stub, but at least one of these problems needs to be fixed before I could call it a Start - mostly the referencing. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a Start class article can be expected to lack references, but it does need to "provide enought references to establish verifiability". There are exactly 5 sources or external links in the article: two are to books which I am unable to check out, two are dead links to websites no longer existing and the one remaining is to the author's own website. I don't think that establishes verifiability. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Got your message. Understood. I'll leave the articles I find for you and Stardust to pick up. Part of the reason I was adding them to the list was to draw them to the attention of other people in the project who might take a fancy to doing something about them. But if you don't think that's a sensible thing to do, then I'll stop. One less step is no bad thing when grubbing around in the dregs of the unreferenced BLPs.--Plad2 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you've sent this article to AfD, which I will support (since I did the PROD). I wonder whether it would be acceptable to merge the content with the Clive King article first - and then delete the page. I've just read the AfD guidelines and it seems that this sort of action is frowned upon during an AfD. I don't think the book is notable enough for a redirect rather than a deletion but I think there is no harm in keeping the content and using it to flesh out the rather thin Clive King page. I'm new to these processes and thought I would explore this thought with you first rather than just adding it to the public AfD discussion.--Plad2 (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Children's literature has recently launched a new Collaboration department. The first Collaboration Article is Curious George (book) - please contribute in any way that you can! If you wish to be alerted to future collaboration articles, this template will be updated regularly, and can be included on your user page as a template. Thank you, strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Children's literature has been invited by the Wikipedia Signpost to feature in the WikiProject Report in the July 19 issue. Please contribute to this report by answering the interview questions here. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Barkeep49/Archives/1, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can join! Please feel free to add to this list. If you feel a task has been completed feel free to remove it and start a new one! Become a member of the task force and encourage others to do so. Tag articles for the task force. Improve: George's Marvellous Medicine. Improve: Going Solo. Work on all Roald Dahl related articles mainly focusing on stubs. Assess articles on class and importance. Get Roald Dahl to FA or GA

sillybillypiggy^{talk to me sign!} 16:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter September 2010
Project news Welcome to the first edition of the WikiProject Children's literature newsletter! If you are interested in contributing or want more information, you can find us in the Outreach department. The project now has a list of its most popular pages. The mosts visited page in our project's scope in July was List of Twilight characters which was visited 538088 times from July 1st to July 31st; which means it was visited a whopping 17357 a day. Due to the combined efforts of several editors, the backlog of nearly 4000 unassessed articles has been eradicated in less than six months. Thanks to everyone who took part!	Collaboration article Don't forget that the current Children's literature collaboration article is Curious George (book). Be sure to get involved and together we can make the article a better quality. From the Editors Hello and welcome to this, the inaugural edition of the WikiProject Children's literature newsletter. We're very excited about it and we hope that you will enjoy reading it. We're still in the early stages, though, and need your suggestions and feedback. Do you like the newsletter? What would you like to see in the next edition? Please give us your feedback on this issue here. We really value it. Strdst grl: Editor Rock drum: Editor MessageDeliveryBot: Distributor
Current discussions The project's current discussions are as follows: Job Centre: A discussion which deals with a proposal for a Job Centre in the style of the WikiProject Novels Job Centre. Categories and project scope: A discussion which deals with the question as to whether or not some comics come under the project's scope. Project Scope: A discussion which centers on the gray areas in the project's scope. Categories and sub-categories - WP:DUPCAT: This discussion asks the question, should articles be added to a category and one of its subcategory if it fits into both? Complete Todo List: Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

Got a suggestion for a future issue or want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? - It's all here

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Newsletter October 2010
Project news As our banner proclaims, we now have an IRC channel at ##wpchildrensliterature on Freenode. In the future, the project may hold live discussions there. To access the channel from your browser, click here. Abcassionchan has become a member of the project. Thanks for joining Abcassionchan! Slowly but surely, more Unnassessed articles are reappearing. Please help the project by joining in and assessing some of them.	Unreferenced BLPs There's only a few Unreferenced BLPs (Biographies of living people) left. Why not head over to the page and help by adding sources to the articles? It's an important job, that requires assistance. From the Editor Hello and welcome to this, the second edition of the newsletter. This month, I need to ask a favour of you. You may have seen that this month I had to write the newsletter by my self. I really need your help with writing and giving suggestions. If you have a suggestion for a future edition, please list it at the tips desk. You may also notice the links underneath this piece. Please use them to share this newsletter on your favourite social networks. Until next time, happy editing! Rock drum: Editor MessageDeliveryBot: Distributor Share:  Twitter · Identica · Facebook · Delicious · Reddit · Digg · Buzz · StumbleUpon
Ways to promote the project If you're interested in promoting the project, why not visit the Outreach department for more ideas? There are many ways to promote the project. One of them is to add the project's ad to your userpage. To do this, simply add the code {{Template:Wikipedia ads|ad=212}} to your talk or user page. Another thing you can do is to invite other users to join the project. To find prospective members search the history pages of Children's literature-related articles and invite people who seem to be deoing good things for these articles. The code for the invitation template is {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature/Invite}}. Todo List: Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? - It's all here

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Newsletter November 2010
Project news The project's most popular page in September was Harry Potter which received 481902 views throughout the month. That means that it received on average 16063 views each day. It's a GA which is Top importance within the project's scope. To see more popular pages head over to the list now. The Children's literature Portal is up for Peer review. Please feel free to chime in here. Pandawing$ has joined the project. Thanks for joining Pandawing$.	Articles needing infoboxes There are lots of articles within this project's scope without infoboxes. They can help to improve the quality of an article by adding a brief overview. It's a task that won't take very long so why not head over now and help out? From the Editor Hello and welcome to this, the third edition of our WikiProject's newsletter. In this month's newsletter, I encountered a problem, well, two problems actually. I needed some help with the production: suggestions and other writers. As with last month, if you have any suggestions for the newsletter, please add them at the Tips Desk. If you would like to write some of the next issue, that's even better! Just come go over to the main Newsletter page to see where you can help out, and of course, as always, please give us your feedback on this edition, on the talk page. Until next time, happy editing! Rock drum: Editor MessageDeliveryBot: Distributor Share:  Twitter · Identica · Facebook · Delicious · Reddit · Digg · Buzz · StumbleUpon
Children's literature news The Lost Hero: The first book in Percy Jackson & the Olympians author Rick Riordan's new series, The Heroes of Olympus, has been released. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows movie Part 1: The first part of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows movie will be released worldwide this month, coming out on November 19 in both the USA and the UK. British PMs reveal favourite childhood books: The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his deputy Nick Clegg last week revealed their favourite childhood books to be Our Island Story and The Gruffalo respectively. Todo List: Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? - It's all here

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

The article Rachel Elizabeth Dare is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Elizabeth Dare until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Video game director is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game director until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ost (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Pope Osborne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still interested in the Phillips Exeter Academy good article review. alphalfalfa^(talk) 20:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I've tried to address the problems you brought up in the GA review of Phillips Exeter Academy. alphalfalfa^(talk) 04:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the Bisexual Literature page. I created the page as a class project, but it's accuracy and success is extremely important to me personally as well as professionally. i appreciate the review you left, and hope you will tell me of nay suggestions you have to improve the page Ceradams (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. Apologies for the edit you reverted. I'm a sorry stickler for proper formatting because I find it a pain in the neck to wade through badly formatted discussions, since we cannot easily recognize who says what to whom. I thought you were replying to me. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings Barkeep49! Thanks! I'm somewhat new to this and still learning on how to contribute fairly. If you would like to share some ideas, I'd really appreciate it. Romrom9 (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Romrom9: Glad to help and have you here. To add your thoughts you will want to edit the page and beneath the current text put : followed by your comment or thought. If you think the article should be kept or deleted it's standard practice to write it in bold by writing '''Delete''' or '''Keep'''. If you are saying to keep or delete you should also give a reason why, in relation to Wikipedias policies. Those can be a lot to wrap your head around so feel free to say your thoughts and identify yourself as a new editor. Hope that helps. If you have more specific questions let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, sorry about the student nominations. I've been trying to catch those as I see them and make sure that the students is aware of the amount of time and energy needed for this, as this typically extends far beyond their class time due to the backlog. Offhand I think that there is only one other article that's been nominated for GA by a student and that's Chanda Prescod-Weinstein. She's no longer active and to be honest I'm doubtful that it's at GA criteria at this point, so if you wanted to remove that one that would be fine -I didn't know if I could or should remove it, to be honest. We do have one that was nominated by a Wiki Fellow who is still fairly active and that's Margaret Atwood. I didn't know if that would be up your alley or not - I know that you said that books were one of your things, but this is a biography of an author which is fairly separate. I don't know if protocol would be against me posting these - I never really got into GA review with my main account, but I wanted to give you a head's up of the other two ones that I was aware of. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): no need to apologize. As an educator myself, I'm all for supporting Wiki Ed and that includes having understanding of what a student editor is trying to do. In my short time doing GA I've found that confirming someone is around to do the work is better than putting in an hour or two worth of time beginning the process only to get crickets and given the backlog at GA it's just as likely that any nominating editor has lost interest by the time GAR starts. The Prison Industrial Complex article seemed to be particularly thoughtfully done and had received some nice praise at Peer Review so that's why I took it; if no one responds after a week I'll fail it. Removing someone else's GA nomination is a no go, and I don't want to claim Prescod-Weinstein in case there is an editor who is interested in going through GAR (though I agree with you that it seems not to be close). As for Atwood, I saw her come up through a project I'm active in so she's been on my radar. I was hoping that someone else might grab her, since I'm MUCH more conversant on the Children's lit side of things but if no one has when I'm next looking for one (as I only want to have two active GAs at a time) I will give the article an initial read to see if I'd be a good fit. Thanks for taking the time to post. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds good - I figured that it would be better to leave them up unless the student is willing to remove it for that very reason. On a side note - you're an educator? That's pretty awesome! What level do you teach at? I can also understand being more specialized in a certain area. On my main account I tend to focus more on film, literature, some North American history, and to a smaller degree, biographies. Film and literature were always my favorites, though. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi , My nam is HAi ,I want explain about my talk . It is not advertising , just about my company for my client in japan or vietnamese who want to know what Fuji Showroom is . Please check . Best regard

Can you please have this discussion the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball? Because this is a basketball article and will have enormous impact if it is decided to merge league finals MVP awards with league finals articles, affecting dozens of articles that have separate articles for both. I believe this should be decided on by editors that mainly work on basketball articles. Thanks.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: I think having the discussion at LKL Finals is the right place but your idea of alerting the Basketball WikiProject a good one and so I left a note on that project's talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: Moving suggestions to improvement here to try and keep that thread focused on the move. I think the biggest thing both articles need are some good ole fashioned WP:RS whether the source is in English or Lithuanian (if you speak that language). There is no question that the LKL is notable but the lack of RS (and the fact that both pages are basically rather minimal lists) do those pages no favors. Hope those suggestions are helpful.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel, with the help of you, I can expand this page. please help me about case / link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion%27s_Artist_in_the_World_2017

My goal is to inform. Of course, the prize record and courage of the artists, in history. They are still in jail And this is associated to Wikipedia. please help me about case. thank you so much...

read more about Global Investigative Journalism Network

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Investigative_Journalism_Network

Bavaran (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bavaran:. Do you have more information about this? From what I can see this is a news article/feature. If I am right, the artists inside of it might be notable. This does not make the list itself notable. This page MIGHT even be a reliable source you could use for other artists. But the list itself doesn't seem to fit with what Wikipedia is. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

can I from you Please Expand this page? I think, You have a better idea about this case. best for you Bavaran (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bavaran: I have done some looking and even did some more looking after your first message. English Wikipedia has rules about what things may get articles. These rules are NOT about importance or fame. The rules say something must be notable. This topic does not seem notable. I would like to help but it doesn't seem like this topic meets the rules. If you go to WP:Teahouse there are other people who are around to help editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you please move Draft:Late Night (film) back into mainspace - see Draft talk:Late Night (film). Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Responded there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Eventually, there should be articles for all Merrie Melodies shorts. What makes you say "My Little Buckaroo" is not notable enough? Yay Dad (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yay Dad: I absolutely could be wrong about that. Since it's harder to prove a negative than a positive is there notability policy or guidelines you can point to that supports your contention that all Merrie Melodies are notable? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep! Thank you for your suggestions and edits on the Verified Voting Foundation page. It was great to have the perspective from an experienced Wikipedia user so I could edit my page accordingly. I have edited the page, mainly focusing on improving the tone and deleting irrelevant content. When you have the chance please check it out! I hope these edits improved the page for my class assignment. Alyssaamoreno (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alyssaamoreno: Thanks for your interest and work on Wikipedia (even if it's only because you're required to for a class). Let me start by saying that through my work in Wikipedia I find I come across WikiEd pages somewhat frequently and yours was one of the better ones, as frequently they are not ready to be part of the "main space" as quickly as yours was, so congrats to you on that. The biggest issue, which is why I put the neutrality tag on there in the first place, is that it seems to be written from Verified Voter's POV/framing. and to some extent reads like an essay on the topic of paper/electronic voting rather than about VVF. Since this is an online encyclopedia if I want information about electronic voting I can go to that electronic voting or a part of a page about it in the US. These issues should only be brought up to the extent that it gives context to work that VVF has done. And in good news, VVF has done a fair amount of work as an organization and it's those efforts that should ideally be highlighted on the page. Additionally if the organization has experienced any criticism that too should be a part of the page (a cursory search didn't reveal any but again the search was not all that deep). Again you've done some high quality research and writing. Indeed if I as an educator (which I am) were grading the page as an essay I'd give it good marks. However, that's because a good encyclopedia article and a good essay are two different forms and call for different kinds of emphasis and style. Again the article has the bones of a good Wikipedia article and I hope these thoughts are useful in your continued participation on this site. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello mate, can I talk about why you always undoing my revision and kindly tell what is lacking. Im open for learnings. Thank you. klgd98 (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Klgd98: Cheers, happy to discuss this with you. What your revisions lack are proof that Blake is notable. Notable in this context means something very specific to Wikipedia, specifically that he has been covered by reliable sources (which again mean something very specific here). It is important to show that notable doesn't mean famous (Blake seems to be famous in the Philippines). So what you would need to do to make your revisions stick are to find reliable sources about Blake. If they are after January 2017 that is best. What happened in January 2017 was there was a discussion about whether Blake's page was deleted. The result of that discussion was NO the page should be kept but sent to Pinoy Big Brother: 737. This is why I am one of several people who has undone your changes. Does that help? Know that I'm happy to keep discussing and working on this with you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello can you see my revision if its okay. Ive done my best to make it simple and specific. Thank you mate. klgd98 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Klgd98: That improved the writing of the article but didn't make it notable. You can see a different user has already changed it back. What you need to do is find some websites that discuss Blake. Not just Blake on Big Brother but him. When I started with this I found one from what I believe to be a reliable source. That on its own isn't enough for notability but is a step in the right direction. If you can find more like that you will be on your way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Barkeep49! We're discussing Blake again, at Talk:Jameson Blake. If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw this [1]. However, subject may still merit an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I still don't understand why the Article was considered for deletion. This artist is very famous, and deserves an article on its own. The song which his original article was redirected to is just a song he was featured in, not his only important work. Could you explain yourself more? Thanks for your time btw. Richarddo1442 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Richarddo1442: Let me start by saying I could definitely be wrong here. However, on wikipedia fame does not equal notability. Notability is what a person needs to have an article. To be notable they need to have things written about them in reliable sources (RS). From what I can see there are not RS about Myers. However it's entirely possible that there are RS but in Spanish, which wouldn't be accessible to me. If that's the case you should post them (or if you can find RS in English even better). Does that help? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The page was deleted before I even got the notification that it had been proposed for deletion. I don't necessarily disagree that the page should be deleted, but it would have been nice if I had been given the chance to object. And why now after 9 years? Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Dr. Conspiracy the page hasn't been deleted (really). Here's what happened. User:Compassionate727 found your old draft and moved it to mainspace. I found it through WP:NPP and PROD'd it as lacking notability and left a message on Compassionate's talk page to make sure I wasn't missing something about notability. Compassionate then moved it back to your user page. If you look at the page history on that page you can get back your draft to work on it further or request it be deleted. Hope that makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question about the timing, the reason is that userspace drafts have been allowed to sit basically indefinitely for however long now, so the number of them has grown to over 35,000. This presents two problems: A) it is as a result extremely difficult to find promising drafts, and B) many of them are CSD eligible. As a result, I've dedicated myself to dealing with the backlog. We'll see how long my dedication lasts, but if you have other drafts from around that age, I may be getting to them soonish. Normally I just allow drafts belonging to active users to sit; all of this only happened because I did a stupid, forgot to assess notability, and moved it (which is a testament to the quality of the draft itself). Anyway, sorry for the confusion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

As you've undoubtedly noticed, the WP:Page Curation toolbar has issues with AfD when a prior nomination exists. Twinkle does handle it properly, so it'd probably be better to use that instead. Thanks, ansh666 04:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I need help with this new article (proofreading). Thanks. QuinteroP (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)QuinteroP

@QuinteroP: I am not a great copyeditor. My strengths lie more in content reviewing. Luckily there is a great group of people who can help proofread at WP:COPYEDITORS. I'd post a request there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I addressed all of your concerns regarding the Mary Surratt article in one way or another. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't tag an article I'm in the middle of writing. I'm very experienced writing history articles and I have maybe 30 sources yet to add. Look on NY Times and tell me your tag applies. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: No offense or annoyance was intended. Because you changed a page from a redirect to an article it came up as part of WP:NPP. In reviewing the page for that process it seemed like borderline notability but on the right side of it and so I tagged it with notability but also reviewed. Since I stop looking for ways to establish notability once I get to yes, I hadn't reached the point where I considered the editor who had done the changes and had no idea if this was your first edit or 50,000th. To avoid this in the future you might want to request the autopatrolled user right which would mean future pages that you make or establish from redirect won't have someone like me come across it mid-creation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, will do. Thanks. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Salut, I decided to make an account to have a name attributed to Clay. I do personally believe that I could get the article on him done and I could update his storylines easily after the inevitable binge on season two. I will admit reception is a little hard to come by but I personally feel with him and Hannah being central characters they both deserve articles and Hannah does have one. I just didn't want you to feel that I ignored your advice; I'm just the sort of person once I set my mind to it I go all the way. Any ways have a good day.--13reasonstolove (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, I took a few days to watch season two. I am disappointed that there isn't much reception wise out there for Clay but I definitely want to expand the television series storylines and then take another read at the book to make an expansion on that as well. I see Hannah already has an article but I will see if there is room for improvements on it. Thanks for your kind message on my talk page. Hope you're well and having a good day. Many thanks again.--13reasonstolove (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@13reasonstolove: That makes sense. The page was reviewed for NPP (how I originally found it) by someone doing some of their first page reviews so I think it was a bit lucky there. Best of luck to you as you improve these pages. I admit the reviews for Season 2 mean I'm likely going to skip it. If you have questions I might be able to help with, please let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm new to this - thanks for the comments. What specifically should be changed to improve the nomination? I'm not sure I fully understood your critique. Appreciate the help! Ganesha811 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Hey I'm new to this too! I've had two successful DYKs but you were my first review so apologies for not being clear. The rules of DYK state that the information in your hook (that it was Tuscany's largest lake) have an in-line citation. The only place in the article that I can see that piece of information is in the WP:LEAD. There is no in-line citation there. Additionally the LEAD should reflect the rest of the article - it should only have information that's present somewhere else, so really the information about it being the largest should appear somewhere in the body with an in-line citation. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, that makes sense. I've made some edits and cited the fact that it was the largest lake in Tuscany - given that the 300-year drainage effort is covered in multiple sources, I figured that was already covered. What is the next step I should take? I really appreciate your guidance in this. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

		The Western Governors University Barnstar
		For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Western Governors University.

Thanks for helping to support the WGU Article. Now we know what we need to do to earn the GA Distinction. It may take some time but we are gonna get there. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, I asked for speedy deletion because of a wrong redirect. But meanwhile I have expanded this article and deleted the request. Please restore. Greets -- MovieFex (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@MovieFex: Hi! I'm not sure what you mean about the redirect being wrong, Draft:Sympathy for the Devil (2018 film), works for me. As to the content, the notability guideline says that there must be substantial reporting from multiple reliable sources (emphasis mine) for a film that has finished shooting but hasn't been released. It doesn't appear that Sympathy for the Devil meets this criteria, but if it's distributed it will be notable which is why I moved it to draft - as a holding space either for more RS sourcing now or for when it's actually distributed. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I was aware about this film in Wikidata. Checking the link to enwiki I've seen, it's a senseless redirect so I asked for speedy deletion. Looking further I've seen there was already an article created as a stub and the redirect was later made (see history). Now I've created a new Wikidata-Object (with some more sources in French) and put in more information to the article, but the link does not match anymore. There are films only scheduled like Untitled Avengers film with an article, but this one is shot and waits for release. What is the difference? Best, --MovieFex (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@MovieFex:So I don't know much about Wikidata. Untitled Avengers film shows an excellent exception to the rule. It has ~60 citations to reliable sources about the film; these reliable sources establish notability. The guideline states Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. (emphasis mine). Since the Avengers has proven that the production itself is notable it gets an article. Right now there is 1 source about the production of Sympathy for the Devil and I'm not sure it's RS (it might be, might not be, I just don't know). If you, or other editors, can meet WP:N great; I would be happy to help move back to mainspace and mark it as patrolled. I hope that makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're not sure, why did you move this article? Is it because you are in the opinion if I am "red", I've got no clue? Please remove. -- MovieFex (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@MovieFex:I promise this isn't about you being red - I checked and saw what an active participant you are here. What I don't know about is Wikidata. However, this isn't Wikidata this is English Wikipedia. I am sure about English Wikipedia and what I told you is about how the policies apply to Draft:Sympathy for the Devil (2018 film) which is an article here. I don't know where Wikidata comes into this conversation. Could you explain? I might be missing something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "The artist seems to be the main topic"? AaronWikia (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@AaronWikia: Sorry tired editing. Meant WP:PTOPIC Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of Chinese Wikipedia administrators. About Cathay Financial Holding, you may feel weird for edits of IP 175.181.187.238、175.181.188.214、123.192.39.95、and User:Nwytbwwq.

No doubt. They are all User:Jessechi's Sock puppetries[2]. He is a long-term Wikipedia vandal in Chinese Wikipedia[3] and likes to make false information in Wikipedia articles.—Outlookxp (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I created Nick Sprengel because he is a top prospect for the 2018 MLB draft. I feel like he’s notable enough to have a page and since he will most likely be drafted high he will have a page recreated if mine is deleted in June anyways. If you still don’t think he’s notable enough, I would rather the page be moved to a draft instead of deleted entirely. Thanks :) Malmmf (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Malmmf: Totally a reasonable request. At least by reading of the baseball notability guidelines, however, top draft picks still don't qualify as notable. In most cases they're going to have to make the majors before they become notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I addressed all of your concerns and think I can help you find sources (see talk page).

@MagicatthemovieS: I saw that offer, thanks. I am picking up several of the books today from my library and expect to be able to finish this today or tomorrow. I appreciate your patience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Barkeep49! I'd like to invite you to join the Rick Riordan Task Force (formerly the "Percy Jackson" Task Force) of WikiProject Novels. We work to improve articles related to Rick Riordan and his books. Your work is always appreciated, and we like to include experienced users on our member lists so that others have resources to reach out. Even if you're not particularly interested in our subject matter, I encourage you to think about becoming a Supporter. Our sole requirement is a response to a roll-call once a year. Think about it. Please, check out our project page or contact me to learn more! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC) *Please note that membership is open only to full users. If you currently edit with an IP address, please consider creating an account today! We would love to have you.

@2ReinreB2: Thanks for the invite. While I certainly support the task force's efforts, as a proud member of WP:Children's literature, I want to stay somewhat uninvolved so that I can help with things like GA assessments when those come along. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my Phyllis E. Grann page. I've still got some materials to expand, but I wanted to publish quickly as I was surprised she had been missed. Thank you!--Jaldous1 (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Listen, I'm expanding this. If I can get enough content and RSes, this can pass. Don't redirect it in the middle of it. Give it a little bit. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Srishti Jain, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

See my note on the talk page of the user you reverted. The situation isn't as simple as that. The page was never deleted through the AfD process, but the history got CSD'd as collateral damage from an unrelated problem. I restored the history as a procedural action so that the information could be reincorporated in the encyclopaedia through the normal editing process. SpinningSpark 21:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks for the explanation. I have self-reverted the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I had a picture of Meg Turney cosplaying as Elizabeth from Bioshock, but it wouldn't format for some reason. Would you mind helping me out? The Wikpedia editor for new users doesn't really help in this situation, and the picture is coming out as gigantic. Thanks. BrAon421 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrAon421:Oh man an image. I'm strong on policy but images aren't necessarily my thing. But I'm game to give it a try. Can you link me to the original photo on WikiMedia? Also can you include the code you were trying for the picture with and around it (so that it doesn't display). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

[[File:Meg Turney as Elizabeth from Bioshock.jpg|center|[[Meg Turney]] cosplaying as [[Elizabeth (BioShock)|Elizabeth]] at [[WonderCon|WonderCon 2013]].]]

The link is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meg_Turney_as_Elizabeth_from_Bioshock.jpg BrAon421 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrAon421: Phew, thanks for the practice in imaging as it took me a few tries to get it to work right too. I have gotten it to work with the following code:

[[ File:Meg Turney as Elizabeth from Bioshock.jpg|150px|left|[[Meg Turney]] cosplaying as [[Elizabeth (BioShock)|Elizabeth]] at [[WonderCon|WonderCon 2013]].]]

I aligned left in hopes that the section will be expanded and it will then format nicely. In general Centering of pictures is frowned upon (except if it's a panorama or the like). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. BrAon421 (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you add the Metacritic scores for Bioshock iOS, BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, and BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea on the Bioshock (series) page? I have no clue how to update the reception section, but all the information is available on the website.BrAon421 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrAon421: Are you talking about the box that appears underneath Turney's cosplay pic? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. The links are http://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/bioshock, http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bioshock-2-minervas-den, http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bioshock-infinite-burial-at-sea---episode-one, and http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/bioshock-infinite-burial-at-sea---episode-two. BrAon421 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrAon421:Gotcha. So that involves a WP:Template specifically Template:VG Series Reviews which I haven't used before (I play Video Games but by and large don't edit about them). The code that you're looking for to add more links is

{{VG Series Reviews

and the code you'll want to add for Infinite will look along the lines of:

|game4 = [[BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea]]

|mc4 = device score (ref citation)<br> device score (ref citation)<br> (and so on for each device)

You would then make your next one game5 and mc5 and last one game6 and mc6. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat, but it needs to be chronologically in order. Sorry to ask you to do it, but my past attempts have messed up the page. BrAon421 (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrAon421:Good point. Can you paste the code you tried here and I'll see if I can figure out the issue? Would much rather teach you how to do it so you gain the skills going forward, especially because this outside my normal editing areas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've tried a lot of different ways, none of which seem to be working. I hate to force you to do it, but Wikipedia's inbox isn't very friendly for new users. Personally, I'm not expecting I'll edit these boxes often. You are my Plan G at this point. BrAon421 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@BrAon421:Well the thing is since we're all volunteers no one can force anyone to really do anything :). However, I'm willing to be helpful to a reasonable degree. Again can you paste the code you tried? I'm not interested in generate new table code from scratch but would be happy to scan your code to find what could be the error. (Also I get pinged every time you make an edit to my page. No big deal when I'm offline but the messages add up quickly when I am here so any ability to message once is most appreciated). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans deserves its own article. You appear to be engaging in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: I'm curious what you think I've done that is an edit war. The timeline I see is: you made a stub. I WP:BOLDLY redirected to what is a better sourced article. You reverted. I then tagged the article as a stub and as needing more references and marked the page as reviewed for WP:NPP purposes. Where is the edit war? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article on The Dietary Guidelines for Americans was established initially in 2008. Two attempts have been made to redirect this article, first to the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion#Dietary Guidelines for Americans, (which has only cursory information about the guidelines themselves) and then to MyPlate, which also has only curosry information about the guidelines themselves. Both of these articles are clearly separate and distinct from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. If there is a more important topic in wikipedia than this one, I am not sure what it would be. I plan to collaborate with other interested editors to expand this separate article to give it the place that it deserves in wikipedia. Almost all articles start as stubs. Your justification for the redirect is not convincing.Sbelknap (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

For your tolerance and AGF. My reply, if I was to give one, would be far too personal, and drawn out for general consumption here on wp en. So for the moment, I have no problem having thrown some things in, shall restrain from further comment in the GA. Thanks again for your tolerance and understanding. JarrahTree 00:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

However, it seems another local editor, perhaps the most pedantic nit picker in the Australian project has been in and given his magic touch to the article. JarrahTree 12:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

its has been named. escpeicly by ReBecca Hunt-Foster
@Bubblesorg: Scientific evidence finding isn't my specialty but I didn't see any. What I did see were some dinosaur websites which at first blush didn't appear to be reliable sources. Can you point me to the Rebecca Hunt-Foster proof you're talking about. I also write that not knowing who she is but figure I can catch up while looking at the source. Also a friendly reminder to put ~~~~ at the end of talk page comments so people know who you are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC))https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunityrannus

@Bubblesorg: So Wikipedia has rules about what kind of information can be used and believe it or not other wikipedias, including the one you linked to Simple Wikipedia, are not allowed to be used as evidence about something. The rules for English Wikipedia say that something has to be notable as definied by English Wikipedia in order to have a page. It does not appear that this dinosaur meets those rules. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)) OK i understand

Thanks for reviewing the page, Joon Lee. I didn't know newly posted articles needed to be reviewed to appear on Google searches! Could you review the page, Solid as well? Also how long does it actually take for the reviewed articles to appear on Google? Thanks in advance! :) joh582 (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Joh582:  Done. In my experience they tend to appear fairly quickly but it can take a while before they get to the front page. I tracked one page I made and it took about 3 weeks to get to the front page but was indexed (much farther back) the same day. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The prod process cannot be used on articles that have previously been to AfD or have previously been prodded. I assume you did not know this since you referred to the previous AfD in your edit summary. If you think the article is substantially the same as a previously deleted article then you can use WP:CSD G4 (and I have now deleted the page on those grounds). Otherwise you need to start a new AfD. SpinningSpark 10:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks. I completely spaced on that element of the PROD despite the big lettering indicating it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Carmen Moreno de Aponte, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4 does not apply. This new version has multiple references. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I created the Daddy Issues film entry in order to correct the inaccurate information that existed on the web regarding this indie film. In the process of creating a wiki entry for this page, I read the guidelines and also reviewed multiple film entries on wikipedia. The issue I am having is a majority of the live entries I reviewed should be removed fully or partially based on the reasons you provided (I can provide example entries if needed). I believe I have provide substantive source material that is on par if not surpasses live entries in the same field.

Is there a way you can assist me further in order to pass the submission process? I updated the article to link to festivals wikipedia has entries on. Do I have to delete all of the other festivals that do not have entries on wikipedia (even though the festivals are deemed noteworthy)?

Thank you for your assistance and time. I really appreciate it!

Enep2 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Enep2: So the short answer to your festival question is no. From my reading of the policy, however, only a few major film festivals (e.g. Cannes) is an appearance at them enough to confer notability. For the most part festival appearances just aren't going to be enough, one way or the other, to matter for notability. I think the key for you is at WP:NFSOURCES. Can you find a couple of those kind of sources who've written at some length (e.g. significantly) about the film? I didn't see them in the article or in a basic internet search but given all of its festival play they very well could be out there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I edited the entry to provide further notability. There was a capsule review and the film won multiple awards for excellence as outlined in the link you provided. Three of the festivals have entries and wikipedia has deemed those festivals note-worthy. Enep2 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Enep2: Let me try again as I must not have been clear before. This film having been played at film festivals is not going to help it overcome the notability threshold. Now winning awards from notable festivals might in some circumstances. In this circumstance I don't think it does (or comes particularly close). I think your best bet is to try and incorporate critical coverage. However, mine isn't the only opinion around here which matters. You're welcome to try clicking the "Submit your draft for review" button. While there is a backlog at this process, reviews seem to be happening more frequently these days and that will put another pair of eyes on it who might reach different conclusions. If you have further questions let me know as I'm happy, given continued good faith efforts at improving to try and talk through how I read WP:NFILM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your time into matter. Enep2 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep, I am not especially skilled at creating wikipedia pages. I would like to improve the "Facade Tectonics" page to help keep it alive. I could add a bunch of links to papers and conferences, but I think that may not be the right thing for wikipedia. I do not want to take up all your time, and do not expect you to educate me. If you gave me just a few words about a couple things I could do to improve the "Facade Tectonics" page, I would do them immediately. Many thanks!

@Clipperdoug: Hi there! Like many skills, creating Wikipedia pages is one you acquire over time while making some mistakes along the way. I'm happy to try to help guide you to the right places. As you've probably picked up by now articles must meet the notability threshold to have a page. Companies and non-profits have a particular set of guidelines to have establish whether they are notable or not. These can be found at WP:NCORP. The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if they're met for an organization is there:

1. significant coverage in
2. multiple,
3. independent,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

All five things must be true. When I read Facade Tectonics and then looked into it, I had trouble finding reliable sources that covered it. That is what I noted in the proposed deletion box. I have good news and better news for you in terms of time to work on it. First, the notice I put up has to be there for at least 7 days. This means the earliest it could be deleted is June 1. Beyond that, if you add sources that meet the five criteria above (and I'd encourage you to read the whole WP:NCORP guideline) then you can decide to remove the tag yourself. At that point I, or another editor, could choose to go through a different process, WP:Articles for Deletion where a broader segment of the community can weigh in to achieve consensus on whether the page should be deleted or not. Hope that helps. I am happy to try and answer other questions you might have. (P.S. Please remember to put ~~~~ at the end of messages you leave on talk pages (including User talk pages) so people know who you are.) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. In regard to your recent deletion of my edits to the Blumont page, I believe Blumont should have its own page as it is a new company under new leadership. While I think redirecting the International Relief and Development (IRD) page to Blumont would be best, I also think there is pertinent information on the IRD page that should still be posted but that is not applicable to Blumont. Therefore, my edits to the Blumont page should stand. User78953 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)User78953

@User78953: I admit that I didn't spend much time on this, as I came across Blumont through new page patrol. It seems like a discussion should be had about how/if to seperate or relocate those pages with other editors, like yourself, who are interested and knowledgable on the topic. As indicated, the place to do that would be on an Article Talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Heaven (Avicii song), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@PRehse: Confused here as it looks like it's still the redirect. I know I am still growing as a NPR so let me know if there's something I didn't do right here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No you were fine - I slipped.PRehse (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am enthousiastic! User:Barkeep49/Learning_by_teaching Jeanpol (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeanpol: I'm glad to hear it and thankful you're taking Jytdog's counsel about the COI edits. I learned about this concept when training to be a teacher and employed some of its methods at times in my own teaching so it definitely falls in my area of interest. Even if you're not able to make edits directly, knowing your expertise is around to lend guidance is helpful. Thanks again for letting me know you're enthusiastic and I hope we're able to collaborate after the AfD closes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course I will help you so much as I can. If you are interested to read my ultimative article (may 2018) (translation in English), here it is: [4].--Jeanpol (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a facebook-account?--Jeanpol (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeanpol:I do but I'm not willing to lose my anonymity. Thanks for the translation, that will be helpful no doubt. In general I'm going to need to do some diving into the various literature on the topic which is more a weekend/summer activity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Fine! Jeanpol (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

	Child Project Editor of Wikipedia
	For participating in WikiProject Children's literature Map Collector (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Prior I was trying to merge Youth Lagoon into the Trevor Powers wiki page, however now all I did was try to create a wiki page based off of Trevor Powers, which I believe is in the wikipedia rules as allowed since it is its own project. Can you please revert the omission of the Trevor Powers page, as it should not be redirecting to Youth Lagoon (two different projects). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posthocinfo (talk • contribs) 15:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Posthocinfo: Okay I understand now. Youth Lagoon was the stage name for Trevor Powers. Powers is now performing under his own name. So what you should do is go to Talk:Youth Lagoon and propose moving the page to Trevor Powers. If other editors respond, great, have a discussion with them. Wait at least a week. If at the end of that time no one has responded, or everyone who has responded is in favor, you can make the request for the move at WP:RM/TR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain what exactly should be removed? I would like to learn from you. Thanks! BTW, MOZ.com is also an SEO company and they have similar page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberak (talk • contribs) 09:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dberak: Hi and thanks for your question. I'm going to do my best to answer it. I actually don't think anything needs to be removed, I think something needs to be added. Specifically what needs to be added are:

1. significant coverage in
2. multiple,
3. independent,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

These are the guidelines about how English Wikipedia has decided what companies are allowed to have pages. There might be some other companies which don't meet those guidelines. But that doesn't change what LRT needs to do in order to have an article. If you can add sources which offer significant coverage, in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources about LRT that would work well. Does that make sense? I would be happy to answer further questions if you have them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok I have followed your instructions and created a username. Now I want to create the article Italian Massawa as you wrote. Now, show me how to create it because I don't get anything more that "write on your sandbox" .......--Followinginstructions (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Followinginstructions: Hi Following and welcome to Wikipedia. So what I have done is create a draft article called Draft:Italian_Massawa. Drafts are a place where you can build an article. When it is ready it can then be moved to mainspace. The three most important things about Wikipedia are having sources, having reliable sources, and having secondary sources. Sourcing is really that important. You might also want to read WP:Wikipedia:Your_first_article which offers lots of tips. Does that make sense? If not please ask more questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I have done the small article following your instructions on the draft. Can I create the article now? Can I name it: Italian Massawa?--144.178.6.16 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, the IP above was me (I forgot to log in, sorry)--Followinginstructions (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Followinginstructions: No worries. I have placed an articles for creation (AfC) banner on the page. When you are ready you can click submit for review. I would think, however, about including more information and more sources before doing that. After you click submit for review a volunteer with AfC will come and either help move the article back to mainspace or explain what the article needs more of. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 for being here is useless so please delete my entire account thank you!!!

Hi. well done on getting this one over the line. It looked like hard work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC) @Gog the Mild: Thanks, it was trickier than my other GA reviews had been. I appreciate your time and effort as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I saw your list of sources that you want for Arnold Lobel. Are you still looking for George Shannon's Arnold Lobel? I see that I might have access to a copy through a library I'm affiliated with. I could try to figure it out for sure tomorrow. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @Armadillopteryx:

Yes I am as I had kind of exhausted my library systems. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay! I'll take a look and get back to you tomorrow :-) Armadillopteryx^talk 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems the book is only available from the archives, and I don't have a card to access those, unfortunately :-/ Armadillopteryx^talk 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx: Thank you for putting in the time to establish that. Your efforts have been truly appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you do a BEFORE search before you draftified the article? There are plenty of sources and there is a good chance he will be drafted in the NBA in a couple days. Also I didn't create the article, User:DevonSoc did. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your questions. I did do a WP:BEFORE. Were he not about to declare for the draft I'd have gone AfD for WP:BLP1E. And yes I know that you didn't technically create the page but as its main contributor of content I thought it fairer to have the message sent to you as an interested party (and active Wikipedian). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Zhu Ming, Barkeep49.

Unfortunately PRehse has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Needs to be reconsidered. The article has been speedy deleted twice as Db-promo not to mention the author overwriting existing articles to put his in place.

To reply, leave a comment on PRehse's talk page.

PRehse (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you deleted all the station information on the WNML-FM page and made it a redirect to its sister station WNML AM. Although the stations share much of their programming, they are separately licensed entities, and the standard practice is to have a page for each station. WNML-FM is an FM station licensed to Friendsville, Tennessee which dates to 1989. WNML (AM) is licensed to Knoxville, Tennessee, and dates to 1922. I don't want to get into an edit war, but unless there is a good reason I am not aware of to delete all the FM station's information I plan restore it to the way it was, although I wanted to give you an explanation first. Thomas H. White (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas H. White: I appreciate the explanation. I misread as I thought that at this point in its history WNML-FM was simply rebroadcasting WNML. Given your explanation this would still not necessarily mean a redirect was correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle 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 Nova Chrysalia -- Nova Chrysalia (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The article The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Chrysalia -- Nova Chrysalia (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I was certainly referring to BornonJune8. It was on their talk page, replying to them directly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Thanks for clarifying. Since I was the first one not to ping you wanted to make sure no offense was taken as I try to practice what I'm preaching about collaborative editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to fix my references, please be my guest. I was going to do it later, I find it easier to use inline references while the text is still in flux, but you could help me out. I will take a break from editing the article so we don't edit conflict. My understanding is that draft namespaces aren't required, but maybe that policy has changed, feel free to correct me. Andrevan@ 19:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Hey there and thanks for the message. Using bare URLs for your references doesn't strike me as an issue but by at least using the reference tag it's more possible for a bot to help fix the bare URLs rather than if they're external links. Draftspace certainly isn't required, but doing so is friendlier to your hardworking WP:NPPs because it can make assessing notability easier especially around NCORP related topics where there is TONS of spam. I'm going to just fix my ref formatting and then let you back at it, though if you are up for at least using the ref tag (which is friendly in visual editor) even with the Bare URLs that you improve later, that would be a thumbs up from me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, sounds good, thanks! Andrevan@ 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Finished my clean-up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pratibha Tiwari is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratibha Tiwari until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sir ! I respectfully disagree with deletion of this page Corps Guestphalia Halle. Reason given Non-notable organization. Sir ! It's 250 year old organization. One of the first if not THE FIRST fraternity. Trend setter in University life around the Globe. Home many fraternities we have today ? It all started with this one ! Tremendous cultural and historical significance in my humble opinion. Here is list of people known to be the Members (so you can see for yourself):

• Hans Bodo Graf von Alvensleben-Neugattersleben 1882-1961 Landowner and President of the German Men's Club
• Robert von Bartsch † 1919 Undersecretary of State
• Charles of Basse 1781-1868 District administrator in Borken, manor owner
• Gustav Behrendt † 1912 President of the Railway Directorate Berlin
• Gustav Bertog 1825-1888 Managers and factory owners, heads of the town council in Halberstadt, MdHdA
• Richard Wilhelm Bertram † 1881 First mayor of Halle (Saale)
• Peter Christian Wilhelm Beuth 1781-1853 Founder of the Prussian Industrial Institute and (with Schinkel) the Berlin Museum of Applied Arts
• Georg Moritz von Blomberg 1770-1818 District Administrator in Tecklenburg, poet
• Ludwig Freiherr von Blomberg † 1850 Go. Oberregierungsrat, Prussian Chamberlain
• Gisbert von Bonin-Brettin 1841-1913 Saxe-Coburg and Gothaischer Real Privy Council and Minister of State, member of the Prussian mansion
• Emil Braemer 1859-1939 District Administrator of the district Oletzko, member of the provincial daily of East Prussia, MdHdA
• Albert von Breitenbauch 1776-1852 Royal Prussian district administrator of the district Ziegenrück, owner of the estates Ranis, Brandenstein and Petzkendorf
• Georg von Dehn-Schmidt 1876-1937 envoy
• Daniel Heinrich Delius 1773-1832 President of the Regierungsbezirk Trier and Cologne, owner of the Klostergut of the Abbey of Laach
• Wilhelm Delius † 1860 President of the General Commission for the Province of Westphalia
• Rudolf Doehn 1821-1894 Writer and politician
• Carl Heinrich Ebmeier 1793-1850 Member of the Frankfurt National Assembly
• Konrad Engelhardt 1861-1917 District Administrator of the district of Lüneburg
• Wolf Freiherr von Engelhardt 1910-2008 Geologist and Mineralogist, Professor at the University of Tübingen
• Rule man Friedrich Eylert 1770-1852 Bishop of Berlin, spiritual adviser Friedrich Wilhelm III. from Prussia
• Claus-Dieter Freymann * 1938 Professor of Education, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Diakonisches Werk in the church district An der Ruhr, jazz musician
• Heinrich Fritsch 1844-1915 Professor of gynecology at the universities of Wroclaw and Bonn
• Franz Galli 1839-1917 Judge at the imperial court
• Joachim Rudolph Gerdes around 1775-1857 Chief official in Stickhausen
• Wolf from Gottberg 1865-1938 District Administrator of the district of Crossen (Oder)
• Eduard Graf 1829-1895 Medical, MdHdA
• Justus von Gruner 1777-1820 Police Chief of Berlin, Governor General of the Middle Rhine and the Grand Duchy of Berg, 1815 Police Director of occupied Paris
• Robert Eduard von Hagemeister 1827-1902 Chief President of Westphalia
• Erwin Hasbach 1875-1970 Deputy of the Sejm, Senator of the Polish Senate, leader of Germanism in Poland
• August Franz von Haxthausen 1792-1866 Agronomist, economist, lawyer, farmer, writer and folk song collector
• Werner Graf von Haxthausen 1780-1822 Civil servant and philologist, friend and co-worker of Gebr. Grimm
• Georg Friedrich Heilmann 1785-1862 Biel politician, officer and landscape painter
• Franz Hugo Hesse 1804-1861 Prussian official and diplomat, member of the Erfurt Union Parliament, the Prussian National Assembly and the First Chamber of the Prussian Landtag, MdHdA
• Eberhard von Hymmen 1784-1854 District Administrator of the Siegkreis and the district of Bonn
• Hans von Jacobs 1868-1915 Diplomat, Director General of the German Levante Line
• Theodor Karbe 1829-1886 Manor owner, MdHdA
• Ernst gag 1892-1945 Major General, bearer of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with oak leaves
• Günther Knecht 1909-1995 Administrative lawyer, most recently police director in Neuss from 1964 to 1974
• Johann Friedrich Christoph Kortüm 1788-1858 Professor of History in Bern and Heidelberg
• Leonhard Lehfeldt 1834-1876 City judge, MdHdA
• Ludwig von Liebenstein 1781-1824 Chief official of the Baden Oberamt Hornberg and Lahr, member of the Second Chamber of the Baden Estates Assembly
• August von Liebermann † 1847 Prussian. Minister and envoy
• Heinrich Eugen Marcard 1806-1883 MdHdA, MdR
• Adalbert Matthaei 1859-1924 Art historian, university teacher in Kiel and Gdansk
• Albrecht Meckel von Hembsbach 1790-1829 Professor of surgery
• Hermann von Mohrenschild 1860-1928 Majoratsherr, Estonian district administrator
• Christian Friedrich Baron von der Mosel 1779-1858 District Administrator in Kleve
• Richard Münter † 1938 major-general
• Friedrich Wilhelm Müser 1812-1874 Industrialist, founder of Harpener Bergbau-AG
• Bernhard Christoph Ludwig Natorp 1774-1846 Educator and theologian, Vice General Superintendent of the Evangelical Church of Westphalia
• Konrad Niemeyer 1829-1903 Altphilologist, director of the Kiel Scholars School
• Arnold Paulssen 1864-1942 first Thuringian Minister of State
• Viktor Pfannschmidt † 1878 Mayor of Coswig (Anhalt), Mayor of Lauenburg
• Walter Rehfeld 1859-1933 District Administrator of the circle Dannenberg
• Paul Riebeck 1859-1889 Namesake of the Paul Riebeck Foundation in Halle
• Heinrich Robolski 1858-1939 President of the Reich Patent Office
• Max Roepell 1841-1903 President of the Royal Railway Directorates in Katowice and Poznan
• Georg Rumler † 1940 President of the Senate in the Reich Insurance Office, Director of the Central Supply Office Central Germany
• August Sartori 1827-1908 pedagogue
• Franz Saxer 1864-1903 pathologist
• Georg Schleusner 1841-1911 Superintendent in Cochstedt
• Georg Julius von Schleftendahl 1770-1833 Bergischer Staatsrat, President of the Government Commission in Paderborn, Government Vice President and Special President of the administrative district of Münster
• Karl August Sigismund Schultze 1795-1877 anatomist
• Waldemar Schultze around 1835-1877 Amtmann in Dillenburg, district director in Mulhouse
• Christoph Wilhelm Heinrich Sethe 1767-1855 Lawyer, Chief President of the Rheinische Revision and Cassation Court
• Paul from Spaeth 1859-1936 Majoratsherr, member of the provincial daily of East Prussia, MdHdA
• Richard von Spalding 1871-1913 Go. Oberregierungsrat, Lecturer Council in Reichskolonialamt, Deputy Governor of German East Africa
• Richard Spendelin 1859-1898 District Administrator of the district Schrimm
• Otto Steinmann 1831-1894 Government President in Gumbinnen, MdHdA, MdR
• Friedrich Strauss 1786-1863 Oberhofprediger and Professor of Practical Theology at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin
• Johann Wilhelm Süvern 1775-1829 Teacher and politician, reformer of Prussian school legislation, member of the Academy of Sciences.
• Heinrich Ferdinand Philip of Sybel 1781-1870 Lawyer, MdHdA, father of the historian Heinrich von Sybel
• Karl Tettenborn 1858-1938 Mayor of Altona, member of the manor
• Walter von Trebra 1869-1924 District administrator in Ragnit and Hagen

Sir ! This article is still a stub. In coming weeks I'll continue to work on it. If you have interest in improving this article please contribute ! Thank you very much ! User:Abune (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC) @Abune: I appreciate your reaching out. I see you removed the PROD, which if you hadn't I would have suggested based on this. Colleagiate organizations are a tricky thing for notability. It's only more so when the best sources are in another language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, you recently moved a page I was working on back to the drafts section when I feel that it does meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline for musicians and ensembles and check off a few boxes as listed on Wikipedia:Notability_(music).

The issue is that while they are very notable and prominent in their gene, Psychobilly, the genre itself while being 30+ years old is still very much an underground genre. They also have more notability and history than a number of acts in the same genre listed in List_of_psychobilly_bands.

Looking at them on a streaming service such as Spotify shows that they have over 11,000 monthly listeners and some tracks as having a quarter of a million plays which I would believe would be an indication of their popularity.

I would ask for a provisional approval for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiend1138 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fiend1138: Hi there and thanks for your thoughtful comment. I will admit I am not a music expert and hadn't heard of Psychobilly before. You make an intriguing case for notability, but I'm not sure which of the 12 measures for band is met by Spotify listens. In the end this was more about reliable sources than notability. By my look at the article, as it stands there's not one independent reliable secondary source about the band, hence the move as under-sourced. I would say about adding at least one (and more is always better) source that speaks to how the group meets the standards at WP:BAND. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for writing back in such a timely manner, that is very much appreciated. Admittedly due to the underground nature of the genre it has proved difficult to find sources other than their own website. But I did cite a few that were from independent sources including an article from their hometown of Santa Cruz, CA newspaper, as well as an Orange County weekly entertainment newspaper and various indie music sites such as Dread Central, Highwire Daze. I had hoped that this would be acceptable as again I must stress the fact that this genre is not a mainstream one. Thank you again. Fiend1138

Hello
I see this article that I wrote has been deleted again: I assume that you are (simply) one of Onel5969's talk page stalkers, so I assume you've read the reply I made over the last deletion, that you've seen the Google search for 'real-world' references I put there, and that you've noted the ones I added to the article subsequently.
So let's now assume that I put this at a brand-new title rather than re-cycling an old one, that you PRODed it, with the rationale already given, and that I challenged it (using my rationale); the next move in the process is to take it to an AfD discussion, if you feel the page shouldn't be there, and I suggest you do so now. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Swanny: Hi there. I'm sorry you've made so many assumptions because they're wrong. I found Guido Brunetti through WP:NPP - pages which had been redirects and are turned into article appear in the feed. I don't talk page stalk Onel5969 and don't think I've interacted directly with him (since he also does NPP, I am familiar with him).

So now that we don't need to assume anything but good faith with each other, let's get to the heart of the matter. Having read the discussion you linked me to I agree with Onel's thoughts, which is unsurprising because I took the exact same action as him (independently). This is not a situation where I am willing to undo your changes with another revert and will leave it there for another reviewer to take a look at. If they agree with you I'll then do some WP:BEFORE and make a decision about AfD. Since we've both pinged Onel, they might of course choose a different course of action. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49 - And I believe you're correct, this is our first interaction, except for some "thanks" notifications from time to time. So I'll take the moment to thank you for the good work you do at NPP. The article is so woefully, pathetically sourced it currently doesn't come close to meeting notability criteria. And if the editor who is so frantic to see this in the mainspace won't take the time to correctly source it, and make it into the type of article (like I pointed them to in my response on my talk page), I certainly won't waste my time on it either. I've tagged it for notability, since in its current incarnation it doesn't come close to meeting guidelines, and I'll let another editor take a whack at reviewing it. Keep up the good work, Barkeep! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So if a tweet is not enough to warrant creating the page, how about the official PR from FOX? http://www.foxflash.com/fox/content/fox-announces-fall-premiere-dates-2018-2019-season Magitroopa (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: That works for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Magitroopa and Barkeep49: We don't create entire season articles based on a single reference. A sourced episode table or significant content supported by multiple sources is generally required. There is guidance on the creation of new seasons at WP:TVUPCOMING and WP:TVOVERVIEW. While this is mainly aimed at the list of episodes page it does apply to season articles. An announcement of an upcoming season normally warrants a single sentence in the lead of the list of episodes article. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You're right; I normally would look for more than announcement in a season page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed, after I moved Draft:Kevin C. Conroy back to draft space after the COI editor decided to skip the review process, that you had done some cleaning up while it was briefly in main space. If you believe it is worthy of being in main space, feel free to move it back. Otherwise would you please review it in draft space? Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I nearly, but did not, thank you for the move so I have no objections. I came across it through WP:NPP and it seemed like he was borderline notable but that the page had some real issues and there was what appeared to be a case of undisclosed COI, or at minimum a SPA. The mood struck me so I did some clean-up but intentionally left it as unreviewed. I had hoped that my softer question might draw out the COI but can't blame the two of you who went harder in demanding the disclosure for doing so. Frankly I think draft space is the right place for the article now as at minimum the claims that I tagged as needing citations should have RS citations before any possible move back into mainspace. Hopefully the editor discloses the COI, makes some appropriate changes, and submits it back for review and the process works. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I had a lot of fun creating it!

Paranoimia90 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What possible basis could there be for a copyright issue? The quotes are well within fair use. It's almost funny considering the underlying issue of Silvey stealing from reviewers.

Anita Silvey removed the section about plagiarism including the examples. Where were you then? Why is it when I set the record straight again, you delete part of the verification? Why are ten examples out of a long book "too detailed?"

Did you check anything before you implied that the source was inadequate? Everything single quote is accurate.

School Library Journal is unlikely to publish a piece, no matter how well documented, that reflects poorly on a former Houghton and Horn Book editor. If you're familiar with this field, you know that.

Diana Pratchett Dianapratchett (Dianapratchett (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC))

@Dianapratchett: I'm in the middle of responding over at your page now. Best if we keep discussion in one place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. No, not particularly. I don't recall deleting anything. Also, you just helped me figure something out. Thanks! I get what you're saying. Regards, Daccho (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Daccho: Glad to hear. Tip: It's considered good manners to start a new section at the bottom of a talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 June Backlog Drive, please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol and keep up the good work, Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For copy editing and making constructive criticism during the GA-review of Joseph Jay Pastoriza. This is a good example of how I would want to do a GA-review. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: Thanks. I just had a review that got a little contentious and I'm not entirely sure why. The timing on this couldn't have been better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49: Perfect timing? That would be a first! Seriously, the delay was related to questions about what would be appropriate and not some quid pro quo. It seems to me that assessments and reviews are tools for improving editors' skills and the quality of articles. Wikipedia is a labyrinth of policies and guidelines, and I greatly appreciate anyone who helps me to navigate them. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I participated in my first lively deletion discussion for the Chicago Food Truck Festival. When time permits please review that the deletion was proper. As they say a strong delete consensus was reached but none of the users in the relist discussion eve used policy. Thanks. Thelegaldude (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thelegaldude: Thanks for your question. AfD isn't a vote so the quality of the arguments matter more than the number of people on one side or the other. I participated and so I'm obviously biased but I think a reasonable person could judge the discussion as keep (I think strong keep is a push but that's a quibble). However you can feel differently and can ask for a review at WP:DRV. I am guessing, however, that it would be an uphill climb. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for responding. What I am saying is the rationale for the redirect after the relist was a strong consensus had been formed. Do you see a strong consensus? What am I missing. I am learning and reading. This is actually quite cool. Curious. Thelegaldude (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thelegaldude: Like I said above I think strong consensus is too strong a statement, but a delete consensus is reasonable. As for the redirect it's because Chicago Food Truck Festival was seen as something someone might search and there was a place information could be added. In fact this outcome somewhat encourages you to add it and a citation to the list at Chicago#Festivals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not mean to get so irritable. I'm more used to Wiktionary, where each individual entry is only a minuscule portion of the work that it takes to write an entire exhaustive Wikipedia entry. So, when an entry I create gets deleted on Wiktionary, not such a big deal, but you must understand the feeling one gets when their content, in majority or entirety, is removed on this encyclopedia. While it may be necessary to remove some things, I have a really difficult time keeping my cool when something like that happens, which is something I hope you can understand, and which I apologize for. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: I really appreciate the apology (and the self-revert). I too know how much effort can go into edits here. As I said at the Philmont article, I actually think the content you took out makes that article better in the end. Some details might need to get added back in but I think you've improved the encyclopedia with those changes even if the split doesn't ever happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I am writing a very long new section detailing the many problems with this dispute, and giving suggestions on what we should do to resolve it. Please keep the page on your watchlist, as I might need some feedback on this. The summary is that there are certain things that I still want to be included, somewhere, somehow, on the encyclopedia, but finding a place to do this is going to be very difficult, seeing how Death of Alden Brock may not be supported for a secondary article. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your very nice reply this evening! Lettucecup (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup

what do I have to add to make this notable? ZIP1972 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ZIP1972. To prove that it's notable you should link to reliable sources which talk about it. This is Wikipedia's guideline on notability. This is a brief answer - feel free to come back with more questions if you have them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate your help reviewing my Richard A. Moya article, I notice the history is tied to my personal sandbox. As a result, users will see all of my past sandbox work on many, many other articles as the history for this article. The correct history beginning May 30th, is attached to Draft:Richard_Moya, which had a copyright issue. I regret that I created a second page with the A. initial, which is the one you have approved. It is quite the mess! If you know how to address this, great. Please do. If not, perhaps you should move my Richard A. Moya to a temp name and I'll wait for User:Justlettersandnumbers who was involved in the copyright concerns to sort things out. I am fairly uncomfortable with the history currently shown for Richard A. Moya. Mbcoats (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Mbcoats Thanks to the work of a few different people I think all has been fixed and the page is live at Richard Moya. Congrats again on your development work on that article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:Barkeep49, you redirect article to draft space and gave the reason the citations are not strong. As i am not very familier with Wikipedia but I think the citations which are used in this article are reliable and trusted. Please refer below: Discogs, BBC, IMDB, SoundCloud, MobyGames, The Korea Times and many others. So do you think these websites are not as a good reliable citations? i have also added few other reliable citations. I request you to help me to publish this article. I would also request you to contribute this article to make better and move it to the article space.Sofilily (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Your username appears in the log for this file with the comment, "Moving back article which copied over whole sandbox history" Can you tell me what this means and what happened to this article that I accepted as a reviewer at AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Also @GeoffreyT2000: who has done something that I also don't understand to Draft:Richard Moya. ~Kvng (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng: Sorry I meant to leave you a talk page comment but there were several different things going on and I forgot to circle back. But essentially it looks like is that the user created the draft originally in their sandbox. They had over the years created lots of other work in their sandbox as well. When Richard A. Moya was accepted it took their entire sandbox history over to mainspace. They appeared to have have wanted Draft:Richard Moya to be what went over to mainspace. So there was a content fork (and seemingly an AfC submit request for the sandbox version). That content fork then got caught up in a copyright investigation (unfairly in my view). I think everything has been sorted and Draft:Richard Moya could now come over to mainspace if you want to accept it at AfC (and I would then be happy to review it for WP:NPP. Does that make sense? If not I'll try to explain again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Messy but makes sense. I have resubmitted and reaccepted. ~Kvng (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng: I saw and have patrolled it for WP:NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that you deleted my new article, "Orc (monster)", turning it into a redirect, shortly after I'd put it up. I'd originally entered changes to the existing "Orc" article but then decided they didn't fit well because the type of orc treated in that entry was clearly of the more modern (since Tolkien) sort that is akin to an ogre. But what of the older sea monster sort of orc found in Ariosto and elsewhere? Wikipedia has nothing on the subject. And some of the existing links to (or redirected to) the current Orc article are from articles clearly referring to the sea monster orc. That gives researchers following these links no help whatever, taking them where they will either get no information or the wrong information.

So I'd created this new article as a starter piece for others to add to. But now what? Would you prefer that I make bold revisions to the existing Orc article to make it more thorough and complete? Or what? Please advise. A mere deletion without a message doesn't offer much in the way of helpful feedback.

Fredwords (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Fredwords. I came across your page on New Page Patrol (NPP). Short answer: yes I think the content you were developing at Orc (monster) should go into Orc. Slightly longer answer: one of the responsibilities of NPP is to ensure there aren't content forks. I did some looking and it appeared your sources overlapped with the scope of the existing Orcs page. I am not sure if you saw my original edit summary (Redirecting to existing article on topic) or only my second one (spelling) after I misspelled redirect. I frequently do leave longer edit summaries - the NPP interface doesn't give me a good way to add comments to anyones page except the person who originally made the article (which in this case wasn't use). Glad you found your way to my talk page. Does that answer your question or do you have any others I can try to answer? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Medowie FC, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Playing in a notable league indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#TEAM). Thank you. SoWhy 11:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49, I can see you reviewed Matchbook (Betting Exchange) and now nominated for speedy deletion. All relevant changes and have been made for article and just sent email confirming ownership of the Logo picture used. Can you please let me know if anything else needs to be changed to stop deletion. Ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrumm1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep, I noticed you reviewed my article on Falcon Insurance Group. I do not understand why it was taken down on conflict of interest because I am not affiliated with this company. all the information I got ahold of was written in a neutral tone and was not meant to be in the advertising tone. If I were to republish the article would it be taken down again? Allines (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Allines and let me again welcome you to Wikipedia. So two different things were going on there. First I posted a message welcoming you and explaining a bit more about the conflict of interest process if you had one. The second thing was that the Falcon Insurance Group page was deleted as advertising. Frequently when people write pages which get deleted as advertising they have a conflict of interest, hence the first message. If you were to recreate the article a different new page patroller would look at it. If it was made in the same way as the first article it would likely be deleted. One guideline you might want to read, if you already haven't, is on what it takes for a company to be notable. Notable is the way Wikipedia decides what topics (companies) get articles. Hopefully that answers your questions. If not let me know or let me know if you have more questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Another question, if I wanted to rewrite the article I'm not sure what exactly I should change to make it sound less like advertising. If you could please give me some pointers before I rewrite it that would be great. Allines (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Allines: My suggestion is you write it at Draft:Falcon Insurance Group OR User:Allines/Falcon Insurance Group. I can then give you thoughts about how to make it less like advertising and/or you can visit the live help channel before making the page live. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep, I edited my article in User:Allines/Falcon Insurance Group. If you could please take the time to look over the article and let me know what I need to change I would greatly appreciate it. Allines (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Allines: I apologize that I'm not going more in depth but I am now traveling and so my time here is more limited. This looks a pared down version of the article that was deleted. It's much better. The areas served section remains promotional. However, it likely would not be speedy deleted. But it still would end up deleted eventually. Have you read WP:NCORP yet? The citations need to be from multiple, independent reliable secondary sources with signficiant coverage. Right now none of the sources approach that standard and so the company hasn't yet been proven notable. I would encourage you to find some better sourcing at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep

Are you able to assist me?

we chatted last week. My name is ricardo komotar and I am a physician at the university of miami — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.117.77 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, please join the discussion on the discography talk page. As you will know, Wikipedia works by consensus. These articles have been on Wikipedia for a long time, some nearly a decade. It's completely inappropriate to turn them into redirects without discussion and consensus. Aiken D 13:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Aiken drum. I found these articles through WP:NPP and as my edit summary indicates there has been discussion around this very topic at AfD and multiple editors, including it seems me in at least a couple places, had sustained the redirects in the past so no I don't think it is completely inappropriate and it wasn't done without discussion or consensus. I was going to leave you a talk page message and figure out where to have a discussion upon going through the articles. In good faith since I have seen this partly through since I have seen this and do agree that we work by consensus around here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep49, Thank you for your helpful comments despite your busy travels! I will make the appropriate fixes as soon as possible and will let you know once they have been completed. Best, Lamblings (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

@Lamblings: Thanks for the update. I still have some parts to go through. Feel free to reply a the page of the review - it's on my watchlist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for responding for my request for help - I have already gone to the page of the Bbb23 who deleted the page and he/she never responded to my comment. So I guess my next step is the deletion review process, right?§Wikistanape (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikistanape: They didn't respond because of how you added your comment (I believe from looking through the history). I would try clicking "New section" and asking them again and then if that doesn't work going to deletion review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou again!§Wikistanape (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I received your message on my talk page about your speedy deletion of the article you moved to Draft:Cyd_McKenna. I'm not sure I understand why you referred to it as undersourced — every sentence contained at least one citation, and each citation was to a reputable news source (such as the Providence Journal, WPRI News, or GoLocalProv a local news site). Which sections did you consider undersourced? Thank you! --RIfoodie (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@RIfoodie: You're right that wasn't the right message for that article. It is the default message and I should have customized it more (completely?) to reflect what I was doing and why. Apologies. The article on McKenna had tons of citations but virtually none of it was about McKenna directly. The information that was from reliable secondary sources did not talk about her in depth merely in passing to others (e.g. Buddy, Aponte). It felt like if there was a really great indepth source that talked about her in significance that would be enough to push it over the top for notability. Hope that makes sense otherwise feel free to ask more questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I respectfully disagree. McKenna is named in the headline of 4 of the citations and is the main focus of the source (book interview and press release; Projo PawSox articles; RIPR and Harper's articles) or a passage of the source of at least 10 of the citations in total. Some of the citations that are not about her in depth could be easily removed. I would also argue that the interview about her book, combined with the notability of the campaigns she has worked on (Buddy, PawSox) do push it over the top for notability. I also would respectfully request that rather than a speedy delete the article was submitted through the regular AfD process so it could be improved as per your suggestions. RIfoodie (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I would be happy to improve the article to incorporate your feedback, of course. RIfoodie (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I've updated the draft to incorporate your feedback; now the citations are all directly related to the main subject of the article, and I've removed the citations that were used for describing background information. RIfoodie (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@RIfoodie: I agree I made a mistake with that page - you had proven notability, I missed the sources that covered her in signficance. Should all be restored now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted you added the tags to the new article Trish (Devil May Cry). I tried trimming it to one paragraph per game. Do you still find more issues with it? I'm not sure if there's more undue weight. In DMC4, she has more scenes like her interactions with Nero and Sanctus, the extra mission but I didn't add them. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Hey there. I came across the article while doing new page patrol. While I enjoy video games I've never played any of the DMC series so I can't speak to her or the ways you structured the page with much expertise. I can tell you I thought the Appearences section was well done - it was Creation and design and Reception which had too much detail, especially for me as a general interest reader, hence the fan tag. I also wonder, given her seeming prominence in a major series, if there hasn't been criticism of her given the overt attempts at sex appeal hence the NPOV tag.

Well, Capcom themselves said they were afraid of making her too vulgar in DMC4 (as noted in the creation section). In regards to creation, I thought it was necessary since it is real world information. I thought that adding information in regards to her gameplay might be important since the sites comment about that. For example, Dante's moves were based on fighting games while Nero was found appealing to use in fights as they are different from others. Kind of like reviews about other fighting game characters like Tekken. I tried searching everywhere but finding in archives and google the tag "Trish Devil May Cry review" don't mean too much since they tend to send me to recent articles also due to her common name.Tintor2 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just found a tweet from Anita stating the reboot DmC was quite sexist but Trish doesn't appear in the game.Tintor2 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Did some light looking as well and nothing from huge sites. Obviously a tweet is not RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Improve the article, don't delete it. There are hundreds of publications to reference and develop the article. I don't want to invest too much time into writing the entire thing, but having something would at least encourage people to develop it instead of going through the process I am now

@Boris Shohat: The article hasn't been deleted yet. It's been moved to Draft:Moshe Hogeg. I do see that John from Idegon put a speedy deletion on it there. You can contest this by pressing the blue button and saying why you should be given time to make it into a good article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Max Rose (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker of the House of Representatives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Housefull 4 shoot begins in London; Sajid Nadiadwala's team has a 25-day schedule in store Link :- https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/housefull-4-shoot-begins-in-london-sajid-nadiadwalas-team-has-a-25-day-schedule-in-store-4699601.html

This is where ‘Housefull 4’ team will head to for shooting past life sequences Link :- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/bollywood-sequels-to-look-forward-to/this-is-where-housefull-4-team-will-head-to-for-shooting-past-life-sequences/photostory/64506521.cms

Akshay Kumar starts shooting for Housefull 4 with Bobby Deol, Riteish Deshmukh. See pic Link :- https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/akshay-kumar-starts-shooting-for-housefull-4-with-bobby-deol-riteish-deshmukh-see-pic/story-IWp30VDUPjUMUegjPAsk7M.html

‘Housefull 4’: All you need to know about the film Link :- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/housefull-4-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-film/housefull-4-wraps-its-first-schedule-in-london/photostory/65080761.cms

Housefull 4: Akshay Kumar and gang shoot the first song of film in London Link :- https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/150718/housefull-4-gang-shoots-the-1st-song-of-the-film-in-london.html

'Housefull 4' shoot begins Link :- https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/housefull-4-shoot-begins-118070900966_1.html

Akshay Kumar and team start shooting for Housefull 4 and Bobby Deol looks the happiest Link :- http://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/report-akshay-kumar-and-team-start-shooting-for-housefull-4-and-bobby-deol-looks-the-happiest-2635246

All these links cover Housefull 4 shooting (Dpshow (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC))

Hi! I approved this draft yesterday but saw you incubated it in the draft-space. References have been added that make this pass GNG now. Keeping you informed about it. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dial911: I will admit that standards for parathletes below the Olympic level are not clear. I will let another reviewer patrol the article give your improvements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think if a parathlete wins some medals on even national level and garners enough coverage to pass GNG, any standard (Olympic level is perhaps the biggest standard for athletes and an athlete need not be an Olympian to be considered notable.) becomes irrelevant. Dial911 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dial911: Obviously anyone who passes GNG is notable. As an avid sports enthusiast, I think a lot of athletics coverage is routine and thus not significant enough to help establish GNG. I respect your position that winning international level medals is worthy of inclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

A script you ran moved Philtzgérald Mbaka‎ back to draftspace two hours after I had accepted it (passing WP:NFOOTY). I don't understand the rationale for moving it back to draftspace - would you mind reverting this? Thanks! SportingFlyer talk 04:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Hi there. I came across the page while doing WP:NPP. I saw that you had accepted the draft. While conducting WP:BEFORE, I had trouble verifying that he met WP:NFOOTY or other notability guideline. Further, the writing on that page indicated to me that it had been translated from somewhere (I could not figure out where) but at minimum was of a low standard. Because it had just been accepted by AfC I had thought it less upsetting to the writer to put it back in draft rather than nominate it for AfD. If you found other information that I missed, please do let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Coincidentally, I am working on a different draft that you rejected at AfC. This was a completely understandable and policy based decision. I am making some changes to the article and it is my intention to then move it main space - I believe there is sourcing for Rose to meeting notability and survive an AfD. Just wanted to give you a heads-up because these two things truly are unrelated but this article move will be bringing us back into contact again on an article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

He's played an African Cup of Nations qualifier here, which satisfies WP:NFOOTY: [5] Apparently also in the squad for a friendly against Benin. That information should probably should be added to the article. I think you could make a reasonable argument it should be deleted on WP:GNG grounds, but that's not for me to make at AfC. SportingFlyer talk 05:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure Rose will survive an AfD on WP:GNG grounds, but I see you've moved it directly to mainspace. SportingFlyer talk 05:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: You're correct, he does appear to meet criteria 1 for the Africa Cup qualifying. My concerns about it being translated from somewhere (given the broken English) and generally being out of date or lacking context (such as his time on the National team) remain. As for Rose, I agree it's questionable. It's why I asked for it to be patrolled by NPP rather than just go through because of my autopatrol permission. As I said above I think your AfC deny has a basis in policy and if you wish to nominate it for AfD, I will not be offended. While borderline I do think it is on the right side of that border which is why I moved it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If you move Philtzgerald back to mainspace, I'll drop a source and clean it up to make sure it passes WP:NFOOTY. I won't AfD Rose at this time. SportingFlyer talk 14:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: As I have issues with it, I do not want to take ownership for the move but if you think it appropriate for mainspace I would encourage you to move it. I assure you I will not move it back to draftspace again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I admit I'm still learning some technical things - would I just re-submit the draft and accept the draft again as normal? SportingFlyer talk 01:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: always happy to help with the technical side wherever I can and this is a place I can. If you go to the "More" menu when on the page you should have the option to "Move". From there click on Draft and select (Article). Give a comment in reason and click "Move page". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you! Fortunately it was easier than I thought - the original nominator re-submitted the draft, so I went ahead and simply accepted it. But I'll keep that in mind in the future. (I originally tried to move it back to mainspace before I got in touch with you and could not.) SportingFlyer talk 01:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, i need your input on access this reference, whether its reliable or not http://theglobeonline.news/entertainment/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ Regards Vicmullar (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Vicmullar. An initial look suggests the Globe Online could be RS. Does that article cover Mic Diggy in significance? That is less clear to me. So the single source does not change my AfD opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49 your exact words "It's always seemed to me that WP:MUSICBIO criteria 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. is the strongest claim to notability. [6] does seem to provide some sourcing for such a claim (and also MUSICBIO criteria 2, though there's no currently accepted chart for Zambia)I've had a devil of a time trying to establish whether Zambian Eye is RS. My efforts to date say it's not; if I were convinced otherwise (and I'm open to being convinced) I would likely !vote to overturn". Thats why am here. Cheers Vicmullar (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vicmullar: That's fair, but I have to tell you I'm a bit worn out on this issue. I actively participated in several weeks of AfD discussion and have done some monitoring of the DRV. And there have been walls of text to deal with and huge amounts of sources to consider from you and the IPs and explanations given for why those sources are or aren't OK. If one of the other active participants is convinced by this source, I will commit to spending some more time thinking but for the most part I am ready to move onto other areas of editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Me too, i want to get it over with too. By the way i thought you should know that one of the active participants @ansh thinks its probably reliable too. I Reached out earlier. Cheers, Vicmullar (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of NATO. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You slapped a POV tag on the Pirro book article and left a vague comment that the article fails NPOV but didn't give any specifics. Care to elaborate at the article talk page? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I came across it while doing WP:NPP. Perhaps NPOV was the wrong tag but that section read as less than a neutral statement of what happened. A better tag, leaving that aside, might have made note that it gives undue weight to that incident and is recounted in too much detail. I don't plan to edit it further and so am not watching the page nor do I plan to engage in talk page discussion. Happy to let you or other intererested editors go in the directions you feel best. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It gives the facts and timeline of events. It stays focused on the article subject. It gives a balanced perspective with use of direct quotes. The sources are reliable. Nothing is said in Wikivoice from a POV perspective. Yes, the tag was inappropriate, especially when one considers you didn't give specifics or intend to stick around to discuss. I have to say, what it looks like is a drive-by. Seems irresponsible to me, but maybe that's just me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is the page up for deletion Sandie20182018 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sandie20182018. I nominated it for deletion because I don't think it meets Wikipedia's standard for what people get to have an article (WP:N & WP:MUSICBIO). You are welcome to discuss it here including why it should be an article. This discussion will go for at least 7 days and any editor on Wikipedia who wants can give their thoughts. If you have more questions let me know and I will try to answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi can you help direct me to where i should place my points please thank you. Sandie20182018 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sandie20182018: I recommend reading this essay. You will want to edit your comments here. To do that edit the page and put * '''Comment OR Keep OR Delete''' and why you think it should be kept (or deleted). I hope that helps. Let me know if you have more questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Indiana Glass Company. I plan to nominate it for GA, but have several others that will go first. If you have any suggestions for improving this article, I would like to hear them. TwoScars (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@TwoScars: Just so you know in this sense "review" is just that it meets notability standards as part of new page patrol which it clearly does. I can definitely see why you feel it could be GA. One suggestion as someone who tracks GA noms fairly closely. If you're really talking about three articles, I would put them in the queue sooner rather than later. The average wait is 2 months and the average in social sciences, where this one would go, is about twice that. Flooding the GA noms is no good but given the long wait time I think nominating sooner rather than later is frequently the right strategy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you for the advice. I have Fostoria Glass Company and Hoosier cabinet that I also want to get to GA. Hoosier cabinet has the most views and has already been Peer Reviewed, so I plan to nominate it soon in the Miscellaneous category unless you think a different (Engineering and technology?) category is more appropriate. TwoScars (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@TwoScars: I think technically companies belong in Econ and business but Miscellaneous will likely give them a bit more visibility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martha McSally. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you can help out with the Arenado review if you want. Had you started looking at it already? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Sorry, thought I'd responded but looks like I didn't publish (was on mobile). I haven't done any work in prep to review the article (besides doing a fast read). I think two reviewers might be one too many cooks in the kitchen, but am happy to offer support to you however I can. 19:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. If you intended to CSD this article a few moments ago, the template is missing from it. Note also that this is a blatant, classic example of UPE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I had CSD'ed it. It had already been recreated. I agree that it's UPE and am glad that Jimfbleak deleted it again. It's also nice to see you back patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not back to patrolling, but there are some things that, for me, stand out a mile. The creator needs to be blocked now, perhaps Jimfbleak can look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Also Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, thanks for ping. He has an obvious COI, only writing about MPF Industry Group and related topics, but he appears not to have been warned so I've posted my standard own up or else at Josephsmith9989's talk page, so he can be blocked on sight if he ignores that. What about the MPF article? I've toned it down a bit, not sure that it's speediable again in its current form Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak The account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of user:SamuilKrasavtsev , and it has been blocked indefinitely. You can possibly delete them all as G5. including Zsolt Felcsuti. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll sharpen my axe Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well this then illustrates the problem with a strict policy of conflict of interest in this fashion (such a policy is actually form of the ad hominem fallacy, but I digress).

There are several objectively demonstrable errors in the current content of that page. How does one get them corrected then?

Are you able to review and do so? Happy to provide you with the detailed reasoning for the required changes, as I have to naturiem PeterNSteinmetz (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Another editor has just made substantial changes to the article. If there are still issues I would encourage you to request changes on the articles talk page. I can help you through if the instructions don't make sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Golden generation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you've been a bit rash in deciding that multi-platinum-certified number one albums are "non-notable". --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Walnuts go kapow. I understand my redirects were a BOLD edit. I was basing it off a recent AfD which considered a number series of articles in the series similar to the ones I redirected and found despite their sales and charting that they were non-notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The article The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle 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 Nova Chrysalia -- Nova Chrysalia (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this: I saw your article at DYK today, and enjoyed it. I read and enjoyed the book while in school, and found it quite thought-provoking. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		Thanks very much for your recent work reviewing new articles and redirects, as well as your participation on various discussion pages in conversations related to new page patrol. I noticed that you have done well over 2000 reviews in the last year as well. Cheers — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep - Thank you for offering to help me out with the Harvey Hilbert entry. Any direction would be appreciated. I think his story is worth noting. He was shot in the head in Vietnam - leaving an 8 in hole and his brain exposed. He is partially paralyzed and recovers. He goes on to get his PhD in SW and help fellow veterans in his practice. Then decides that is not enough and becomes a Zen Priest. He becomes an Abbot and starts his own Order. A film makers does two separate documentaries on him - and another includes him in his film documenting Zen in America. He is also featured on PBS and NPR. Now there isn't as much RS as I would like but people just don't write about Zen much. That doesn't mean it isn't important. It isn't like a professional athlete or musician where there are articles about minutia of their lives. Anyway, I am just kind of rambling. If you have any ideas as to how I could improve the article I would appreciate it. I saw the criticism that some viewed it as promotional so I removed any element that I thought might be taken that way. That certainly was not my intent. Uiviu (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

- I came back to add that a couple of authors have made a lot of changes to the article. Barkeep49 - I was wondering if their changes have made it acceptible in your opinion. Thanks again for you help. Uiviu (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Uiviu: Thanks for your messages. Wikipedia decides if someone is notable by whether reliable sources have covered them in significant detail. The Chicago Tribune article has a couple quotes by Hilbert but isn't significantly about him and I believe that's the only added source. Before nominating an article you're expected to do some research to see what sources might exist - when I did this I didn't find any promising sources and so despite his interesting story in Vietnam (definitely interesting) I am not sure there are reliable sources that exist to help prove him notable at least by Wikipedia's standards. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you for taking the time to work through this with me. Granted the Chicago Tribune article only mentions him briefly, but the NPR article is about him, he is featured prominently in the PBS program. And the Las Cruces Sun News article tells his story as well. I would think that his story drew the attention of two different film makes would also add to the notability. I looked at two other articles about Zen teachers that I had looked up on Wikipeida lately and, to me, this has more notability than theirs. The entry for Shōhaku Okumura only has one article about him. Lion's roar certainly is a bigger publication than any I have listed but that is the only RS for him. And James Ishmael Ford is worse. In the references section there are two links to websites that don't seem to have any information about him. Another is to his blogger.com bio, and the only independent article about him is on a Unitarian Church website. The page does have a notability warning but the page has been up since 2005. To me Harvey's story drawing attention from multiple independent entities makes him more notable - so I am confused as to why those two don't seem to be in danger of deletion but Harvey's is. Thanks again for your help. Uiviu (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Uiviu: The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is generally not seen as a reason why any particular article should exist. Each article is judged on its own merits against notability. This is frequently counter-intuitive initially but makes sense in the scope of talking about an encyclopedia with millions of articles and where a precedent could be found about a lot of bad stuff. I agree the NPR interview is about him, but it's also an interview and thus not independent. In general the kinds of sources that can establish notability are independent reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic significantly. All 4 of those - plus there generally needs to be multiples of those kinds of sources. So the NPR interview could be seen as RS but it's less helpful in establishing notability. The PBS program is some combination of interview and whether he is covered significantly. I have questions about the Las Cruces article but think that's likely the strongest source of the bunch towards establishing notability. Hope that answers some of the specifics about why good sources are being given less credence by the others (and me) participating in this deletion discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I can't thank you enough for educating me about this process and taking your time to help out someone just getting started. It has taken me a while to respond as I digested the material you shared. While I understand all your points I still feel that the article - as it currently written - is acceptable and meets the criteria for Notability. I believe that the concerns mentioned by the two other folks that voted to delete have been addressed. And I think the editing done by AuthorAuthor has tightened up the page. While I understand that you might not weigh my opinion heavily due to my inexperience, I would think that, by the same token, you would have to weigh AuthorAuthor's opinion quite highly given all his work on Wikipeida. There are three votes to keep and three to delete - with the caveat that the concerns expressed by two of those deletes have been addressed. I would also note that Harvey Hilbert is mentioned on Wikipedia already in the article Timeline_of_Zen_Buddhism_in_the_United_States - another indication of his notability. I know you have concerns about RS but I really think that NPR, local newspaper, PBS, Congressional record etc sum to a sufficient number. Lastly, if you go to Timeline_of_Zen_Buddhism_in_the_United_States you will see that almost everyone but Harvey has a Wikipedia page about them. By my count more than 95% have Wikipedia pages. To me that is a strong argument that he is Notable enough for a page. I would ask that you strongly consider not deleting this article. Again, thank you for your time in all this. I appreciate your efforts regardless of the outcome. Uiviu (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Uiviu: I am glad you've learned more about Wikipedia. I hope you decide to edit outside of this topic area.The current discussion at the Article for Deletion page makes it look like there is a good chance the article will be kept in part because of the improvements made. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you again for all your help. I will keep on participating. I am very grateful for the assistance that you and others have provided. That is good news about there being a good chance the article will be kept! Thanks again! Uiviu (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Barkeep49. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst i understand the thing about not using IMDB as a reliable source of information, I can categorically say that the Katherine Evans i was trying to refer to is most definitely not a 63 year old swimmer but a 20 something year old actress who starred in 'The Killing' and 'Invaders' as well as the Series SIX cause she played Marissa a converted Terrorist. I can't find any other info about her except from IMDB, So what do i do about it? Any help appreciated.Willsrob (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Willsrob: Hi there Rob (or is it Will?). I understand they're two separate people and was trying to make that clear in my message - apologies if it wasn't. For there to be an article about someone on Wikipedia, especially a still living person, there needs to be reliable sources talking about them. Sources like Variety or the Hollywood Reporter. I'm not sure if Evans meets WP:NACTOR, the notability guideline for performers, but she might. So the key is to find that information in the reliable sources. If there is no information there can't be, unfortunately, an article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yeah It's Rob, Ok thanks mate. Will keep an eye for more reliable info on Katherine and post accordingly.Willsrob (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to leave some examples of Goth stubs at MILHIST talk page? Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi I noticed you had accepted the revision (ie rather than as spam) of adding Indigenous filmmaker Jeff Barnaby's comments on the film, but then made a comment you didn't think it was as noteworthy as the other responses on the page.

I started a section on the talk section of the page, to discuss this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wind_River_(film)

Thanks, 2620:22:4000:1204:3FFE:1294:76E6:E839 (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sealioning. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49, I know you're taking a break from GA review, so no rush! Just wanted to let you know that I've made several more additions to the Minneapolis Miracle page. Best, Lamblings (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

@Lamblings: Thanks for the prod - not my intent to leave you in the lurch. I do have that on my watchlist and apologize if you commented about that. Will circle back to in the next day. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Power~enwiki. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, PHP Family, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Gah, edit conflict. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

About a month ago, you moved my article "Rare Beer Club" to draftspace without warning. It's still there, waiting for someone to review it. You then notified me on my Talk page, to which I replied, expressing my displeasure, on the very same page, which was a mistake, since you apparently never saw my comments. Therefore, I'm taking the debate to your talk page, in hopes of getting some kind of answer from you, but mostly to prevent the same thing from happening again.

I had, and still have, a number of questions relating to this very peculiar action of yours.

The first and perhaps most important question is: why did you assume, as you apparently did from the tone of your message on my Talk page, that I'm an inexperienced Wikipedia editor? You wrote: "An article you recently created, Rare Beer Club, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. This sourcing must be used to prove notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for companies and products. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia)."

Don't you think I know all that already? I have years of experience editing Wikipedia articles, as my Talk page itself attests. I already had my article's text and all the appropriate references chosen. But of course it takes time to construct such a page, particularly the tedious insertion of the references. Which is, of course, why I placed an "Under Construction" tag at the top of the page when it was still in mainspace, as I had already done with several articles I previously worked on, without any problems from anyone. (I also placed a handful of citations in the opening paragraph to prove that I knew what I was doing.) You said my article didn't "have enough sources and citations as written to remain published." But in fact the article was NOT published, because the "Under Construction" tag hadn't yet been removed. What you did was the equivalent of condemning a building before it's even finished. (And of course there are thousands of seemingly finished articles on Wikipedia with NO citations whatsoever: why didn't you move one of them?) My work was merely an article-in-progress. And I specifically placed the tag there so I would be left alone until I was done. Which leads to my next question...

Why didn't you contact me to warn me that you were going to do this before you did it? Proper communication would seem to be key in relations between editors. If you had asked me what I was doing, I would have told you, and I would have cooperated with you in any steps you might have suggested to keep the article in mainspace. In fact, you simply switched it over to draftspace without preliminary notice, and there was no way I could undo it. And it's still there, a month later.

The damage is done. So I would like to ask you, in future, what should I do to prevent any article in progress of mine from being banished to draftspace? (The assumption is that it's impossible to create the text and insert all the references in a single sitting.) Thank you for your help. --Dylanexpert (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dylanexpert: Hi there. Sorry I haven't responded to your questions previously. I did not see your message to me on your talk page as I use a script to do the action you saw and I don't have it follow the talk pages it posts to. This isn't all that uncommon, so for future reference you can use the ping re, or u templates to ping a user in a reply (as I've done here).

As for what happened and what you can do going forward I'm happy to explain. I came across your article while doing new page patrol. At the time I moved the article to draft space it had been sitting unworked upon for 4 hours - some deference is definitely deserved for an under construction article but if an article's in mainspace it needs to meet notability requirements, especially when it's a commercial product and needs to meet WP:NCORP. I know that I, and most other new page patrollers take efforts at safegaurding Wikipedia against being used for advertising and using the encylopedia's high search placement to lend credibility to spam and junk seriously.

Obviously that's not the case here. Because you're a longstanding contributor moving to draft space felt like the best way to give you the time you needed to fully develop the article. I myself use draft space when making new articles (here is the draft I'm currently developing). Using draft space is lets you develop in peace and move the article, when you think it's ready, to mainspace. Assuming you have no conflict of interest with Rare Beer CLub that is the way to go right now. I would do an edit, remove the AfC templates, and then click on More -> Move -> choose (article) from the dropdown menu, give an edit summary under reason, and click move page.

I hope that answers both your immediate questions around this article and offers a path for the future. If you have follow-up questions I'm happy to answer further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49: Thank you for getting back to me so promptly and for your kind advice and assistance. --Dylanexpert (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Kurash at the 2018 Asian Games – Women's 52 kg page. Can you suggest what additional citation should be added, as the page already consists of the links to the Asian Games page which shows the results to the event. Usually a multi-event sport page consists of only this many citations, as adding more citation will unnecessarily spam it.--Anbans 585 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Anbans 585: Having a single citation to the handbook and to the official cite (e.g. a primary not independent secondary source) strikes me as an area which could be improved and hence the tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

There is an external link which directs the page to the event itself. The handbook is not the only citation.--Anbans 585 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Anbans 585: Sorry I wasn't clear. It obviously has two citations. One to the handbook and one to the results page from the games. Neither of these are independent secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

So do I need to add only an extra news citation or something like what was done on this page Equestrian at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Individual eventing.

@Anbans 585: I don't see any citations on that page. News coverage, even in similar form without much text feels like it aligns with policies better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49-- Thank you for the feedback and ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't violate copyright law. After reviewing your recommended articles, I made all the revisions I could find that might constitute as a violation. "Jamaica Mistaica" should now be free of anything that appears to be copy+pasted, as well as any overlong quotations; in fact, I got rid of the quotations altogether, just for safe keeping. I apologize for any inconvenience and welcome more feedback on the article. Thank you. Best, Geeky Randy (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

{rre|Geeky Randy}} Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought you would like to know that I've submitted a draft of an article for the Experience + Innocence Tour. Hopefully, any concerns about notability that you had are addressed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: It does. Do you have a conflict of interest with this because otherwise I don't see a reason you'd have to go through AfC approval. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article draft - but I can't think of any conflicts of interest (e.g. personal connection to subject, self-published references) that would preclude that from happening. I just thought it was the way to go about things after at least 3 times it was reverted to a redirect. I also thought it might be the preferred way to preserve the edit history from the sandbox page. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: Writing the article doesn't give you any kind of WP:COI. Figuring you didn't have one I had already done a G6 request on the page so that you can move your draft over. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: And the page has been moved from draft thanks to Primefac and I have reviewed it for NPP. Happy editing! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate all the help from everyone! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! @Primefac: some of the content in the edit history is unrelated to the (now) article, since it began as a sandbox page. Any chance it can be separated from the page history? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I meant to split that out during the move but then I got sidetracked. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Hate U Give 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 L235 -- L235 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:U.S. Route 83 in North Dakota . I have a question about what you meant in an edit summary. Thanks! LinkTiger (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for cleaning up the BitGo article. I partially reverted you to restore the information on the company's funding, which was well-sourced, but reorganized the article to incorporate it into a History section, and also trim the Bitfinex hack info. See what you think. Λυδαcιτγ 03:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The article The Hate U Give you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Hate U Give 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 L235 -- L235 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Ms Barkeep49. I noted that you added something about 'notability' in an article that I just created. To me it seems obvious that it fulfills all the criteria of notability, the article (inc. references) speaks for itself I would say. Can you maybe specify why exactly you are doubting the notability of the article? Unfortunately I don't have time to read all the guidelines that you referred to, but I have been using Wikipedia for at least 15 years and I'm pretty sure this article belongs on Wikipedia. I actually get a bit of an ugly taste in my mouth for even having to hold this discussion. In stead of putting my energy in this I could actually be improving the article which is what I had been planning to do before I saw your edit. This is one of the first articles that I created since a long time. I think I am starting to remember why I left the Wikipedia edit-world in the first place. Let me tell you how I got back editing in Wikipedia. By chance, I saw a notice of someone wanting to delete an article about an international student organization that I used to be a member of that has at least 50,000 members across Europe. How do I know? Because I live 4 blocks from their international headquarters. If I had not seen it the article would probably have been deleted and Wikipedia would have been, at least according the users that wanted to delete it, a little bit more 'relevant' and 'notable'. But to whom? Who decides on that? What is going on here? Don't you guys have something better to do, like for instance creating and improving articles? BTW It should be noted that the German and Danish Wikipedia's seem to have no problem with the 'notability' of their de:BILOfix and da:Bilofix articles. Notably yours, Vunzmstr (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vunzmstr. I'm sorry you have a bad taste because of this. I came across this topic while doing new page patrol. The goal of new page patrol is to make sure new articles follow Wikipedia guidelines - this is important given how highly Wikipedia pages rank in search results. While looking at BILOfix, I was applying the WP:NCORP criteria which covers companies and products. In examining your sources and others it seemed like Bilofix probably met the requirements but some of that was on faith given my inability to deeply assess the foreign language sources - you should know that most companies and products I see through NPP are not notable. So I marked it as reviewed, but also put the notable tag on it as a sign for others to either improve the sourcing or conduct their own assessment. You should know that each Wikipedia decides on its own rules for what topics can and can't get articles. The Dutch and German Wikipedias will thus have some topics English does not (and the other way around too) so this did not factor into my decision making. I hope that explains what happens and lets you continue your article editing with a bit less bitterness. If you have further questions I would be happy to try and answer them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think that the Bilofix article did not follow Wikipedia guidelines, why didn't you mention why? It is like sending someone a letter that his writing violates the law and referring him to www.law.gov. Why would products like Meccano, K'nex, Tog'l, Kapla etc. be notable but not Bilofix? If you were in doubt, why apply the banner? Your argument about ranking in search results puzzles me because if something is not notable, why care about search results rankings? You can rest assured though, because I just Googled Bilofix and the English wikipedia article came second in the results (at least with me). I am sure you don't care what other wikipedia's do (it is very interesting though, especially considering that the German one is the second largest wikipedia) but it should at least give you a hint towards possible notability. And although I did not read the guidelines, I am pretty sure 'notability' on EN:Wikipedia is not limited towards the anglosaxon world (yet). BTW I was referring to the German and DANISH wikipedia, not the Dutch (language) one. Denmark and the Netherlands are different countries and EN:Wikipedia has some good articles about them that hopefully still pass the test of notability. Vunzmstr (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Vunzmstr thanks for clarifying that you meant the Danish and not Dutch Wikipedia but the overall point stands: whether other Wikipedias decide to include (or not) an article has no impact on whether English Wikipedia decides to include (or not) an article. What did impact were the sources you'd used, which is where the tag came from, and the sources I could find in further searching. You're correct that there is not a requirement that something be an English language topic. Assessing notability in a different language is more difficult and so I gave Bilofix the benefit of the doubt that it did meet WP:NCORP which is a guideline that I am very familiar with and have a responsibility to implement, with community consensus. Part of the responsibility is making sure that products and companies DON'T appear in Google unless they meet Wikipedia's standards. Your experience that the Wikipedia result is high up (it's 3 for me right now) is why we want to make sure Wikipedia isn't being abused by bad actors. You, of course, are not a bad actor but the same rules apply to everyone. It seems that you might still be bothered by the whole process. At this point my involvement in Bilofix, other than talking with you, is over. However, if I can be of any help if you decide to create future articles when it's still in draft form please let me know - we need polyglot editors like yourself to bring in topics with sourcing in those languages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folk_poetry&type=revision&diff=859005577&oldid=858998829

The article clearly has 5 sources. 5.198.10.236 (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The article really has one main source - Dorson's Folkore and Folklife: An introduction and hence the tag. The others are peripheral coverage, at best, of the topic. If you feel it is wrong you are welcome to follow the instructions on the tag and remove it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi you noticed you directed me to find a better photo for fair use than the one I set on Persecuted in Search of Change. I made correcting and two interlinks to Mast Newspaper to solve orphan tag. Could you perhaps review or ptrol it Persecuted in Search of Change and Joseph C. Kalimbwe. Tjanks Daniel kabombo (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Daniel kabombo. Yes I do think the opportunity to have the actual book cover exists. As for patrolling those two articles I'm not sure if Persecute in Search of Change meets WP:NBOOK from what I've found, so I've chosen to leave it for another patroller. I think whether that is Wikipedia notable would help me in knowing to mark Kalimbwe himself as patrolled. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day Barkeep49, thanks for reviewing my latest John Pizzarelli jazz album articles!

Regarding Just Friends (Rick Haydon and John Pizzarelli album), could you please clarify which of the references you deemed unreliable? I did see and fix a typo in the album liner notes (2015 → 2006). Any others I'd be glad to rework/replace if necessary.

Please provide explanations with maintenance tags, or the best we can do is guess.

Much appreciated, and thanks for the (I'll bet at times thankless) work you do on the new page patrol.

Cheers --RubenSchade (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been reading more into the unreliable sources page linked in the template, and can see how RickHaydon.com could be viewed as a self-published source of limited value, so I've removed it. Can you let me know if I'm on the right track?

Cheers --RubenSchade (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@RubenSchade: Thanks for taking the time to read the page linked on the template. The two sites which were concerning to me were RichHaydon.com and the SIU link - as faculty profiles are also generally self published. Since that is the source for establishing the page's notability as an album which charted it should really have a replacement source. While doing new page patrol if a more than one of the fundamental to the article's claims to notability are not RS I will generally apply the unreliable sources tag. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. That makes sense. I'll either replace it, or remove the claim in the coming days. Cheers --RubenSchade (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the spam! I've removed the SIU link, and replaced with the published JazzWeek chart PDF. Interestingly, it says it only peaked at #19, NOT #15. I'd say this was a fruitful exercise.

Thanks again for your help on this, let me know when you get a chance to review. Cheers --RubenSchade (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks better now. Happy editing and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If you believe these articles are not encyclopedic, you may mass nominate them for WP:AFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete the noteworthy article Better Days Ahead (Norman Brown album)? Well i've republished this article as the album got to No. 2 on the Billboard Jazz Albums chart [7] and is thus of interest. As according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) the article is notable and of interest as it complies under the heading Recordings point 2 which states "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart". With this being said Better Days Ahead has met this above criteria and can thus be republished altogether. Woojy88 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2018 UTC)

@Woojy88: Thanks for adding the Jazz charting. That addresses the note I left and also is why I deleted - many albums are posted which don't meet WP:NMUSIC hence the redirect until an album is shown to have done so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there some way to find why all the information from The Red Fox Clan by John Flanagan was deleted and redirected to the Ranger's Apprentice page. There are a large number of problems with this.

1) Ranger's Apprentice is the original series written by John Flanagan. It consists of 10 books. It originally consisted of 11 books. However the eleventh book, The Royal Ranger, was renamed A New Beginning and turned into the sequel series Ranger's Apprentice: The Royal Ranger. They are two completely different series.

2) Ranger's Apprentice is the story of Will, who later becomes Will Treaty. However Ranger's Apprentice: The Royal Ranger is the story of Maddie, the daughter of Horace and Princess Casandra. While Will, Halt, Horace, Cassandra, Gilan and others all appear, it isn't their story. It is Maddie's story. It is a completely different series.

3) The story The Red Fox Clan contained all the information that the other Ranger's Apprentice books have contained. It contained the ISP. It contained the number of pages. It contained the links to the original book in Australia and New Zealand. It contained a non-spoiler summary, and it had a character section that was currently being worked on.

4) All information regarding the book is no longer available to be seen. There is no information on it on The Ranger's Apprentice page, and there is very little information about it on the John Flanagan page.

So is there a specific reason all of this was changed? No notice was ever posted. No discussion was ever made. It was all done at the whim of one person, though I don't know whom that was.

Thank you for your time and any assistance you can provide. Bigddan11 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bigddan11 some great questions. I am actually very familiar with the original series and am not as familiar with the newer series. So explaing what happened is a bit of a story so stick with me. I saw the The Red Fox Clan while doing new page patrol. I noticed that the page did not show that the book met the notability requirements as specified by WP:NBOOK so I went to find some reviews to help establish notability. Much to my surprise, I was unable to find reviews from reliable sources to add to the page to show it was notable, so I instead redirected the page to Ranger's Apprentice: The Royal Ranger. However, I was unaware that the Royal Ranger page itself was a redirect, so another editor changed the redirect target to Ranger's Apprentice. I have now changed the redirect target to The Royal Ranger: A New Beginning which does exist for the book. Hope that helps explain what happened. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Another problem is there was a page for Ranger's Apprentice: The Royal Ranger as a series. However that page was deleted and instead redirected to John Flanagan. It was modeled after both the Ranger's Apprentice and Ranger's Apprentice: The Early Years pages. In fact it actually had more references than Ranger's Apprentice: The Early Years.

I'll be completely honest. If The Red Fox Clan page doesn't meet the qualifications for notability, then none of the individual Ranger's Apprentice books should. It included all the information that every single one of them had. Furthermore I've looked up the previous books and seen that some of them were put up for deletion or recommended to be merged with other articles, but no one just said they didn't have the grounds for notability. Instead they put them up for discussion. The discussion ended up as KEEP in every single case. So exactly why wasn't this given the same chance?

Incidentally Red Fox Clan was the #1 selling book in children's literature in Australia and New Zealand for 8 weeks,and it is expected to be put up for the same awards the first few Ranger's Apprentice books received. Bigddan11 (talk)

@Bigddan11: The main way children's books are shown to be notable is through WP:NBOOK criteria 1 by having multiple reviews from reliable sources. I have multiple routes for which I can find reviews in major children's lit journals and they did not seem to cover this entry in the series (they did cover Royal Ranger). I was surprised myself. Are you aware of any RS reviews of the book? All I could find were amazon/goodreads types and those are obviously not RS. In general sales numbers are not enough to establish notability. Nor are most awards - but if a RS writes about the book because of the award that can count. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest userfying - Draft:Internet 2.0 to User:Barkeep49/Internet 2.0 and removing the AfC template(s) per WP:DUD. It is recommended that experienced, active editors draft within their own userspace because their drafts will otherwise get treated like junk and deleted per G13. Best regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: That is something I seem to have done through my very eary days of NPP. I have no clue at this point what the backstory is and it really should most likely be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi

It seems that you've removed the page I created for the album Catastrophic Event Specialists (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catastrophic_Event_Specialists&redirect=no) I'm not entirely sure why, since the only information on the page was basic info like release date, track list and credits. These are all info that are found in the official CD booklet, and I even found an online source that documents that the info was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayzenith (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fayzenith and thanks for your question. I am volunteer at the new page patrol which is how I came across the article. The issue here isn't accuracy of what you wrote - I have no reason to be skeptical. It's that the Wikipedia community has decided not every song, album, and musician, qualifies for a page (or in Wikipedia language is considered notable). When I redirected the album there was no indication of how it met the main music notability standards for albums. If it meets one of the criteria I would encourage you to improve the article in draft or user space and then post it again when it's ready. I hope that answers your question but if not I will be happy to answer others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australian Flag Society. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How/who do I show that a music album(s) meet criteria for sub folders. I just created one for Figgs Ginger and it’s been redirected. Timjperri (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timjperri: Have you looked at WP:NALBUM? It lays out criteria to show an album is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

http://wilfullyobscure.blogspot.com/2009/03/figgs-ginger-1992.html?m=1 Timjperri (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timjperri: Blog reviews are generally not enough on their own to meet the criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_figgs/ginger/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjperri (talk • contribs) 00:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

https://lp.reverb.com/albums/ginger-37/listings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjperri (talk • contribs) 00:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timjperri: I don't know if either of those are WP:RS either

http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=figgs Timjperri (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

http://www.peterwalkeerecords.com/index.php Timjperri (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timjperri: First a request: please use the edit button on this topic to keep the discussion in one section. As to your sources, a reliable source on Wikipedia is going to be one that is independent of the topic, be a secondary source, come from a place that has an editorial process. Examples for music include Rolling Stone and Billboard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this the right way? Sorry I let it sprawl. All new to me. Cheers! Timjperri (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timjperri: It is, thanks. Did my explanation of reliable sourcing make sense? You can reply to this by putting your comment under mine with one more : than what I did so in this case with :: and then your response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

it did! I guess my first question is are you the right person to try to show documentation to or do I need to be somewhere else...and did that Trouser Press article count? The album was diy released on cassette in ‘92 and is seeing vinyl release this year. I put up an album page for their 3rd album which was on a major label with no problem so far. Thanks SO much for your help and patience!!! Timjperri (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timjperri: I can certainly offer you my thoughts as an experienced new page patroller but there's no one right person to ask. When you feel like you have strong sourcing to show that the album meets one or more criteria of WP:NALBUM the best way would probably be to add it to the last version you did before I redirected and see what happens. It's age makes it a little harder to find the information (and indeed the right information might exist offline which would be OK) but we also have lots of albums from that time period with pages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

and how do I access that page since it’s been redirected? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjperri (talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timjperri: If you go back to the article it will take you to the Figgs. In small type towards the top you should see " (Redirected from Ginger (The Figgs album))" if you click on the link there it will take you back to the article page. From there you can click on "View History", the date of the edit you made, and then click on "Edit" which will let you edit that version of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 thanks but I don’t see “redirected from” anywhere on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjperri (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey. Just checking to see if you're content with the Good Leader Tavis situation. I don't plan on editing around here anymore, so I wanted that article to be my last contribution. Note that I fully agree with WP:N, which is why I spent hours searching for reliable sources while I wrote the article. I admittedly couldn't find many — she's a new character — but the ones I did find are significant. As mentioned in my edit summary, Leo Barnes and Dwayne Bishop are the Purge-related pages that fail to meet the notability guideline (I think they deserve your attention). The Tavis page features several sources, independent of the show, that make significant mention of her. Happy editing. -- James26 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@James26: I'm sorry to hear you don't plan to edit much. Notability of characters is always a difficult thing because it's about real world, rather than in world, notability. I think the work you did on Good Leader Travis shows that this character falls on the "OK to have a page" rather "this should redirect" but it was borderline enough that I did apply the tag even as I patrolled it as reviewed as part of WP:NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why has the page Hymn: Sarah Brightman In Concert been redirected? It does have references, reliable sources and can be considered an event of importance (tour by a famous artist, about 125 shows, etc). Mark1998123 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mark1998123. I found the page while doing new page patrol. In looking at the SNG that's applicable here Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. it was my judgement that the reliable sources were showing merely that it happened not that it had notability for one of the listed reasons. If you disagree I would encourage you to undo my edit - I will leave it then for other editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49 , I will undo the editing but I'm open to what other editors think about the matter and what should be done. Thanks.

Hi Barkeep49, I am a veterinary researcher but no advanced Wikipedia editor. I would like to request a review for these two pages I created. I apologize if I'm not supposed to be doing this. I recently created two articles after seeing you reviewed one that I created. 1) Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine and 2) Veterinary and Comparative Oncology (journal). These are two highly cited veterinary journals that I believe should pass general notability guidelines based on their impact factors. My goal is to index these veterinary journals in our field, so that people can easily look up info about these journals on search engines in the future. Thank you, Acp095 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Acp095: It's good to have subject area experts on Wikipedia. I came across Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine through my natural patrolling routine and declined to review it because it's not an area of expertise for me. I did enough on the one journal that I felt OK about patrolling it, but I feel reluctant to batch review multiple articles in case, through my ignorance, I would end up approving something that I shouldn't. I hope that makes sense and please don't feel bad about asking for the review. I am normally happy to do so (which of course can be a double edged sword). For now I would say carry on with the work. NPP has been kept to less than a month recently so you shouldn't have to wait TOO long for someone else to take a look. While I couldn't help you here please don't hesitate to reach out again in the future if I might be of assistance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I Put a reference On It A While ago please why did you put a redirect because it's Too Soon. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. We remain quite a ways out from the tournament (see WP:NODEADLINE) and a lot of the information remains uncited. The baseball season which will lead to that tournament has even started yet so there's not really information to update potential readers about yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI... I reverted your page move because that overwrite was done by a sockpuppet. You ran into his typical overwrite of an article. He's been trying to stuff himself onto Wikipedia for months now. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karanshrivastva/Archive or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karanshrivastva for the long list of accounts he's been using. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Elmidae. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of awards and nominations received by Alessia Cara, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Seems like an edit conflict as I'm not sure why you unreviewed. I have restored my review of the redirect under the assumption this was an accident. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh...weird. I was seeing a blank page, AFTER you had supposedly restored the blanking *shrug*. Some timing hickup. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Split and merge. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I appreciate your suggestions on ContentSquare it helped me update the article with new references and content. Please have a look and do let me know if you still feels the same. I read those concerns and I think sources are independent of the subject and are authoritative but you know better. Please guide thanks. CalifornianBlondie (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@CalifornianBlondie: Thanks for your message and edits. I saw you might have been confused about WP:NCORP and I might be able to help explain that (and also explain how it relates to WP:GNG). First can I ask what your connection to ContentSquare is? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the helping me. I am here to learn, I am a research student and I studied the business model of the company for my course and later decided to utilize my work and findings. It took me many days to learn about Wikipedia and I finally did it. I would appreciate if you can help me explain. Because I thought it's something notable based on what I have seen in other articles and analysed the references. I had some more plans but I dropped that idea until I learn more about Wikipedia. CalifornianBlondie (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Although only two people are listed, are you also a trainer at NPP/S? Knightrises10 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I definitely am willing to train Knightrises10. You should know that the guidelines used by the admin who does most of the granting of the permission these days is much stricter than what is listed at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers. Since you've just passed the 90 day threshold you'll want to demonstrate you're strong with the requirements before asking for the permission. I've never been a formal trainer before (but am an educator in real life) but would be happy to work with you especially given Oshwah's recommendation. I see you asked for AfC and were turned down - AfC experience is considered pretty important these days so we'll want to do some work together to put you in a position to join that project which would then help put you in place to join NPP. This could all take a several months to do. Once you can confirm with me that you want to want to get started, knowing that this would likely not be a fast process, I'll setup a user page for us to work together at. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll appreciate that - Knightrises10 (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I should inform you before. Since I am a student, there will be times when I won't be available, especially during exams or when I get a lot of homework. I hope you'll understand :) Knightrises10 (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the fix at the AfD. Comes from using a smaller screen than usual. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

... for this edit. There are far too many people who just throw jargon, acronyms, and generic templated messages at inexperienced editors, who are very likely to have no idea what is meant. Good to see someone who bothers to explain. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words JamesBWatson. I can be just as guilty as the next person in using Wiki shorthand for my thinking but believe we all have an obligation to explain what we're saying in plain english when encountering interested editors who are not versed in that shorthand. When I saw the help-me for that page it felt like a place where I could be of some help and I'm glad to know that it seems like I've provided it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes, and sometimes I realise I have been much less helpful to a new editor than I could have been, but it's well worth at least trying to be helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep, as you remember the article was reduced hugely. Jytdog was very strong at the begining, but step by step he becam mild. He said, he would complete the article. But now nobody cares on it and some informations are deleted. Not very much, but a few. Of course I don't want to tuch this article, because it's too dangerous: I don't want to trigger of a new "delete-action". The article is very important for the Learning by teaching project, because many people look at it (74 a day) and have linked their sides with it. What do you mean? Perhaps the best is not to tuch it. --Jeanpol (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Jeanpol. It had been my good faith intention to work on this over the summer but I will admit diving headlong into education journals proved to be something I never worked up the motivation to do. I'm sorry on that front. What are you hoping to see that's not in there now? It's been a pretty stable article since Jytdog finished their round of revisions in early June. One thing you can always do rather than make the changes yourself (which you shouldn't do) is make WP:Edit requests on the talk page. If these are backed up by RS that I can access to verify I would be happy to make the changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your answer is satisfying for me. If I want to add a link or something important for the readers, I will use WP:Edit requests! Jeanpol (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greenwich Mean Time. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ecclesia Athletic Association at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President 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 Auldhouse -- Auldhouse (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but we were not allowed to move this draft until we received actual approval by a page mover, and your decision to move the page is in violation of those terms... –Piranha249 00:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Piranha249: I'm not sure that was true but in any case I have AfC, NPP, and Page Mover PERMS and in fact used my Page Mover perms to do the move. Are you concerned the topic is not yet notable or just concerned about procedure? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49, I hope you're enjoying your time out of town! Just wanted to know what my next steps should be for the Minneapolis Miracle GA nomination. In particular, if you think that making it about the game rather than just the play is necessary to reach GA status, what changes would be needed? How in depth would I have to go in describing the game – drive by drive? I just want to strike the right balance between achieving sufficient breadth and not just listing every set of downs. Thank you for all your help so far – I really want to see this one through, and I appreciate the amount of time and attention you've given this project. Best, Lamblings (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

@Lamblings: Thanks for the message. I am catching up after my time away. I don't think a PBP chart is necessary but suggest incorporating elements from the other notable plays I've mentioned before that seem useful. The one that I can remember off the top of my head would be incorporating who the officiating crew was would be one helpful set of information. There are likely to be other good elements from those pages as well that would help flesh that out. You've done a lot of work on this page and your determination to see it out is a credit to you and a benefit to the encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Your kind words are greatly appreciated! I made a number of improvements, including: changing the opening of the article to reflect the shift in focus from the play to the game; adding additional content to the game summary; and adding the starting lineups and officials. Should you deem it necessary, I can keep looking at other famous football play/game pages for further inspiration. Best, Lamblings (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

@Lamblings: response left on review page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Devil's Triangle (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

For some reason, I got a 503 error and then "this article does not exist" when I tried the link you provided at DGG's talk page. I ran a search for "American Theatre of Actors" in the Daily Herald and got one article: "New York theater named after stage and TV actor John Cullum". I hope this is the article you found.

I appreciate the feedback on my initial sources. I'll look for additional sources along the lines of the Daily Herald. Vyeh (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vyeh: Sorry you had trouble but yes that's the article I'd found. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I found [8]. About a third of the way, the review states:

In its former home Off Broadway, the American Theater of Actors, a warehouse-like room on the second floor of a midtown building with 135 seats on risers, I found Urinetown audacious and exhilarating, riotously and intelligently arch. And my intention was to assess how well the show has accommodated its step up in physical dimensions (at 635 seats, the Henry Miller is far bigger, though far from Broadway big) and also to assess the visibility that its notoriety and success have engendered.

There is a discussion comparing the ATA production to the Broadway production.

I'd appreciate it very much if you would read the source. Are the Daily Herald source and this New York Times source enough to establish notability for ATA? Thank you. Vyeh (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A brief mention like that can be used for sourcing but doesn't help establish notability. I think you should consider creating the page. I can tell you with what I've found I think it's likely notable and wouldn't nominate it for deletion. However since I haven't seen sourcing that really gets at NCORP yet either I also wouldn't mark it as reviewed if I came across it at WP:NPP.

@Barkeep49: Thank you. What sourcing should I search for that gets at NCORP? I notice an option that if I save an article in my sandbox, I can have it reviewed by an experienced editor. Are you familiar with this avenue and its advantages and disadvantages? Thank you for your assistance. Vyeh (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vyeh: I would not recommend going the AfC route. I would look for sources that talk at length about ATA. How to do that is up to you - obviously searching newspaper archives is frequently a good place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I made some more NPOV fixes. If there are any areas that still need work, let me know – otherwise, I think I've done almost all I can for the page. Thank you for your help throughout! Best, Lamblings (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

Hi Barkeep49. Would you mind reverting your redirect of this article. I made them both for an overhaul and update of the British Isles mountain lists. They may have the same format , and share some peaks, but they are very different official definitions of a mountain, and now linked to by other British Isle articles on mountain definitions. Even though they both allow sorting by height and prominence, because their definitions are different, the rankings of where mountains appear are also very different (hence why we need two articles). Other duplicate articles are being deleted and redirected for these as part of a clean up of the definitions of British Isles mountain articles. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I understand that the two topics are different and thus the rankings would be but is there a reason that the mountains themselves would be different? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

oh yes, to qualify on the prominence list, you can have any prominence, but to qualify on the height list, you much have a prominence over 30 m. There are lots of really high Scottish mountains with small prominences that are on one list, and not the other. It causes big debates. The two different definitions used in the two lists cover neatly the two main criteria that are used when ranking mountains. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Vexations. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Whitney Woerz, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Vexations (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: Guessing you saw the recent AfD too? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was going through a list of unreviewed articles that had previous AfDs, saw the keep result and marked as reviewed before I noticed you had also reviewed it minutes earlier. I don't think there a way to rollback errors like that. I would have used that if I could. Vexations (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries Vexations I had just gone through that queue myself. Handy new sort options I think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I was using my own query Were you using the NewPagesFeed? Vexations (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: I was. Once a page is tagged with any kind of deletion it stays in that queue until dealt with. Useful for finding closed AfDs as well as some other issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping on IRC. I'll let you know if it works. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you check my talk page to see why archive box still says no archives yet as there is one.RhinosF1 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: I attempted to fix the formatting and you needed the archivebox=yes parameter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Are the apostrophes around the archive name normal? RhinosF1 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: No. I edited them out going forward but didn't move the existing page. Feel free to do so.

Thanks for all the help, I've corrected all the archives now and cluebot is updating the index. Thanks again, RhinosF1 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey there barkeep. I'm a bit confused as to why you redirected the pages i made on Boom Boom Satellites. Since you never wrote anything to me explaining why i'd very much like answer. Edotion (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Edotion: Sorry for any confusion. I found the articles while doing new page patrol. I redirected those articles because I saw no indication in the articles of how they were notable especially in regards to WP:NALBUM. I hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added two more sources and built out the article a little more. I generally try to create pages for NFL players once they appear in an NFL game or at least are promoted to the active roster to ensure notability and then build out the pages as I can. What is a good rule of thumb going forward to ensure that the page is stable? Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@GPL93: There's certainly nothing wrong with doing an initial stub for players and building out from there. In general I think once you've gotten to 3-4 RS soruces (as you do now at Crawford) you can safely remove the refimprove tag. Given that players who've appeared in games will pass WP:GRIDIRON the pages should be "stable" in that they should be marked as reviewed by new page patrol. Does that answer your question? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. Thanks for the help. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like to help out with the Stars of Space Jam Article, you can help make edits to it. :) --DukeyDukeyDoo (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@DukeyDukeyDoo: Thanks for the invitation. I found the article through new page patrol. It was an unusual case given both its topic and article history and one of borderline notability but I think on the correct side hence why I marked it as reviewed but added the tags I did. While I don't plan to edit it actively myself I wish you the best of luck and do appreciate your personally reaching out. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shuto Con, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: multiple notable attendees and coverage in RS indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 07:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Hi, I thank you for reviewing my article. I understand that it has some deficiencies in necessary citations. However, if there are any other aspects of the article other than citations that need to be improved upon, could you please convey them to me. Cheers --Politicoindian (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Politicoindian: Overall I thought it was in good shape. Obviously having more to say about its activities was useful but honestly I didn't have tons to think about with that particular article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 What would be involved in getting this article renamed to 2018–19 Lille OSC season ? Something automated didn't seem to appreciate that a season was being skipped on Lille's season pages and renamed the page, from what I can gather. Or maybe I just mangled the page name. Thanks for any and all guidance.  EclecticArkie  (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@EclecticArkie: Fixed. I feel silly for not catching it in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Many thanks for the quick response. Now it's time to find more in-depth references. Cheers!  EclecticArkie  (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trin-i-tee 5:7. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an Educational institute, established in 2014, it is an autonomous Second campus of Management Development Institute.Its not a promotional page. I'm a student of this institute.for verification you can check the site https://www.mdim.ac.in/index. I have'nt put any unlawful information OR biased without any Independent Sources. I hope Respected Org will watch Carefully. Thanks. Santanu Gorai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Santanu99 Hi. I saw your message on the talk page. The deletion tag I put is not about whether it exists. It is about whether the page can be considered wholly promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Santanu99: While you can leave a comment on the talk page, please do not remove the template from the article. It is against the rules for you to remove it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Lindsey is clearly notable, if you feel I have written with promotional language please don't delete please help improve the language. Speedy deletion is unfair. It would be more fair to put a tag for improvement so people can help.

Nejaby (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please reconsider your template on La-Chun_Lindsay Victuallers (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nejaby and Victuallers: My template was not accepted but I have nominated for deletion. I don't think Lindsay meets our definition of notable, despite the work she's done to make the world better. Nejaby you clearly feel differently (which I respect) and so we can see what the community thinks at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auldhouse -- Auldhouse (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so, so much for your patience and help throughout this process. I couldn't have done it without you. Hopefully we can work together on another project some time. Best, Lamblings (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Lamblings

@Lamblings: Thank you for the kind words. I too hope our editing paths cross again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I really struggle with what you feel would be notable. First you say that I have written too promotionally. Now that has been improved by the community you say she is not notable. She influenced the Welsh community hugely and as such was awarded 3 honorary doctorates in 2 years. From Swansea University that puts her in a class with Hilary Clinton and Rattan Tata. It seems you just want an excuse to remove her. However as you say we will wait for the wikipedia community to decide. Nejaby (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nejaby: I thought the page should be speedy deleted because it was too promotional and because I didn't think she is notable. If I was looking for any excuse I wouldn't have suggested other categories to list the discussion in that the original sorter had missed. I don't think honorary doctorates prove notability. I do respect the work she's done at GE, just as I respect the work some people I know in my personal life have done around advancing LGBTQ rights and issues in my geographic areas and employment communities. Whether that makes them notable is a different discussion and one we can now have at AfD. If you're frustrated and just looking to vent steam I understand, but wanted to respect your thoughts by replying. Hopefully that's been helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC) I am frustrated, as a woman who works in engineering she is amazingly notable to me (and of course that is subjective , but in 20 years of my engineering career she is the first woman I have seen in such a position leading a huge manufacturing business. Hopefully one day it won't notable but today she is trailblazing and I had hoped wikipedia was a place where we can bring together this information so that future generations can be inspired. But maybe that is not the purpose of wikipedia in which case I will be disappointingly mistaken. Thank you for your civility - sorry if I did rant, we have different visions of what wikipedia should be, Nejaby (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you reconsider the deletion nomination. Major universities choose a small number of people every year and give them honorary degrees. These may not be alumni, they may not be famous, but they are what the universities might call notable. I can imagine that Wikipedia might ignore one honorary degree because they may just be a mate of the uni management, but three universities? This is notability. Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Frances Westley article - now the software says Violation Unlikely 16.0%.

What more do I have to resolve this, I find this process completely confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjushamillabakka (talk • contribs) 12:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing DWMZ, Barkeep49.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Sorry but 1 uploaded doc on Scribd is not enough to pass WP:NRADIO this should have been at least tagged as not meeting notability criteria

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Dom from Paris (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

can (probably) already test the stuff:-) Have you asked Miller or anyone, to get the patrol flag i.e. the implicit user-group?∯WBG^converse 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I did help do some testing of the feed for the NPP/AfC project so I should have those rights already on the test wiki. Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia:Village pump

(proposals)#rfc_9917FE0|this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)]]. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The protection which I mentioned on the WIXT history (revision) page was told to me by Neutralhomer, and he is a much more experienced editor than I. I was merely repeating his take on the issue.User:Rudy2alan (talk)

Why are you editing any pages other than the list of science fiction short stories, which you said "can and should be improved, not deleted"?

Improve it. DS (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: I said no such thing. I did, as we've discussed before, however actually put a large number of eligible entries onto the list which had been missing so I would argue that I did improve the article from its previous OR state. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wolf in the Snow 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously reconsider your hasty opinion about a topic not known widely well. You are barring important information, which will benefit society if it is available. Mdpienaar (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mdpienaar: I appreciate the passion you have for this topic. Wikipedia is for topics which are notable. Further even if the article is not advertising, which I believe it is, it is certainly a directory which is what Wikipedia is not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Notable

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia."

Ethereum Tickers is definitely a notable topic and something society should learn about.

"We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."

All the information was from reliable sources. I started the article. The idea is that others who are non-independent can update information without paying the media. It will improve information available to society about an important topic. Independence should not be generalised about because sometimes the most reliable information is supplied by non-independent people. Consider for example logos of businesses. Do you always delete such information because of non-independence. I doubt it.

Not outside the scope of Wikipedia

"The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere."

"Although anyone can be an editor, Wikipedia's community processes and standards make it neither an anarchy, democracy, nor bureaucracy."

In this case your actions were very autocratic. The article was deleted shortly after it was written. You and the editor left no time for discussion to make sure you are correct. It was a one sided deletion, and you should rectify the mistake.

"Wikipedia is not a place to promote things, is not a thought-book, a website primarily used for communication, a freely-licensed media repository, nor a censored encyclopedia."

Any information promotes information. The table that was deleted was not self promotional primarily. The information I added about Africahead Ipparts (AFA) tokens was the most reliable information available, because I have the best knowledge about the token. That is just a logical event on a page about much more than one specific token. The envisaged page should have information from token managers self, as far as possible, because it will benefit society. Mdpienaar (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mdpienaar: I am happy, if you wish, to discuss both the notability guidelines and the What Wikipedia is Not policy at greater length if you wish. The interpretations of the quotes you've selected are not the current consensus of the community. I am guessing you are already a bit frustrated so I don't want to respond with a "here's why what you're saying is wrong" response but also don't want to deprive you of an explanation and understanding of the guidelines and the policy. Let me know if you'd like me to dive into those.

Instead let me explain why it was deleted so quickly. Again I appreciate your desire to benefit society - that is what draws many Wikipedians, including myself, here. Having something speedily deleted is no doubt a frustrating experience as there is not time for the kind of extended discourse we're having. This is why it's reserved for a limited set of articles. One problem on Wikipedia has been people attempting to promote certain cryptocurrencies, which they will own and thus have a financial conflict of interest in. The list you created was serving that purpose - even if it was not your intent. This is why it was deleted in the way that it was. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your hasty action caused your mistake and you must undelete the article and then we discuss it. I think we should get an independent administrator of Wikipedia involved. The article stated specifically the purpose of the table is to supply information about all tokens. It was supposed to be a service to all, which can be kept up to date by all of society.

"Wikipedia has been people attempting to promote certain cryptocurrencies, which they will own and thus have a financial conflict of interest in. The list you created was serving that purpose" - You are wrong. The purpose was to add a random number of tokens to get the table going. I have no financial interest in the tokens, except, I manage Africahead Ipparts (AFA). AFA was one of the tokens in the table. It was included to supply information to the public, which is not available elsewhere. Many administrators with small budgets have the same problem and need a place where reliable information is supplied, in one place, for all tokens (Not only tokens with large budgets). One of the main reason of the article was stated in it. Ethereum Tickers and names can be duplicated, therefore a list where tokens are listed, where the public can search for a ticker symbol in an alphabetical list and compare it to a Contract Address, website address, and other relevant information, is something that does not exist currently. You are currently acting autocratically and are withholding useful information.

I was searching for the deleted article just now but could not find it.Mdpienaar (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mdpienaar: An independent administrator, Seraphimblade was involved and was the one who deleted the article. Since you believe this action was wrong, the correct procedure is to appeal to them directly for the decision to be reversed and if that is not successful to appeal at deletion review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49,

I wanted to know if you could help me - this is a revisited page submitted to Wikipedia for KwikBoost, a business that invented and introduced a specific kind of technology to market (much like Lime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_(transportation_company). I'm seeing that there is a warning with "This article does not cite any sources" at the top, but I have 11 references at the bottom, what would be missing here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KwikBoost

Thank you so much for your help Kenrdale (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kenrdale: I'm not seeing any sort of unreferenced tag on the page and agree that there are several sources present. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, I'll attach a screenshot of what I'm referring - https://ibb.co/bD906V One more question: there's a discussion right now to decide if the page should be deleted - in terms of notability, is Inc Magazine's 5000 list something worth bringing up? (it's one of the references, is there anything else to do other than wait?) Kenrdale (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kenrdale: Can you link to the page where you're seeing those messages? It's not at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KwikBoost The thing to bring up at the deletion discussion are what you feel are the best sources which discuss the company in the most depth. If that is the INC article bring it up by all means but such INC lists are often not persuasive to many. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey I emailed you about getting feedback, so check your inbox. Thanks. JC7V-talk 17:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I want you to know I've gotten the email. Will respond as I have time today to check-out what you've asked about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering why you did so. It has been up for a long time and just now gets taken down. What is a valid reason for this considering that it is a charted song and very popular. It just seems unnecessary to delete it now. VoltronUniverse (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your question VoltronUniverse. I found the page through new page patrol - while the page was created at the end of September no patroller had marked it reviewed and so I was intentionally looking at pages like this which had been created for a while and not checked. I redirected the article based on the subject notability guideline WP:NSONG. That guideline does not current recognize charting on iTunes, an in fact specifically notes not to credit a single retailer's chart. My investigation suggests the song did not hit the Billboard Hot 100 which is the recognized chart for notability in the US. Given the lack of indication on page for notability I redirected the article to Gabbie Hanna. The article is still present in the history and if you feel the song meets an element of the NSON notability standard now (or comes to in the future) the redirect could be reverted and the new content added. Hopefully that answers your question, if not I'm happy to clarify further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of International Public Health Film Competition. 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. Uthoang (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Ecclesia Athletic Association at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi User: Barkeep49, I am considering reviewing a GA-nominee, Gaviidae Common, but I think I should have an experienced reviewer following my work and reining me in if needed. Would this be an imposition? The bad news is that the supervision might take as much time as doing the review yourself, but it would be one step toward adding another reviewer. If you are busy, I would gratefully accept a referral to another reviewer to approach. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: I would be happy to help. Once you start the review can you do a favor and ping me? I'll then follow along and conduct a parallel review and give feedback either on the page or here, depending on which makes the most sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk about rapid response! I will probably start the review in the early am tomorrow. I'll ping you. Thanks! Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: Will be going through today as time allows but one quick note - I would suggest only including either the general criteria (most cases) or the quickfail criteria (if you are quick failing)

@Oldsanfelipe: I've gone through and read the article and checked sources. I would suggest it makes sense for you to finish your eval and then I'll chime in with anything additional I notice? Let me know if that works or if you'd like something different from me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

OK on one criteria or another. If you would like to sit back, that's fine. Unless you see something really wrong, then please issue the corrective right away. thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So I hadn't realized at first you'd left your comments. If I were doing this review, I would ask about the use of developer pamphlets for several the sources. I would also reference the idea that the LEAD should summarize the rest of the article - which you alluded to with your footnote comment. I think there are some issues beyond that, including the fact that the name is only explained in the LEAD and not the body. I tend to be on the stricter side of GA reviews so feel free to consider if either or both of those comments feel right for you and this review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the use of developer pamphlets for sources, I thought their use was restrained. The first two were used for establishing the street locations, basic layout, and the number of parking spaces. I will take another look at the others. The loon was an oversight on my part. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: So my general philosophy with GA is that there are a relatively small number of things I can insist on but a whole bunch of things I can suggest. I will, however, suggest things to the editor. If they agree, great. If they push back I don't insist on it. Their use of the pamphlets on the whole is for the sort of basic information that I agree is probably fine, though "The skyway adjoining Gaviidae Common I to 33 South Sixth was designed as a "public art" piece by both Pelli and Iranian American architect Siah Armajani." feels close if not over that line given the public art element. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added to the comments under original research and under the broad coverage category. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) I have completed my comments. What should my next step be? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: I would ping the nominator to let him know your review is done - many reviewers also will change the template on the article's talk page to be on "onhold" from "onreview" and give them time to improve the article based on your suggestions and to await any questions/thoughts they have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49, Still no word from the nominator. I placed the hold on 24 Oct. Should I keep it on review through the end of the week? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe:I would give them at least a week. I would suggest leaving them a talk page message to see if that sparks anything. Since there's really no deadline I would probably wait a second week and then close it as a fail with your suggestions for improvement there for the future if you feel it doesn't pass now. One thing I should have said way back at the start but didn't check - for old nominations like this I always start the review by pinging the nominator to see if they remain interested. If they don't respond I'll complete the review, though not at the same depth I normally do, and then close the review (normally as a fail). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49, This is good to know. I was browsing the older nominations, and I plan to do the same next time. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I geneerally do the same thing Oldsanfelipe. It's unfortunate that some number of nominators get discouraged and leave because of the long wait times. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, The review is back on. I think I am sharper this week because I am noticing more things right now. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Great news. Before or after claiming the article I tend to read through the article. I then wait a day or two and read through again, checking sources, and leaving notes. I then do a final read through before passing. I too find looking at things with fresh eyes brings up issues you might have missed before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I see lots of new thoughts. Good thinking on the square footage. I'm not sure there's a good guide for how to format GA discussions. Here are two examples 1 2 of ones I did so you can maybe get some sense of what would work for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I wrote my comments after a second reading. However, time is another factor. Read and digest before reading again. Digest some more before first comments. That's one of my takeaways. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I recently started a log of all of the unreviewed new pages that if I was a New Page reviewer, I would have reviewed without CSDing, Prodding or AFDing. I also list what tags I gave each page. Can you review my log and tell me if I am making progress in terms of training to be a NPR?? Thank you

• User:JC7V7DC5768/NPPschool JC7V-talk 15:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: You've obviously done a lot of work. That list is far too long for me to check everything. I am happy to spot check it, or to for you to point me to some you'd particularly like my thinking on. Which works better for you? Also a question: am I missing where you CSD, PROD, or AfD articles? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah you can do a spot check on my NPPschool page, which seems to be a good idea. Also this is my User:JC7V7DC5768/CSD_log. I've done a lot more CSD tagging in the last week or so since I am spending more time at New Pages. Also here is my User:JC7V7DC5768/PROD_log. My AFD log is here. Thank you.

And what about AfD?

Taking a look at several random articles (thanks random.org) Karl Michael von Attems, Ignacius, North Point School for Boys, Claude Itzykson, Trade in the East African Community all look good.

*Cleo & Cuquin (TV series) is basically a stub and so I would not say the lead needs to be rewritten; it's fine for what the article is now. Frankly I have some broad skepticism about its notability (the network it aired on seems niche) but since it's not from an English language and isn't in the feed I've not done a full BEFORE.

*Julia Preston - I don't see any evidence of the kind I look for in the article for journalist notability but I trust the NPP who did it.

*I can't verify enough about John Blackwood (art dealer) to comment. ​Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also I will note JC7V7DC5768 after having seen ICPH's feedback that I didn't run any of the pages through earwig for COPYVIO which is obviously a part of my normal workflow and should have done it in this form of checking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The article Wolf in the Snow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wolf in the Snow 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49, thanks for reviewing some of my NPPschool things. Maybe you can give me a AFC reviewing progress report since late October?

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot/afchistory/

To see if I am making progress in the AFCR department? I feel I've been getting better with AFC and only accepting articles that I know can pass AFD. I now have earwig's copyright check in my drop down menu and I'm also using a few other copyright detection tools. Also maybe you can do another random NPPschool check?? thanks. JC7V-talk 03:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I looked at your work over the last few days. Here are my thoughts:

• Agree:Draft:4ox! Music, Draft:Tony Liam, Draft:Cierra Cinti, Draft:Rrota, Nils Ole Oermann, Minnesota Senate, District 37, Hooks, Pennsylvania, Draft:Adam Riccoboni, Draft:Ava Porter, Draft:Bendura Bank, Draft:Thinc Institute of Design, 2018–19 Liga EBA season, Draft:Augmented Gaming Clan
• Mosholu Jewish Center has NYT sourcing because it's in New York. Could be notable but it's important to seperate work major RS, like the NYT and Washington Post, do in national coverage, imputing notability, and what they cover because it's local news. Needs to be treated differently for purposes of notability.
• Draft:Robert Wnukowski clearly correct declined. Was bad enough that I did my first ever MfD nom on it.
• Draft:New Radio - Curious what NPOV issues you found with it?
• Draft:James Quinn (actor) Correct decline reason but if you were going to leave a comment WP:NACTOR would probably have been worth mentioning
• Draft:Jason Andrews The apparent COI/promo was probably worth mentioning. Without having done any looking I'd say there's a 40% chance he's actually notable but that editor is going to need to radically change their editing style to get him over the hump
• Draft:Gavin Clarkson just to be clear he fails NPOL 2 ways - as a Secretary of State canidate this is clear. Less clear but still short of NPOL was his work at Beauru of Indian Affairs. If he'd been an assistant secretary rather than a Deputy Assistant Secretary this might be a different discussion.
• Draft:Valentina Lombardo clear autobio.

While I agreed with your actions at AfC it's important to note that were these already in mainspace they wouldn't all necessarily be deletable - no WP:BEFORE was done. I also didn't check copyright on any of them assuming you had done so. If not you should go back and fix that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I see you unreviewed the page Patricia.com.ng and deleted it as you think the page is not notable.

I do not understand this stance as I think the page is quite notable enough to stand as a Wikipedia article. If you request that I add more references, that may be a point but outrightly saying the page is not notable and deleting it off is something you need to look into again.

--Ladispeaks (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ladispeaks: There was a recent deletion discussion where the consensus was to delete. If there are new sources the page could be remade. Alternatively if you think there was a mistake, for instance there are reliable independent secondary sources which discuss the company in significant detail, you could apply for a deletion review. My honest assessment is that deletion was correct for this company at this time according to the standards Wikipedia uses for companies. Let me know if you have other questions or thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. -- KTC (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

There are enough good candidates and I'd like to see Joe Roe (who is away on working on an archaeology site right now, hence his late entry) get in. We need new blood and active editors on the Committee. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for taking the time to let me know. More importantly thank you for the time thought and consideration you've lent the community during your two terms on the Committee. Fondly wishing you all the Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Message text. Chentalsong 19:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49,

My name is Chental-Song Bembry. On November 13, 2018, I discovered that the you and a few other editors created a Wikipedia article about me entitled "Chental-Song Bembry." Thank you for creating the article. I reviewed the article and noticed that it was missing several other articles that have been written about me in the past by notable organizations including Black Enterprise, The Grio, and Cheat Sheet Entertainment. Upon noticing these missing articles, I created a Wikipedia account for the purposes of adding these credible references to my article. I received a message from the user Shoy, who noticed my additions and accused me of creating an autobiography about myself, which I did not do.

I ask that my article does not get deleted, as I was only trying to add information to further deem my article as credible. I am new to Wikipedia and did not understand that I could suggest edits by using the "Talk Page." In the future, I will be sure to abide by these guidelines. Again, please do not delete my article.

Thank you.

I was just wondering what qualified the Ocean Colour Scene - EP page to be deleted? I'm just confused as this is a legitimate release by a band with plenty of relevant pages in Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiger2013 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Craiger2013: Thanks for your question. I found the page will doing new page patrol. As part of this we evaluate pages against Wikipedia's notablity standard by looking at both general and specific guidelines. In this case the specific guideline is for albums. I did not see evidence in that article of how it met one of the criteria of that gudeline and so redirected it to the band's page. If the album already meets (or comes to meet in the coming days/weeks) one of the criteria, the article can be found in the history and improved with that information supported by reliable sources. I hope this makes sense. If you have more questions I might be able to answer let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Aciam888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aciam888 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, if you could please return to your review here and explain more precisely what needs citing that would help a lot, since the nominator believes that the necessary citation is in place. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my article!

Btcgeek (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I was in the MIDDLE of discussing with a moderator why the New Saxon Spelling page I'd posted was different from the original and shouldn't be deleted again, when another moderator deleted it. I can't even see what the original moderator's response to my comments were. --Infinitum11 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Infinitum11: That sounds frustrating. From what I could see there were only superficial changes made between the old version and this version I am not an administrator myself so I can't restore the page or see the conversation. You might want to ask at WP:REFUND if it could be put into your userspace?

Okay thank you. --Infinitum11 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi User: Barkeep49, I wonder if you could review the changes to references to page José G. Saucedo. Thank you in advance! Appreciate! Julio César Martin Trejo

@Julio César Martin Trejo: I don't speak Spanish so I might not be the best person. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It is in English. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio César Martin Trejo (talk • contribs) 00:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Julio César Martin Trejo: Sorry. Maybe I don't understand what you're asking. Can you ask again? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again User: Barkeep49. I wonder if you could review the article José G. Saucedo. I deleted almost 80% of the article for being irrelevant for the general public, and I added a secondary source from a reliable secular source.

Plus, I deleted the template about possible irrelevance and do not know how to put it back (sorry for that, I do apologize).

Thank you!

Julio Julio César Martin Trejo (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Julio César Martin Trejo: Thanks for clarifying. Your changes have improved the article. Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, please can you explain why the article about Brenda Fassie's Now Is The Time album has been deleted? It meets notability criteria and is worthy of entry into Wikipedia.What does this means "This page provides a guideline for editors in applying the concept of notability to topics related to music, including artists, bands, albums, and songs. Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion"WP:NALBUM WIKIZILE (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@WIKIZILE: It was not speedy deleted - as shown that you could restore the content of the article. It was redirected from the album to the artist. You say that it meets notability guidelines. Great! I would encourage you to make reference to how, with a citation to a reliable source, on the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wagner de Campos Rosário, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to be seen as heading backwards in my progress on the site. In my User:JC7V7DC5768/NPPschool log, 97% of the unreviewed pages that I would have reviewed and not nominated or tagged for deletion are still blue links (and 2 of the 7 red links were G5 deleted). Also can you https://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot/afchistory/ and tell me I am getting better at draft accepting? I only accept drafts that are 100 percent (and are ready for mainspace). Basically I feel I am almost to the point I am on the right track to some day being ready to re apply for NPR, simply because seeing many of those articles that I know should be reviewed and kept still unreviewed is hard. I don't want to do all this work and then get rejected at Perm again and hear I am still at the point I was in late October. Thank you. JC7V (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

One thing i won't do again is to draftify new pages. I've made mistakes draftifying new pages (doing it too quick, or doing it to pages I should have CSD tagged) and I feel that it is better to leave draftyifing to New Page Reviewers or editors who are better at it than me. JC7V (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I agree that you should avoid draftifying. Those percentages are good; G5 deletions obviously are a different matter when thinking about deletion. I haven't looked over your logs, but the case you present does suggest you're on the right track. Speaking frankly, I think your going for Autopatrolled sets you back some - it makes you look like you're hat collecting. I understand not wanting to get rejected at PERM - can't feel good. Is there a reason you're not focusing on the AfC route where you'd be making a positive contribution to the encyclopedia even as you build-up a track record to ask for NPP? Best, Barkeep49 (:talk) 05:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Hi, by reviewing so many drafts at AFC, I got the itch to create more of my own articles so I started to create a bunch of articles and I thought that auto patrol would take a burden away from New Page Reviewers of reviewing my new articles so they can focus on new articles that needed more attention. I didn't do it to hat collect. I was turned down for lack of article creations (and due to one of my articles being deleted in August). I could care less about labels ,I just thought it could help out New Page reviewers by having one less new article to review. The draftifying set me back, but I won't do it anymore and I will continue to do AFC and NPP school logging. I'll also continue to do new articles (as AFC reviewing makes me want to do so) but I guess if my new articles are good enough, NPR don't need to spend a lot of time on them. JC7V (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I'm not questioning your good intentions (re:AUTO) just stating how it might interpreted by someone examining a request from you at PERM. Continuing good work at AfC and making good new pages when the mood strikes you are both making the encyclopedia better. Hopefully it is also satisfying for you. As always I wish you the Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please explain your concerns on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Scott made his NFL debut against the Browns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The article Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The article Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have suggested that the individual book articles of the series be merged into The Edge Chronicles. Please discuss the merger at Talk:The_Edge_Chronicles#Merger_of_individual_articles_of_books_in_this_series PS I am not watching this page so please WP:Ping me if you reply. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi You recently deleted my article, however I failed to understand how and why it comes under speedy deletion. Cryptobulls is the 1st registered digital currency exchange in the entire GCC countries in which His Excellency Suhail Al Zarooni is involved. It was not a promotion it was an important article which was worth being on wikipedia. If you talk about style of writing then please search for zebpay or coinbase, they is no difference between these articles and cryptobulls exchange.

If you think that this article can be re-written then would you mind helping me with that please. Cyberking55 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Cyberking55. In the past Wikipedia has been used to promote various cryptocurrencies and so many editors, including myself, look at crypto related topics with a keen eye. The version of Cryptobulls that you wrote provided little information beyond what it was, who its backers were, and most importantly in my placing the speedy tag, a series of milestones and planned milestones. The wording of its backers, such as His Excellency Suhail Al Zarooni, is also not the kind of neutral wording we tend to use. Coinbase is a fairly widely used platform with numerous write-ups in reliable sources. I did take a look at zebpay and found a large chunk of it to be promotional, which I did remove from that article. Hope this helps. If you have further questions please do ask them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable feedback, can I re-write the article with those details removed. I wrote the name Suhail Al Zarooni to provide reliable source to prove the worth of the article. I understand I went beyond when I used timeline for this article. Cyberking55 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberking55: Can I ask your connection to this topic? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@barkeep49 I am a user on this website Cyberking55 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As you can see on my profile, I haven't created many pages. So i'm finding hard to create a new page, read the guidelines and everything but still don't get success much. Trying to make a position in wiki by adding as many pages and edits. It will be wonderful if I can find a mentor like you to guide me. Cyberking55 (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
Academics Astronomical objects Books Events Films Geographic features Music Numbers Organizations and companies People Sports and athletes Web content
See also
Notability essays Guide to deletion Common deletion outcomes Why was my article deleted?
v t e

@Cyberking55: I am happy to offer some advice. First you should know that creating a new page requires some more advanced skills. I see looking through your contributions that you have participated in an Articles for Deletion discussion which ended with the article being speedy deleted as promotional. So whatever you do next avoiding that is important. I have three thoughts to get started. First really read How to write your first article. Ask questions about any thing on there which you find confusing. Next look at the blue box to the right. Select a topic that you know well that falls into one of those areas. For instance find a song that sold well (criteria 1 of WP:NSONG) or a book that won a major literary award (criteria 2 of WP:NBOOK) or a cricket player who appeared in an international match for a country ((criteria 1 of WP:NCRICKET). There are dozens of categories there so hopefully one connects with you and gives you an idea. If you can't find a topic, if you give me one of the areas (e.g. Films or Military) I might be able to suggest a topic for an article. Finally, rather than creating your article in mainspace, create it first in draft or your userspace (sandbox). When you've done that I could take a look and give you thoughts. Hope that is helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks that really helps, I have few topics in mind. One of them is "the speakmans" its a UK based tv show. So i'm gonna work on that after this. Please suggest criteria for this and for cryptobulls. Please tell me if there is any way to recover the content of cryptobulls. ThanksCyberking55 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberking55: It might be possible to recover the text for Cryptobulls but since it was off base it might be better to just start fresh? The Speakmans TV show has some promise towards notability. Does it air on a national over the air broadcast channel (e.g. bbc, itv)?

@Barkeep49: Hi, thanks for your reply. I found this on IMDB when search for the speakmans https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4184638/ which gives fair amount of information about this show.

For the cryptobulls I have re-written the Article - Cryptobulls exchange is a digital currency exchange which deals in Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Guld Coin Gold etc. It becomes the First Official Crypto Currency Exchange in GCC Countries after their collaboration with Al Zarooni Group headed by His Excellency Suhail Al Zarooni. Its headquarter is located in Dubai, UAE.

History:

Cryptobulls Exchange was found by Shasha Gupta and Madhu in March 2018. Within a span of 6 months the company grew its network and started providing its trading services to more than 200,000 users across the globe.

They have launched its Android app for trading in August 2018, later similar app was launched for IOS users in October 2018

In October 2018, the company tie up with Al Zarooni Group to make it UAE's first official Crypto Currency Exchange.

I don't know how to write draft to be honest, so I wrote here. I hope you don't mind me writing it here.

Please reply Cyberking55 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberking55: That seems like largely the article that was there before? "Its headquartered in Dubai, UAE" is a neutral factual statement than can be supported by a reliable source. "Within a span of 6 months the company grew its network and started providing its trading services to more than 200,000 users across the globe." might be factual but is promotional and not neutral. A neutral version of that sentence might read "It grew to have 200,000 users in its first six months." This would need to be supported by a reliable source (in other words hopefully not the cyptocurrency exchange themselves).

As for the Speakmans, IMDB is not considered a reliable source since like Wikipedia it can be edited by any users. That topic has had some edit warring in the past and so adding in a new article might be controversial.

One last thought. You could choose to draft an article in your sandbox which is located here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I will work on it. Cyberking55 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Does it look like neutral or promotional - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CryptoBulls_Exchange

They are the host of THE SPEAKMANS SHOW - Nik & Eva Speakman

@Cyberking55: That draft is a huge improvement. I am not sure it's notable but it's much less promotional and I do not think it is deleted as advertising anymore. My only suggestion is removing that it has android and iOS apps (it's not cited anyway) and removing "His excellency" since we tend to not put people's honorifics in the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh great, thank you so much for your help. Cyberking55 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What about the speakmans show, will their personal wikipedia page be any help in creating its show's wikipedia Cyberking55 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberking55: Their Wikipedia page might give you some content, yes. Their TV show's article has a mixed past and so there might be some challenge in whether it is notable. Whether the cryptocurrency is notable is also another question I have. Whether something is notable is different than if it's promotional. 01:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut 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 Maclean25 -- Maclean25 (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Premila Kumar, Barkeep49.

Unfortunately Onel5969 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hi Barkeep... there was a large copyvio issue with this, so I'm going to remove the copyvio and re-review it, just so I could let you know about the issue.

To reply, leave a comment on Onel5969's talk page.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Onel5969 and bigger thanks for catching it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries, the only reason I caught it was I reviewed another article by that editor, and like I usually do, I check on any other recent articles by that editor. After 10 straight articles with a copyvio issue, I noticed that Ymblanter had also caught another copyvio. So then I began checking every article they had recently created, and virtually all of them had a copyvio issue. I left a message on that editor's page. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I did forget to mention earlier that it has made me happy that you've come back to active reviewing. The encyclopedia is better for it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The backlog was beginning to tick up again. Now it looks like we might lose Boleyn. Dang. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The backlog has been consistently creeping up since the backlog drive ended - we've just reached the point where we've basically undone all the progress of the first half ot he year. Losing Boleyn is definitely a bummer in this kind of situation. NPP can truly be a no love lots of dislike sorta situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, please can you explain why my article about Parnia Porsche has been deleted? She meets notability criteria and is worthy of entry into Wikipedia. It seems as though an older page was deleted and since then my page has been deleted without any thought to the content within it. Thanks Kelmoo (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: There has been a recent discussion about her notability held here that concluded delete. I did not see any large changes between what that version appeared to be and what you made. I nominated it for deletion on those grounds and an administrator agreed. If you feel different rather than creating the page in mainspace perhaps go through WP:AFC? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Parnia has about 500,000 followers on Facebook and a lot on Instagram too - I could link to her social profiles if that helps? She has a huge following and is a very well known in Australia particularly. Kelmoo (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: Social media followers generally aren't considered when assessing notability - it is too easy to manipulate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I do understand that and agree also, I was just trying to highlight the fact she is well known in the modelling world. She wouldn't get on the cover of Maxim and so forth if she wasn't. She was number 9 on the Maxim Hot 100 list this year with the likes of Kate Upton etc so I feel her profile is worthy. Can I get a copy of my original page? I could resubmit at a later date. Thanks Kelmoo (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: I'm not an administrator so I can't do that but let's ping Anthony Appleyard who deleted the page and is one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Kelmoo: I have undeleted and AfD'ed Parnia Porsche :: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parnia Porsche (3rd nomination). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am thinking about reapplying for New Page Reviewer rights soon. I realize that I should just request probationary New Page Reviewer rights (month long trial) which I should have done the last time. I'm a little concerned that the draftifying issue will cause me to be declined again even though I now have a firm grasp on WP:DRAFTIFY after studying said page and I now know that I shouldn't move any article to draft space 'minutes' after the article is created (and that I shouldn't drafitfy 'junk'). From studying other New Page Reviewers, I know when and what type of articles to draftify and i could even do a pop quiz for the NPR Perm admin to show that draftifying will never be an issue again for me and that I have a firm grasp on that issue. So do you think I should apply for probationary New Page Reviewer rights within a week and a half? Seeing all those unreviewed new pages that should be reviewed and accepted still sitting there unreviewed is hard. (I had a similar feeling before I was an AFC reviewer seeing some promising unreviewed AFC drafts that I wanted to accept but couldn't (since I wasn't a reviewer then) despite being in the AFC backlog for weeks/months. Or do you think I should wait longer to reapply?? And if so how can I tangibly prove that I no longer am bad at draftifying? My My draftify school log shows two things, the top section is the log of draftify moves other users made that I studied, and the bottom section are New pages that I encountered in new Page feeds that I mentally marked as 'draftify' and left for NPR or other users to draftify themselves. JC7V (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I want to take a longer look at your work. If I haven't commented in two days please ping me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: Where can I find pages you nominated for speedy, prod, or AfD? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed your NPP School edits going back to November 20. Overall I largely agree with you - in fact in some cases I had independently marked the pages as reviewed. Without a sense of your deletion efforts I can't give an overall assessment but here are some thoughts I have on specific articles:

• I personally think Awkwafina (TV series) doesn't meet the SNG. However many editors in that area disagree with me so I tend to not patrol future TV shows and movies.
• I haven't done any BEFORE but I don't think Linda Buchanan is slam dunk notable. Mayor of a 85k city is borderline in terms of what would happen at AfD for a generic mayor
• Why would you have draftified 2018 Magyar Kupa Final? Not sure you're wrong (I reviewed it) but would love to hear your thinking.
• I have a pretty elastic view of WP:NSEASONS but not everyone would think 2018–19 Buffalo Bulls women's basketball team was notable (I did mark it as reviewed). Similar for 2018–19 American Athletic Conference women's basketball season

• I have done no outside research beyond reading the article but Cleo von Adelsheim doesn't seem to be notable based on acting. I am very skepitical that her royalty claim is strong either but this is not a topic area I know that well so can say nothing about what would happen at AfD.
• Kristen Tan - Is a single Foreign Language nomination for a film she directed enough for notability? There's a good chance the answer is yes per WP:ANYBIO but I would have gone a little further in my pruning of the article.
• It seems like notability for Swindled might be based on list "reviews" (e.g. "10 must-listen true crime podcasts") - such lists are frequently not considered significant. I don't know enough about the DiscoverPod award to know if that nomination would lend it notability.
• I can't see Samuel Balrey Issifu but am surprised that was A7'ed. He seems to meet WP:NFOOTY
• I don't believe Anthony Duluc is notable. I redirected to the TV show he appears on as an AtD. If reverted I'll do a little more research but will likely go to AfD.

Barkeep49, Hi, thanks for looking over my NPP school page. Here is my User:JC7V7DC5768/CSD_log, User:JC7V7DC5768/PROD_log and my AFD log. Thanks.JC7V (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

So do you think I am ready to reapply for NPR?? I want to apply for probationary NPR. Please check my CSD, PROD, A, FD and AFC logs and let me know. Thanks. JC7V (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: Your stats look good. Looking over your last 20 AfCs as well as a few other random ones, I might quibble with your choice of tags but looks solid overall. 2019 Southeastern Conference football season shouldn't have been accepted yet and Item (TV series) is borderline for the same reason. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (soundtrack) doesn't seem to show notability in the draft but I agree it's notable looking overall. Tell me more about why you felt Draft:William Coates (technician) and Draft:Taj Pharmaceuticals weren't notable. I am curious about your explanation for those two but overall I think it's a borderline, though if I were an admin I would be likely to grant it BUT let me ask you - how long has it been since you last requested? Have you waited at least 90 days? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Hi i declined those 2 drafts because they were borderline and I felt a little more work on them could put them over the top. If i could have 'weak declined' them i would have (somewhere between commenting only and declining) But there is no option for that. As for the 2019 Southeastern Conference Season, if you look, Boleyn reviewed 2018 Southeastern Conference season in December 2017 without tagging or nominating it for deletion and it had only one reference then, and the 2017 Southeastern Conference Season draft was accepted by 2 AFC reviewers and that was in similar shape to the draft that I accepted.

I am requesting probationary NPR rights and I've seen other users request NPR after being declined before the 90 day period. Me being a probationary NPR is good as it gives me a chance to prove myself and that's all I ever wanted. I am not perfect, but I try my hardest when I make a mistake to not only not make them again but to make the best out of them. I hate how perm admins cherry pick drafts by AFC reviewers that are mistakes while ignoring the good drafts they accepted. Look at what they did to Dial911 and Legacypac. Those 2 are right about it all. AFCR and NPR are a triad and we rely on each other. AFC is not the article rescue squadron (i should know i was a member of the ARS). JC7V (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I see you went ahead and applied - good luck! If you do get the PERM it would be good to be able to explain why, based in policy (and precedent like you did with the SEC), you make your borderline decisions. For instance I was hoping your response would say what weight did you give to Coates win of the Bragg Medal and its place with-in his field and would say something about how none of the Taj references covered the company in signficant detail. I agree AfC isn't ARS, it's why I was on the "Strickland was properly declined based on the evidence on offer" side of things, but NPP has a lot of call to find and weigh a range of policies; we have an obligation to go beyond the article in our reviewing. I regularly go back to NCORP and NSPORT, the two areas I patrol in the most, on a regular basis to consider borderline calls. Hope that advice makes sense. Anyhow good luck to you. I will be monitoring the response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, The Taj draft was declined by me because those references didn't make me feel comfortable accepting it. It was borderline and I felt that adding a few better sources would have been a good move. Some of the sources were just details about the company, some of the sources were routine coverage and some were passing mentions. The issue with William Coates was it needed a few more sources. One of the sources was an obituary, and I didn't feel the other 2 sources were enough. I know the Bragg medal is notable but the draft needed a little more work sourcing wise etc. There was just 5 sources when I declined it. I said my decline was more of a soft decline. JC7V (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: Thanks for the explanation and again good luck! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Hi is my perm request at Requests for Permissions: New Page Reviewer good or should I change it?? I don't want to be declined for putting a bad request. Thanks. JC7V (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: Your request is written fine. I think the fact that you were turned down in the last 90 days works against you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Hi, when I was declined for my NPR request last month by TonyBallioni, he told me come back in 1 to 2 months (30 to 60 days) to reapply if I fixed the issues (which i pretty much did). JC7V (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: I see Swarm granted the PERM to you. Congrats! I hope you have a good time reviewing and if I can be of any help don't hesitate to ask. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Hi thank you for the support. If I need help I will ask. JC7V (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, you recently removed the article XX (Mino album) because you stated there was a lack of notability. However, I felt that it was a notable article/topic because there was a significant amount of coverage on the topic from reliable and independent sources. Specifically, all of the sources used were sources that are considered reliable by consensus on WikiProject Korea as per WP:KO/RS. Although the sources can feature advertising material or quotes, I feel that there is also discussion/commentary about the material and album such as at Source 13, Source 6, Source 9, and Source 2.

The page was previously removed by User:Alexanderlee (talk) for lack of notability, but after I found new reliable sources for the article, he did not remove the article on his second edit on the page. Please let me know why the album does not satisfy notability from news coverage if it indeed does not, and if so, how that might be fixed. Thank you! ChromeGames923 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChromeGames923: In general music albums demonstrate notability not just by mentions in the press but either by reviews from reliable sources, winning of a major award (like in the US a Grammy), or by having sold enough to reach a national sales chart. This is what I saw to be missing when I redirected the article. You can read more at WP:NALBUM Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Hello, thank you for the details about the article's notability. In any case, shortly after you redirected the article, another editor undid your redirect because they claimed the article fulfilled notability, so I continued from there. Now, however, that the album has been released and has received some reviews in addition to charting on several charts, I feel it should be very qualified to be considered notable. The article has also been reviewed again, although I am not too sure how the situation of your redirect being undone should have been handled. Thanks again, ChromeGames923 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@ChromeGames923: Thanks for checking in. With the release it looks like another reviewer felt like it met the criteria so you're set. 01:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49 I have added projects Literature, to your article. You may wish to join them, check their to-do, and meet new people with interest in these topics. ( To reply click "edit" next to this section, and add your reply at the end. ) Cheers, --Gryllida (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Thanks. I tend to put project tags on it when I move to mainspace. Curious how'd you find it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm reading Special:NewPagesFeed and tagging any articles with wikiproject tags - either sorting by newest first or oldest first - I think making the articles available to wikiproject from early stages can be a bit encouraging to the article authors Gryllida (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I think collaborative editing could help in many places. I hope your efforts are successful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I don't understand... why did you revert my edits? The article had enough notability. NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@NotEnglishSpeaker: Another patroller has agreed with you and as I don't have enough expertise I will not be challenging it but in general I did not see the kind of reliable sources that would indicate notability for a character and not just the anime they were in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try my best to expand the article! Thank you very much! NotEnglishSpeaker (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@NotEnglishSpeaker: Good luck and happy editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Just for your information , using the lead I was given. I would hesitate however, before bombarding them with support messages at this time until they have replied. I might have to try other avenues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Kudpung. There's a reason our wishlist was longer than ideal and it's a similar reason as to why it got so much support. NPP shouldn't have been neglected as long as it was. But here we are, and I have been and remain hopeful about what will come out of this process. I think the WMF is staffed by good people and have high (but realistic) hopes of the collaboration to come. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The article Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut 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 Maclean25 -- Maclean25 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, if you remember, some time back I had asked you about citations in the chat room under the name 'Bambi'. You had told me to ping you once my draft was ready. So here it is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kalynn_Campbell - with all the neutral references that I could find. The page was already in draft when I got into AfC to put up my version, and I found this draft to be lot more detailed as compared to mine. However, the referencing was not proper and it lacked formatting. So I incorporated my info in this and worked on both aspects. Going ahead, I would like an expert opinion on what to do next to get it approved and published as a page. Also wanted to ask if the same reference can be used multiple times in the content body. For example, 2 references I have used twice in the body of the content and going by the original draft, they have info pertaining to much of the content. These are showing up twice in the ref list - is this correct, and can I use them more than twice? Awaiting your feedback, thanks, Vinvibes (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: You can absolutely reuse a reference. Here is some description of how to do that. As to the page itself, it doesn't appear that Campbell meets any of our subject notability guidelines, but might meet the general notability guidelines. Which are your two or three best sources? Best in this case is a source which is reliable and which describes him in significant detail, not just a sentence or two. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49:, thanks for taking an interest. There are about 4 references which cover almost the entire article. At present they have been mentioned only once, but thanks to your guidance now I will mention them all through. These validate almost all the info in the content. Overall whatever sources I have used are independent and 3rd party, I personally ensured that by checking them out, and the CD list comprises of names that have wiki pages with the illustrator's name mentioned in all of them. What I can do is ping you again after I have replicated the sources all through. And let it come under general - do I need to do anything to change the category to general? Many thanks, regards, Vinvibes (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: No. You can press the blue button that says "submit for review." It will that be eligible for review - the reviewers are volunteers who review drafts in no particular order so it can take several weeks for a review. Given that so many of your sources are off-line it's difficult for me to make a prediction about whether it will be accepted or not, but you have clearly worked hard to follow Wikipedia guidelines about how to write a page - congrats on that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49:, many thanks, for me this is serving as a worthy learning experience. So now I have replicated the references as per the guidelines. Can you please check and provide feedback as to its latest presentation? Thanks for taking an interest, Vinvibes (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: Looks good. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49:, many thanks for your valuable inputs, am truly grateful, Vinvibes (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		message Thank you Barkeep49 for your help and guidance, am truly grateful - Vinvibes 19:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: Thanks! If I can help answer any further questions please don't hesitate to reach out. Also just confirming that you know that the draft hasn't yet been submitted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49:, no, not yet. I need to add external links, then will probably submit by tonight or tomorrow morning my time. Will let you know once I have submitted. Thanks again for all the guidance, regards, Vinvibes (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, needed some input about a reference. He appears to have written a book, but his bio in the book has been written by his editor. So can this bio, which is a part of the book but not written by the author, serve as a valid reference? Thanks, regards, Vinvibes (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: It would still need to meet the criteria of WP:SELFPUB. Also can I ask a favor? When you correct a talk page message, it gives me two on-wiki notifications and two emails. I understand the need to fix and correct but where possible if you could use the preview button, I'd appreciate it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, oh - okay. didn't realize that it shows up multiple times at the other end. Will definitely use 'preview from now onward. And am in a dilemma as to whether to use the book as a citation. Maybe I should just let go of this bit of info and add external links and put it up for review. Later on I can always add when there is a 3rd party reference available....(?). Thanks again, regards, Vinvibes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: No worries about the alerts. As for his books it's probably worth citing something that shows what he's written, whether that it's just the books themselves or his website or something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, here is the draft of the page as it stands after the final touches - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kalynn_Campbell. I really cant think of anything more that I can do on this, so awaiting your inputs, after which I will put it up for review. Thanks, regards, Vinvibes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: You could probably post as is. My one suggestion would be to make sure that the information in the lead is represented elsewhere. The idea of the lead is to summarize the entire article. But yes you largely seem ready. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, much of it is validated through the various references, and the CD names and albums that are mentioned in the summary bear his name on the respective album pages on wiki. Only his birth I have no idea. And at least till now I am yet to come across any proof of his birth on that particular day and place. The refs mentioned in the original draft did not have any info regarding this bit. So, what should I do regarding this? Any suggestions? Thanks, regards, Vinvibes (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: If you don't have that information from a reliable source don't include it. It's absolutely fine not to have the date of birth in someone's biography on Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, have filled in the info box and generally browsed through. His image, I don't have at least of now. If the draft is approved and I manage to find one in future, then I could always insert. So should I submit it for review? Feeling jittery as to how it will fare, but overall it was a really good learning experience for me. Thanks for everything, regards, Vinvibes (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: I'm glad it's been a good experience. You definitely can submit without an image. He seems to be a bit of a borderline case but you have definitely helped put his best foot forward. I would go ahead and submit for review - you should know that it can take several weeks for a reviewer to look at the article - they are reviewed in no particular order. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, submitted - now awaiting verdict. Many thanks for the encouragement and help. Will let you know when I hear from the review team. Regards, Vinvibes (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I was checking the CLP newsletter posted at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders and had a couple notes:

• The second sentence has "While ... but". You can have either of those words but probably shouldn't have both.
• If you want to be fancy, you could italicize the names of the articles which are book titles.

Just FYI. Of course, there's no reason to follow article MOS conventions on user talk pages, but it may look neater. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW, here's a link that might help you find editors who are already working on the WikiProject's articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Children's literature. A lot of them are probably wikignomes doing maintenance, but if you check through their contribs you may be able to find content creators who would be interested in (re)joining the wikiproject. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

These are all super useful suggestions, thanks Reidgreg. I am especially grateful for the directory which I didn't know existed. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! I first found pages like that when I followed What links here from my user page. Try that yourself, and you may find some surprising things! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I've sent out the mass mailing. No errors were reported. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

...that I'm a big fan of your work here. LOL ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Alas other seem to disagree with us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49 for the edit and thanks for pointing it out Oshwah. I have been laughing uncontrollably for five minutes now. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dolotta: I wish I could take credit. This is an old joke. But at the prodding of an admin I have brought back some humor to the Wikipedia World (just had to do it at simple) - simple:Guy Standing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		If anyone is deserving of this, it is you! Thanks! Dolotta (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to know your reasoning for removing the Historical context from the Blind Man's Garden; I noticed that the code read Lead Promo but wasn't sure what the purpose of this action was as the information was well sourced. I am looking forward to your response.

Summerrain011 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something but what I saw sourced the information as factual. The sources did not connect that information to the book. What is needed is a reliable source saying that X, Y, and Z are the historical context for the novel. As constructed it all might have been right but it also struck me as original research. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I recently entered a plot summary and various other details for this page. But it was redirected back with the reason that the series is notable whereas the first book isn't. I am going to enter information for all the books and not just the first book in the series. Also the first book needed a bigger plot summary as this is a introduction to this book series and its various characters. The next books won't have bigger plot summaries and will be in a shorter format. The main page of the series doesn't include all the intricate details of the series, which would be better explained if each book had its own page. Also if required i can make the plot summary for the first book more compact. Could you provide me a solution so that my edits won't be redirected. Gharderohan (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gharderohan. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia and your efforts around The Secrets of Droon. I can tell it's been a bit of a rough start for you - it frequently is for newcomers. I hope I can explain some and also answer any questions you might have. Wikipedia has decided that not every topic that exists will have its own article. Instead Wikipedia has settled on a concept called notability to guide which topics can have an article (and thus which topics can't). There are also some subject notability guidelines, one of which is for books. This guideline says books can be notable in one of several ways. My main content area is children's literature, a field I have also worked in professionally, so I performed by own check of sources, but it does not appear that The Hidden Stairs and the Magic Carpet meets any of these criteria. While the book might not be notable, Droon as a series is notable. This is why it's been redirected. So absent some new reliable sources covering the book there might not be a great way to get the more detailed information you want into Wikipedia. Hope that explains my thinking some. If I can answer further questions about this or other stuff please do ask. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it solely based on the notability or is there some issue with source reliability? I have read the books and the content I entered is completely valid. Could you suggest how I can provide proper sources. Should I just enter a short summary for each book on the main book series page? That would make the main page even lengthy and it won't have proper details of each book(IFSN, Publishing information etc.) Or I can make short pages for each book. I want to contribute by providing the information that I have. I understand this is not a very popular book series but for the people that have or are reading the books this information would be really useful. Please reply. Gharderohan (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gharderohan: Notability is the first step. Since it didn't meet notability I did not look at the other content too much. Wikipedia is designed to appeal to a broad audience. This means it won't have as much information as a fan might want. Normally I would suggest adding content at the series page, but that article is likely too long already (the minor characters section should probably be removed). One suggestion instead would be to create a The Secrets of Droon (bibliography) where you could add a paragraph or so about each book. If you truly want to go deep the Secrets of Droon Wikia might be a better place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should review what you've done well in L-Bank article. There is a confusion in German wikipedia these two banks are differentiated. Are not the same, think. And L-bank is a Landesförderinstitut (special bank) not a comercial bank. --1000x2000 (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@1000x2000: Do you have better references that describe it? And show how it's different than bank it's redirecting to? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can see for example this bank in a list in the article Landesförderinstitut in german wikipedia. Landesförderinstitut in english wikipedia they delete me. --1000x2000 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC) https://www.stuttgart.de/item/show/335193/1/dept/131848?language=en --1000x2000 (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi Barkeep49! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia, especially at NPP. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Thank You Barkeep49 and wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas, regards, Vinvibes (talk)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Radiant Child: The Story of Young Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat 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 Snowycats -- Snowycats (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Adventures of Beekle: The Unimaginary Friend 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 ReaderofthePack -- ReaderofthePack (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Patience
	C'mon, Kevin. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I don't normally respond to barnstars and the like, but have to tell you that I'm really impressed, and touched, with the time you took to craft that citation. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to the prize from the cabal of the outcasts, hope you don't mind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy 2019, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to enroll in the NPR School as I was formerlry an NPR and had rights revoked due to inexperience and mistakes and I would like to get the experience, understand the process and hopefully, help out as an NPR again. Just for info I'm also a WP:CVUA graduate.I did try with User:Insertcleverphrasehere but he was busy and suggested I spoke with you. Thanks in advance! Bingobro (Chat) 08:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bingobro: I would be happy to do what I can to help. I have setup a place for us to do our work at User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Bingobro. CVUA is a little more polished in their cirriculum than NPP School but we'll definitely go through the things we need to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49,

I see you message on Village Pump. Have you used ORES applications for counter-vandalism? Please let me know if you'd have any idea to share. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: I have used it for New Page Patrol and for predicted class ratings, but I have not used it for counter vandalism. Thanks for asking and your response at the Village Pump. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an interesting and important application, and we'd be happy to hear your suggestion if you are interested:) Bobo.03 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Overall I think it does nice work. My biggest "complaint" is that its predicted ratings seem to have a bigger margin of error the higher the actual or predicted class of article. This is true for both false positives (it says something is B class which is not) and false negatives (it says something isn't B class which is). It is my experience it is very accurate are finding stubs, great at start class, and its error bars gets noticeably larger by the time it gets to C and I can't count on it with any accuracy for anything B or better. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations! Would you like to set up a time to chat about like your general opinions and inputs how to improve it? No pressure though:) Bobo.03 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: If you think it would be helpful for me to talk more about the comment I expressed above I would be happy to have a conversation. I'm not sure how helpful it would be for CV, however. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The article Radiant Child: The Story of Young Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Radiant Child: The Story of Young Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat 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 Snowycats -- Snowycats (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm approaching you to ask whether you'd be willing to give me some training on New Page Patrolling. I have been around for a while, mostly as a reader, but only started contributing seriously last summer; I enjoyed the process of going through the CVUA training under Mz7, and I learned a huge amount about how things worked here, so I'm now thinking about branching our and finding additional ways to support the project. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(PS - I'd appreciate it if you could ping me when you respond - all the counter vandalism work has made my watchlist somewhat unwieldy!) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I would be happy to. Just so you know, CVUA is a pretty polished curriculum where as I am still figuring out NPP School. The way I've been doing it, which I have been happy with, is to use AfC drafts as our jumping off point to discuss the various elements of notability, followed by more targeted work on the remaining NPP areas (communications, deletion, and tagging). I have setup a a page for us to work from. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to explain to me the reason why you have done so. Previously a user, Nosebagbear deleted my article due to copyright issue and told me to fix it. That is why i went through the steps to get the proper approval following wikipedia guideline on the copyright information.

I agree with you that facebook seems quite promotional. However it was also mentioned briefing in the documentary done by channel news asia which is a media company in Singapore. Due to the long video, i sourced facebook instead as it's more open to the public. It was also mentioned on some smaller website, but those doesn't seem as creditable to linked with that why I went ahead with facebook.

The reason why I created this page was because I know this person and he has been getting some notability so this was created early.

Did i put too much effort into writing this? Should i remove more information that seems promotional? Though, I did tried to write in as neutral as possible, getting other writers to look at it.

Could you kindly, please go through my submission one more time? I'm not getting paid to do this, but i spent time researching on this. If would be nice to have another chance.

Thank you regardless of your decision LearnKoreanToday (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@LearnKoreanToday: So the submission has been deleted at this point so I can't really take a look at it. The documentary by Channel NewsAsia is a better bet. For a company like this, you need to have multiple independent reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in significant detail. It needs all 5 of those things. You can read more about those here which will also give you some examples. I know from personal experience that writing new articles always takes real effort, so I don't think you put too much effort into it. I will just warn you again that even with more effort that this topic might not meet our standard for companies - most companies this size don't qualify. This is true even if it has an interesting story and is doing good work. Hope that helps, but feel free to ask me more questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The article The Adventures of Beekle: The Unimaginary Friend you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Adventures of Beekle: The Unimaginary Friend 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 ReaderofthePack -- ReaderofthePack (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Keep up the good work! Bradv🍁 20:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Clémentines de Corse après cueillette.jpg	You deserve a halo for the work you do
	... but all that's in stock are cuties. Natureium (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure I've been on wikipedia long enough to get involved with NPP yet. But I am heavily involved with AfD and am struck by how many articles don't belong here. No judgement on the topic, but people are using Google searches as references and simply do not understand that notability on Wikipedia does not equal popularity. I am working on articles that need references and notability checks as well as trying to improve those that aren't deleted but need work. I'd like to get to these poorly sourced articles early and wonder if you think NPP would be a way to do that. Many thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aurornisxui. Thanks for reaching out. The criteria of 90 days and 500 edits actually tends to be a good deal higher and it seems that you are still under that for time. Finding articles that don't belong at AfD is a noble pursuit. Working on articles that need references is also a noble pursuit. You can do both of these without the NPP PERM, and in fact can use the same Page curation feed and while you couldn't use the toolbar, Twinkle has many of the same features (and is even used by some reviewers). So I would continue the good work. When you have a little more experience there, the first place I would turn would be Articles for Creation as working on drafts is a good starting point for the kind of work that NPP does but is easier (in general) to get. Hope that helps. If you have other questions or I can be helpful please let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thanks so much, I will check out what you suggested. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, The editor has made substantial improvements to the Coffee Island page, included more references and has declared his connection. Do you think it now satisfies the notability requirements? Hughesdarren (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren: The editor hasn't brought anything new to the table that I didn't see (or see similar evidence of) during my previous dive into the topic. I thought it was borderline before, I think it's borderline now. If I were confident about the Greek language sources I would probably bring it to AfD but since I think it's reasonable to expect there to be NCORP satisfactory sourcing in Greek I have not pursued it. I don't know if you noticed but the editor did admit to working for the company and so I am trying to help guide them to being COI compliant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I just noticed that you've done some excellent editing for children's book pages on Wikipedia. I'm currently preparing for an edit-a-thon where participants will make pages for books that have won the Coretta Scott King Award. I'm writing a guide to creating pages for children's picture books (you can view it here) and I was wondering if you have advice for picture books in particular. Are there common mistakes people make when creating pages for children's picture books? Sites that you've found to be exceptionally useful? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): I'm glad to see someone tackling the CSK's. I think there's a lot of untapped potential there. In general the guide seems to cover what a lot of my tips. One resource that is helpful for finding whether reviews exists in RS, and will also help show if the books have other awards, is [www.titlewave.com titlewave] - I do not generally cite the sources from there but instead find it on their websites or in a database I have access through (through Wikipedia Library subs to Gale and ebsco I can get most of the prominent journals). It does require registration so perhaps a shared log-in would work for the edit-a-thon? One thing given coverage of picture books is to try and find a source which says how the illustrations were created (e.g. pastels, digital art, watercolors, etc). I see you put that under synopsis but would suggest either having its own illustration section, as you do with background and development, or moving that sentence there. The path between a start class and GA class picture book article is frequently rather short which can make it a rewarding area to edit in. One last thing to look for, is that CSK winners will give a speech, a transcript of which that can frequently be found and incorporated as background information into the article. hope that helps. If I can be of any more assistance let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. I see you're using my reception section for Crown: An Ode to a Fresh Cut. That book is so FANTASTIC.

Oops two more thoughts. I didn't see anything about categories. In general you can just steal some from one of the other pages and change the year as appropriate. Also it would be really appreciated if the pages created get the Children's lit project banner: {{Children's literature project}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. One more question--is there much of a distinction between the CSK "honor" award and "winner" award? I feel like the "honor" is more notable than a nomination, but is it equivalent? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU):Every book published by an African American author that portrays the African American experience is eligible. There's no real "nomination" for this award. Instead the honors are the runner-ups and the medal winner is the winner. These awards were announced today and I have already updated the article with the newly awarded books. Depending on when your edit-a-thon is I might be able to be available virtually to answer questions but also access paywall sources about specific books. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. You've been very helpful. Since we're a university library I think we have access to similar paywalled resources. I might need your help afterwards to add images to pages, if that's something you'd be up for! The edit-a-thon will be on February 5th, 3-6pm MST. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): It looks like I'll probably be around more or less on wiki at that point. Good luck! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scholastic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'm not sure whether you noticed that the nominator agreed with your suggestion to close the review. Please stop by to take care of this when you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I had seen it and thought I had done it - whoops. Thanks for the prod. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you have a quick look at this - I thought it needed to be draftified, had a quick word with the author who agrees (they've never used draft space before) - can you do the needful (unless I can do it manually with the NPP curation toolbar?) Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:  Done - you might want to get the scripts listed under Core which you don't yet have. This includes a move to draft script that is handy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I've installed that draft mover script, will try it next time. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi - another question on draftifying articles. The footballers I nominated to AfD have all been deleted, so I had a brief chat with their creator (User talk:Lubo-Iv-95) about the notability requirements, and the remaining non-notable articles they've created. They say that they understand the requirements now, and are happy for me to go ahead and clean out the rest, but they've asked whether there's any way they could be archived. I think that this is a reasonable suggestion, since it's entirely possible that some of these players may become notable in the future - if their team gets promoted into the next division, or if they do well and get a contract at another team. What would be the thinking on draftifying these - can we have drafts for non-notable people who may become notable at a later date? Is draft space the right place for this, or would they be better in a subpage in the author's user space? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it's a reasonable enough request. If they're move into draft space they can be speedy deleted after six months. If in userspace the timeline can be longer. Personally I would suggest that he manually copy/paste the wikitext articles somewhere of his choosing and that you PROD the articles themselves - makes clearer what happened in the future. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still actively working on building this page up that was deleted earlier last year. I appreciate the suggestion of building a better lead. However, I have put the list of companies that were part of the company back in:

I had barely started to put links and updates on the history of these companies since many are still around today and play a major regional roll in the electric industry. For this reason, I don't see it as just a list, but already starting to be documentation of what was the largest holding company of its kind in this country that was forced to break up. This history which directly impacted General Electric Company and Morgan company has been intentionally removed from U.S. history for a reason as it represents one of the largest legal cases in American history spanning over 25 years in length.

On this basis, i would appreciate it if "the list" stays and that it be seen not merely as a "list". If there is some kind of rule about list on wikipedia on their usage, please direct me on this. Energynet

Hello. Are you aware of any RfCs or policy docs specifically addressing social media statistics (subscriber counts/views/followers/etc.) that you can point me to? Thanks in advance. ^Leviv_ich 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I looked and came up empty when I went looking given the discussion at Talk:Mark Dice. Coming out of that discussion I was genuinely curious how controversial of a change removing this information would be. So I did a batch last week. I received pushback at a couple pages but largely the changes stuck so I did a second round over the last couple days and was planning to see how that worked. I think in the longrun an RfC is mandatory for any number of reasons, including I am but one person, but for now I've been availing myself of BOLD editing to gather information while improving the encyclopedia by not having manipulated statistics served to our readers. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Count me among the pushback, not to the bold editing, but if the RfC was "should we remove all SM stats", I would !vote no. The reason I asked is because I'm curious what the community thinks; I guess we'll both find out.

I would be in favor of some rule about bracketing social media statistics. So, for example, we wouldn't say "2,943,922 subscribers", but we might say "over 100,000/over 1 million/over 10 million subscribers". That would give the reader the sense of proportion while blunting concerns about manipulation. What do you think about that? ^Leviv_ich 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Levivich I think it's better than the status quo. I also think it runs into the issue that we don't know that fake subscribers are evenly distributed and so if someone has over 1 million subscribers and 400k of them are fake (unlikely but not completely implausible) we're giving them a lot more credit than they deserve above someone who has 500k subscribers and 50k of them are fake - the "real" difference is 1/3 rather than 2x. We just don't know.

I'm still mooting the right structure for this to take. For instance I know (based on RS) that this problem effects Twitter followers as much or more than YouTube. So do I/we start there? Twitter followers is also more low stakes because there aren't professional tweeters in the same way that there are professional YouTubers. Or do we start with YouTube for precisely for the reason that the information has a bigger impact on our readers/we're lending more credence to bad information? What's the right wording/structure for the RfC? If you want to watchlist User:Barkeep49/Social Media I will when I have come to some conclusions be drafting language there and would welcome your thinking. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Watching the page. Thanks! Looking forward to your results. ^Leviv_ich 03:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like them, i just thought you would. Everyonegoes2018 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI I think you forgot to sign this RfC closure. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, Thanks. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you have signed up to compete in this year's WikiCup! There are about 2 weeks left before the first round ends – if you haven't yet made your first submission, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep! I hope I'm doing the "talk" pages correctly. Thank you for your note on my talk page. Would you be able to help me understand why the page I wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kujo&direction=next&oldid=423820207) was perceived as promotional? I was intentional about trying to write my first article in a fitting manner, and would find value in learning what made it come off in this manner. Obviously, you don't need to spend your time explaining this to me - but any help is appreciated! Dominicmyles90 (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Dominicmyles90

@Dominicmyles90: You did do the talk page thing correctly. Welcome to Wikipedia! Your question is very fair. Promotion on Wikipedia comes in several forms. There is the clear "buy this" type. But a lot of promotion is more subtle. Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world and our readers trust us and so we need to be careful to not give credibility to things in Wikipedia's name. In general the community has pretty high standards about what companies and products get Wikipedia pages. You can read more here. The specific issues I had were:

Its shoes are catered towards homeowners and lawn care professionals. - targeting who the product is for in Wikipedia's voice

Kujo sells its shoes through its website, as well as on the websites of Amazon, Dicks Sporting Goods, and Gardener's Supply Company. - Advertising where you can buy it

Kujo shoes have been featured as the Amazon Deal of the day, as well as in the The Family Handyman[5] and a WOIO news segment. Again trying to show credibility by saying where they've been featured.

Hope that helps explain my thinking. You should know, that even if those three sentences were removed, the product might not qualify for an article. I'll link again to the place that explains what companies and products need to be eligible for an article. If you have further questions please let me know. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for your response! And for the value you add to Wikipedia! I definitely hear what you are saying. Thank you so much for the helpful explanations!

For what it's worth, this was my first article, and so I modeled it after a similar company page, The North Face. While with the second and third issues, I was attempting to follow the North Face's page structure, ie, the "Stores" and "Rise in popularity" sections respectively, I now see how its not analogous. I hope this gives clarity as to why I spoke to those subjects :)

For the first issue you identify, with targeting who the product is for, the issue is with my second sentence, which is structured identically to the second sentence of The North Face ("Its clothing and equipment lines are catered towards outdoor enthusiasts, climbers, mountaineers, skiers, snowboarders, hikers, and endurance athletes.") I understand, though, these are judgement calls and involve a lot of nuance.

Would it be possible to remove the 2nd and 3rd issue sentences (and the first if you remain in feeling it promotional) and restore the remainder of the article?

Regardless, thank you for helping me understand, and helping me improve how I try to contribute to Wikipedia! Best regards! Dominicmyles90 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Dominicmyles90 to restore the article you would need to show how it had received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The version you last wrote did not show this. Using The North Face as an example, the articles from the New York Times, USA Today, and San Francisco Chronicle are all examples of the kinds of high quality sources talking about a company in significant detail that helps to show it is notable (our word for topics which can have Wikipedia articles written about them). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for all you help Barkeep!! I am a bit surprised that the article lacked notability. There were three references (one each from The_News-Herald_(Ohio) and The_Family_Handyman, and two from WOIO) that I thought established this. In each case the coverage of Kujo was significant (addressing Kujo directly and in detail), the sources reliable (each having Wikipedia pages), secondary, and independent of Kujo. There were also other secondary, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject from smaller sources (eg, Monroe Evening News, a subsidiary of GateHouse_Media). I understand these sources are not the New York Times, but are they not respectable for this purpose? Best regards! Dominicmyles90 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Dominicmyles90 I will admit I did not fully analyze the sourcing after I saw the promotional language. You could certainly restore a version of that article with the promotional language omitted and I will let a different New Page Reviewer look at the article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for your helpfulness. I really appreciate it, and all that you do for Wikipedia. We are lucky to have you.

could give me some leeway for Temple Run: Brave?the article already uses reviews from other details. Both Game Rankings and Metacritic offer reviews from that we consider reliable. and there are some I found outside those sites that can be used for the article. It wont take me more than 24 hours to add them in.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie I checked the sources that were being used and I could but it didn't seem that they were on the list of Video Game reliable sources. Did I miss a couple? Alternatively feel free to restore it with firmer citations to the good reviews from game rankings or metacritic. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

OK thank you. I'll restore it when i have all the reviews are on it. I just didn't want to have an edit war before i do and i'm willing to talk things over.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Right now the assessment backlog at WikiProject Children's literature is getting really full at approximately 1,593 articles. Can you help me tackle the backlog, please?

I'll be doing the February GOCE blitz from the 17th to the 23rd, so I will not be able to assess as I'll be in copyedit mode. :)

Anyway, after alllllllllllllll this talk... Have a happy Valentine's Day! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Please {{ping}} me if you want my attention; I don't check my watchlist very often. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben79487 Happy to help though I will likely only do a marginal amount. It's going to get a bit longer before it gets shorter when the bot finally finishes running. Happy to call this out in the next newsletter. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thanks, Barkeep! All help is needed.

P.S. Was it a tagging bot tagging a ton of articles? – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben79487 It was going through categories and finding articles in those categories without the project banner so a lot got tagged, yes. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

OK! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. It's sad that so many of them turn out to be stubs. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 04:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben79487 most articles everywhere are stubs so not surprising. I would love if we turned up a High importance article or two out of the whole process. But really why I think it important for the tags it to make sure that if anything gets nominated for deletion, project members have a chance to save it. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I reverted a bunch of your edits removing the subscriber count and views from articles on youtubers, and thought it would be rude to do so without leaving an explanation. I sincerely believe that it is important that this information remains on Wikipedia articles, as they are the main metrics used to compare subreddits. While they are unreliable, it is an approximation, so the number we put on Wikipedia is an approximation as well. Yes, it is often outdated, but the infobox specifies the date which the count was last updated. The count for most popular YouTubers is frequently updated by IP users organically, so there is no concern of widespread misinformation going on. And while they can be manipulated, the vast majority of youtube channels do not manipulate these metrics, and the most frequent offenders are music labels. I do not think this is a reason to remove the sub and view count of every youtubers. Also, I do not know of any consensus that they should be removed on all article on youtubers, only of arguments made by some Wikipedians. Emass100 (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a good idea to propose a policy change about including subscriber counts for Wikipedia articles on new media publishers. This issue has been settled as a no almost forever, but I think that it is timely to reconsider the practice. Great job speaking up. Even if it does not pass I like the conversation that you have convened. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks. I have found that despite being a no forever there is a loud contingent that think it's a yes. I am hopeful we'll still end up at a positive consensus. Thanks for taking the time to come here. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I listened to the people who took down Occupational Health Science. The journal began in 2017. In early 2018, I tried to start a Wikiepedia entry for the journal. It was taken down as not notable enough. I waited a year to try again. I thought the journal would pass the notability test when two volumes would be published and a third volume would be arriving.

The journal meets the criterion "reliable sources to be influential in its subject area," the subject area being occupational health. The editor, Robert Sinclair, is an important figure in the field of job stress (teachers, soldiers) as are the associate editors. The journal is published by a reputable publishing company, Springer. OHES published a paper by Charlotte Fritz, an influential researcher in the area of the impact of work on sleep. The journal published work by Charlotte Fritz and Leslie Hammer on stress in correctional officers. Hammer is an important researcher on interventions to reduce ob stress in order to to improve worker health and well-being. It has published Kyle Page on work-family family conflict.

I would appreciate it if you would restore the journal. Iss246 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 You have been working at this over a long period of time and so I can understand your frustration that has built. There is a concept on Wikipedia which says notability is not inherited. So the fact that Sinclair is an important figure and it's by a reputable company doesn't help establish its own notability. You are saying that The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. - these reliable sources would have to be journal articles or other secondary sources independent of the Occupational Health Service saying it's influential. Do you have sources/links which show this? That would help to building an article that can be restored and kept restored. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I know about notability not being inherited. That is why I was accepted the taking down of the entry one year ago. But now the journal has a record of publishing two volumes and is in the process of publishing a third volume. The journal has a record of publishing papers relevant to the field of occupational health. A learned society, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, considers the journal a reputable source. On those grounds you should restore the journal. Iss246 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 You need independent sourcing that says it is influential - the society which sponsors it can't just say it. Do you have any kind of secondary sources that talk about the journal? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I will look for secondary sources.Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I found additional information bearing on notability. Bear in mind that there is a time lag between when usage statistics become available and the journal's current publication year. Although the journal is in its third year, the publisher recently made available usage statistics for the first year of Occupational Health Science: https://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1647537/application/pdf/41542_Journal+Metrics_2017_flyer.pdf. The statistics suggest that the journal is notable, and should be represented on Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 that is promising but I don't think it yet satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNAL. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, please explain to me what would satisfy criterion 1. What evidence would confirm for you that criterion 1 is satisfied? Iss246 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I see you are busy. Please respond after February 22. Iss246 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 Sorry for the slow response - I have been otherwise preoccupied. Happened to be on when this new message came in. Scroll down a bit at WP:NJOURNAL and you'll see examples and details on how all the criteria can be met. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi - as promised, I've had a think about this, and have given some feedback below. As I've said before, the process was a tremendous learning experience, and I appreciate all the time you spent taking me through it.

At the beginning, when you asked me to think about where I was strong, and where I felt I needed to develop. In my teacher training, the importance of self-reflection was drilled into us, and this has reminded me of how useful it can be. Asking me to be specific about areas of strength and weakness to another person made me sit down and do some thinking about my editing so far, but it also forced me to engage actively with the NPP guidelines, comparing my current experience against the content - this was an effective way to make sure that I actually read and thought about them properly.

Early on in the course, you asked me to look at articles and just tell you what I would do with them, rather than actually making any changes. This is a good idea, as I didn't have to actually make changes to someone else's work, I just tell you what I thought. This is a safe way that someone can make be honest about their thought processes without fear that making a mistake will cause disruption or annoy another editor.

Another thing that was a big feature of my teach training was the importance of modelling to students - doing the thing that you expect them to do, so they can watch and learn. If anything is lacking from this course, it's probably that - it might help develop a trainee's confidence quickly in the opening stages if they were able to 'watch' you patrol a few new articles. You could patrol a page, and provide the trainee with a link to the relevant point in its history showing when you first looked at it; you could then explain your thinking as you navigated the flowchart, and invite them to look through the next few steps in its history to see the steps you took, and the outcome at the end of the patrolling process. Obviously, if the result was a CSD, the trainee would have to look at it fairly quickly, but it might be possible to coordinate the timings - you could say when you would have time to do it, and the trainee could confirm that they will be online at that point. Using IRC might even allow you to do this live with the student; obviously though, this would be an additional time burden on the trainer, and might be difficult where time zones aren't well-aligned.

This isn't directly related to this course, but it would have helped me avoid stumbling over the confusion between notability and importance/significance. The NPP flowchart is a straightforward image - it's tremendously useful, but I think it could be further enhanced by embedding links within it to take readers directly to pages that would help inform thei decisions, such as relevant CSD criteria, WP:SIGNIF etc. I used to use Visio at work for making flowcharts, and I seem to recall that this is possible - if you think this would be a good idea, I might reach out to Insertcleverphrasehere to discuss it - I'd be interested in doing some work on it.

I hope this is useful; if there's ever anything I can do to help with this, please let me know. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing I meant to mention to you - I don't think that we touched on using 'Rater' anywhere in the course. It's something I'm planning to read up on - I've only tried it once, and it produced a talkpage banner that had a big red 'Don't use this banner' sign on it so I reverted myself - but maybe it should be included in the course. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit for the time you took to write that up - it's more detailed than I expected. It's truly appreciated. The idea of modeling is a good one - I will contemplate how to incorporate that for when I have another NPP school editor. Rater isn't strictly necessary for NPP but can be useful. If you have questions about it know I would be happy to lend help. As for the flowchart I actually played around with doing a JS version that could be built into Wikipedia itself - this could obviously handle the links as well. But I think having more links would be useful in the chart for sure. I would definitely reach out to ICPH. I watchlist his talk page so if you do I'll definitely see the discussion and chime in if I have anything useful to add. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Rough Patch (book) 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, quick question - see Association of Black Humanists. This is a recently created page, but it's actually material copied over from this page, which is now a redirect. The organisation has had its name changed, so the title is probably right, but wouldn't this normally be done by a page move (in order to retain the history and talk page history)? What's the best thing to do - should I just do the page move myself? (Not something I've done much of, but I could probably figure it out). GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit Good question. In most cases if it's been a c&p move you can just place Template:histmerge on the new page and put a twinkle warning about cut and paste moves on the user's talk page who did it. Sometimes the move should be undone altogether and the user directed to do a formal move request because the change of title is/will be contentious. And still other times the move is just wrong and should be undone and left at that. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I had a look and can see what you've done, I'll remember that for next time. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hello Lighthouse 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 Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Recently, I created a page for actor, Jake Manley and just as I was done with adding more references, I noticed that you merged his page to the television series. Can you please provide me a reason why that action was taken? Thanks. Elainasla (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla I would be happy to. The notability guideline use for actors requires that an actor has, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Since his only major role so far is in The Order, and that hasn't yet been released he does not appear to be individually notable. Because the TV show itself does seem to be notable I redirected his article there. Hope that makes sense. If you have more questions please don't hesitate to ask. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I understand that but the actor has already had many recurring roles in various television shows. Sure, his first major role is The Order, but he has had roles in other films as well. What do you think is the best course of action for now? Do I still keep updating his page or is it all going to waste? Elainasla (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla I see you've updated his page with some of his other roles. I saw those roles before I redirected the first time. His work on iZombie comes closest but doesn't actually qualify as the significant role we'd be looking for. My recommendation is to wait until after the show premiers on Netflix. If he gets profiled from reliable sources that could make things different. As he gets more acting work he could become notable and your work will be there for you or another editor to improve. So your effort has not been wasted. However, for now he doesn't yet meet the criteria. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, no worries. But I have one last question to ask, if that's fine with you. A while ago, I created the page for the actor Vandit Bhatt and I thought it would be a great example to bring this up to you. The actor, like Manley has not been in a major role on a television series yet. Though, it is interesting to point the differences here. His page was reviewed by someone else and it was deemed fine. Why is Vandit's page an exception to the above Wikipedia rule that you highlighted previously? I would love to hear your thoughts on that. Elainasla (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla I don't know exactly what that reviewer saw. Without looking too deepl two things jump out: 1 he had multiple recurring roles and film work. This combination seems to have been what got him to have multiple significant roles. Also for Manley the show he's starring in hasn't even come out yet so that doesn't help. It's one reason I said things might change after it debuts. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, would you be willing to teach me about the policys and how to use the user right so I can help out more on Wikipedia? A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 18:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane I see you do some counter vandalism. Tell me a bit more about what interests you in NPP. Also I noticed you you recently changed the color scheme on your User Talk page. You might want to have a glance at Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts since it does present some accessibility challenges at the moment and you might run across users for whom this makes it harder to communicate when doing both CV and NPP. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What interest me most about NPP is it's another way for me to help out on Wikipedia. I've tried to create some articles. (Both are start class) But I didn't really enjoy it. Fighting vandalism its simple, apart from all the policies of course.

Also I will look into Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts and change my talkpage accordingly A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane Would be happy to have you. You should know tha new page patrol and countervandalism frequently appeal to different people - I for instance am not super into CV, but love NPP, while I know users who are the exact opposite. This is similar to how content creation isn't for everyone. I just had my first successful graduate (who set a high bar) and based on that experience I'm working on putting together the criteria that'll help guide us. When I'm happy with that, I'll setup a space for us to work in soon and ping you there so we can get started. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome thank you, looking forward to it A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane See User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/A 10 fireplane. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

...wasn't even aware of the hidden ping mechanic! :p - I have been wondering about the notability of these college softball clubs, especially if only bare bones-sourced to primary sources... but since the applicable wikiproject has a stated goal of creating an article for every single one, and no one seems to have seen fit to make a stink about it, I assume it's what we are going with for now. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Elmidae Glad I could teach you something - super handy at times :). WP:NSPORT says teams are based on GNG and I have a hard time believing that any D1 team wouldn't be able to meet GNG but obviously I have a WP:NSEASON slant to how the pages should be constructed even though it's technically not the guideline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I was just passing by and wondered if you realised that you have four archive pages, but that all your current talk archives are being moved over to User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/2, not User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/4, which seems a bit odd? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thanks. I had noticed this too a while back and figured out it had to do with when I changed the size of the archive pages - the bot went back to make the previous ones larger. Haven't been sure of a good way to fix this and so it's been proceeding on for the time being. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions for Alan Dershowitz; I've already incorporated many of them into the article. I also nominated Goucher College a few weeks ago. Would you be willing to review this one, too? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 Glad you found that helpful. I have a few articles that are at the top of my GA to-do list so I'm not sure I'll be able to get to Goucher anytime soon. My very quick read of the article raises far fewer red flags than what I saw at Dershowitz. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear all. Recently, our community lost a dedicated user, Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of Abelmoschus Esculentus' scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, Thanks for the talkpage notice. I will be updating. Just a suggestion if you ever send this out again not to use the phrase "lost a dedicated user" as it makes it seem like the user died - which I knew not to be true in this case and yet still thought it for a moment. Maybe something like "A dedicated user, Barkeep49, has chosen to step back from Wikipedia" or if they were indeffed "A longtime user, Barkeep49, will no longer be editing". Just a thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Will do, thanks for the note --DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 So the script I was using was the SATG. A feature request I would have is to generate NCORP specific tables rather than just GNG - the big difference being the secondary sources component. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I have a lot on my plate currently, but off-wiki and on, and haven't even started looking at improving AE's scripts, but when I do I'll try to remember this. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 Totally understand. Thanks for putting it on the "someday" list which is all I was really hoping for :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This was student work from a class on 20th Century Asian American artists given 2017. I was embedded in the class as a librarian and spent a lot of time speaking about the importance for secondary sources to the students who were to be engaged in a Wikipedia assignment. Some students understand better than others, especially where there may be a language barrier. Fast forward to last week, I am contacted by a former student who notices that she never successfully moved her work from her sandbox to the articles space. I agreed to do it for her, although I noticed the article needed work. I added both a note and a template that 1.) this was student work 2.) that it used almost all primary references and thereby needed improvement. I had plans to go back an update it myself. Sadly, it looks as if your marking it for deletion expedited its removal. Unlike some people I don't check in to Wikipedia everyday, otherwise I would have said something immediately. The New York Artists Equity Association is notable and is connected with Yasuo Kuniyoshi who was a founding member and first president of the association. Chuzo Tamotzu was also a founding member. The student work may have been poor but the article itself did not deserve to be taken down based on other standards. It needed to be built upon, IMO. I believe you suspected that it was the work of the NYEA itself, but it wasn't. I really don't have the time right now to rewrite an article. Finding a few addition secondary sources would have been so much easier. Oh well --Librarianhelen (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Librarianhelen I certainly understand your thinking that having a starting point is easier than working from scratch. You should know that the reason the article was deleted was that it was nearly entirely copied from two different pages on the New York Artist Equity Association's website. Not even a bad paraphrase, a direct copy. This is why it was speedily deleted and not deleted after a discussion. Hope that helps explain what happened, some. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I will use it as an example of what NOT to do in future classes. I was unaware, but am not completely surprised about the plagiarism. Should have checked it out first.--Librarianhelen (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Bradv submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Barkeep49 to be Editor of the Week for his hard work in creating content in the area of children's literature, and for his valuable work at new page patrol (NPP). He has at least 7 good articles and 6 DYKs, and is currently working on a featured list candidate. He regularly writes new articles for award-winning authors and their works, and improves countless others. Barkeep49 is a prolific new page patroller, and even has taken a few other patrollers under his wing to teach them the ropes. With over 10,000 edits and nearly a year of consistently active editing, Barkeep49 has proven himself to be a strong asset to the Wikipedia community. As a trainer via the NPP school he is fantastically supportive and responsive. This nomination was seconded by User:L235 and User:Girth Summit.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature

Barkeep49

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 3, 2019

Creates content in the area of children's literature. 7 GA's and 6 DYKs and is striving toward on a featured list candidate. Writes new articles for award-winning authors and their works and improves countless others. A prolific and supportive new page patroller and teacher. Over 10,000 edits and active editing have proven him as a strong asset to the Wikipedia community.

Recognized for

Organizing info in articles related to young-adult literature

Notable work(s)

Ecclesia Athletic Association and The Hate U Give

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bradv, L235 and Girth Summit. I really appreciate that you thought about me for this honor. I have enjoyed working with you, and others, on Wikipedia and look forward to continuing to do good work myself, as well as finding times to work together with you all in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations - this is well-deserved! GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations barkeep49 – don't ever stop. :) Bradv🍁 18:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Joining the choir, and thank you for an extremely uplifting message on my talk today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Well-deserved indeed! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Buster7 Thanks for the box and your work on implementing this. I appreciate the recognition and your efforts. Question: who decides the Notable works? I'm pleased with what I've done in NPP school but it feels odd to not have any of the content I've written listed in the box. If it matters, the two notable works I self identify as my best are Ecclesia Athletic Association and The Hate U Give. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Buster7: Thanks for updating. It's much appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wintz320 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Current of the Fox - Kimberly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, wondering why the article from the Post Crescent (reliable, independent from subject of development) has been deemed "insignificant coverage?" Thanks in advance.

Wintz320 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wintz320 Thanks for your question. Most apartment buildings will not ever meet our standard of what can have an article (what we call notability). The reason for this is that interest in them will either be a form of advertising or the coverage/audience will be of local interest. In this case it appears to be of local interest/importance but not the kind of coverage that would support having a Wikipedia article. For more on this see WP:NBUILD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Really Thankful to you for your review of my Article. Muhammad.naqash.sakhawat.hussain (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49!

I noticed your revisions. I noticed that you deleted the Advisory Board list, stating that it is not a directory. Is there a format I could use that would allow me to include (some of) those names? Using another Think Tank as a general prototype, I noticed that the Hoover Institution (URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution) lists many names in a very similar format.

I appreciate your assistance in getting this page to meet the standards of integrity for Wikipedia.

Thank you Jjeifa (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Jjeifa Actually someone else had declined and had deleted, due to copyright issues, the article when it was in Draft. I scaled back the article substantially, as well as removed some more copyright problems (you can find more information about how to avoid such problems on your talk page). So the article has been "approved" (someone else could nominate it for deletion but that's not likely). As for the fact that the Hoover Institution does it, we have a saying that "other stuff exists" and so it would be my thinking it should maybe be removed from that article rather than kept in both places. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49,

Would you be able to accept the request to review the page for the actor, Adwin Brown? If you can let me know, if that's fine with you, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Elainasla (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla In general I read the criteria for actors to be reoccurring roles on TV don't establish notability so I would be unlikely to mark that actor as reviewed. However, I am going to let another new page patroller do the form evaluation of that article as maybe they will see things differently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. Have a nice day! Elainasla (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49,

     Thank you for accepting my article Patiala Babes i will sure make to improve this article more  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumancutie (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)