Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 20 February 2021

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Joc Pederson

Addressed the changes you noted, though I agree that it would be best to wait until the signing with the Cubs is official before promoting to GA status. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Signing is official now. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It was already on my todo list for early this coming week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes responded to. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about the highlights (see review for discussion). I think they should all stay in. I don't think this is a dispute that should keep the article from reaching GA status, however. I did make the other changes you noted, like adding in the part about Pederson wanting more playing time and including a quote from the Players' Tribune article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and sorry for all the disputes! I mention highlights in the careers of shorter-tenured players a lot, which is why I was so keen on keeping the information in. However, I wanted you to know that I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize and hopefully I have no need to apologize. I appreciate the time you take to create articles :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

Hey Barkeep49,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- Vermont (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RE: Kyle Card

Hello! Thank you for the clarification on Kyle Card. Would you be able to give any pointers about what parts are too promotional, or any sources I should remove when rewriting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelwvideo (talk • contribs) 09:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Michaelwvideo: awards that have no Wiki articles almost always seem more promotional than beneficial. Misplaced Pages articles are written using someone's last name rather than first name to refer to them (e.g. Card moved back to Japan in 2011 to pursue an acting career...). The first name format contributes to a more informal/promotional feel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you very much for that information. I've edited the piece along those lines. Let me know if you think it requires further work.

CSD A7s

Hi, as you asked for ;-) -> Rituraj_Kishore_Sinha&diff=1005776496&oldid=1005775974 (only one example, see several ones every day like this) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminder sent. I really am happy to keep doing these as striking the right balance between being a welcoming place for newcomers and protecting the encyclopedia is very important to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your close

I'm confused. You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khin Thiri Thet Mon (businesswomen) saying the article was redirected and the nomination withdrawn, but the article is still there and tagged with an AfD notice at Khin Thiri Thet Mon. Fences&Windows 10:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) this is the AFD - the businesswomen afd was closed because the creator agreed with my redirecting while we hashed it out only to restore it after the AFD was closed. CUPIDICAE💕 11:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae summarizes the events correctly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Fences&Windows 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Eldridge Broussard

Hello, Barkeep49. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Eldridge Broussard, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. Bot0612 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

On WP:ENT

Hello captain, what are your thoughts on WP:ENT to be specific on #2 which insinuates an entertainer might be notable if they possess a “cult following” is there a specific number to this effect? Because I believe subjective statements as such does the community a huge disservice as it is open to multiple interpretations? What do you think? Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007:, defining a cult following is always going to be difficult. No there is no number attached. I think this shows the development of notability with Westerners in mind because cult following plays out differently in a global context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fabulous four

Hi there. I see you closed this afd as delete. Please note the article was moved to Fab four (cricket) during the discussion, so further deletions are needed to mop this up. Thanks. _wjemather 22:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,@Wjemather. I did notice that (which is why I worded my close as I did) but XfD closer didn't give me any warnings like it normally does for page moves so I didn't give it furhter thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. _wjemather 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD/Chronic Tacos

Concerning Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chronic Tacos, you didn't elaborate any reason as to why consensus was to "Keep". You just closed it as keep. I have a suspicion that you just counted votes and not actually read the reasoning behind them. Jerm (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd be concerned (assume good faith not-withstanding) but I did read the entire discussion. I, for instance, did not weigh Ally's comment as a keep because it was a procedural note rather than a substantive comment on the article. Cunard presented an extensive list of sources, as they tend to do when I see them at AfD. In this particular AfD some editors disagreed with their assessment, which is also common when Cunard participates, but there were enough editors who agreed with the assessment in this case to justify a keep consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I and those who supported deletion actually assessed these sources and provided multiple guidelines as to why the information in those sources were not adequate enough to have the article meet notability, while those who preferred to keep the article based on the sources did not assess them but took Cunard's reasoning at face-value. That is why their keep reasoning was based really on the one guideline, WP:N. We are talking about an organization/business meaning it falls under WP:ORG guidelines. I don't remember anywhere in WP:N stating it's superior to all other notable guidelines. Jerm (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed this topic falls under WP:NCORP. I'm sorry that your position didn't attract a consensus of editors in this case but there we have it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The number of votes do not determine who's right or wrong, it's those who provide the most accurate arguments based on the guidelines. Jerm (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not a vote and sometimes participation will be discounted - that's why I gave you the example of Ally. Other times, participation will be weighted, giving it more than normal weight or less than normal weight, by their adherence, or not, to policies and guidelines. However, if both sides are suggesting talking about the same guideline, in this NCORP, but have an honest disagreement in judgement over whether sources satisfy its criteria, the side that says "no it doesn't" does not automatically have a stronger claim. I have certainly been on the "I think this doesn't meet NCORP" while it gets closed keep side and it doesn't feel great. My job, as a closer, remains to determine the consensus of the discussion, weighting appropriately by policies and guidelines, which I have done in this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on this. Yes, Cunard did provide a bunch of sources *but* he did *not* evaluate them against NCORP but against GNG. This is the key part of the argument presented by myself and others. As you are aware, the appropriate guideline in this case is NCORP but you do not appear to have been weighed this vital part of the argument to Keep/Delete in your close. All bar one of the Keep !votes made no comment on NCORP and merely referred to GNG. Please take another look. HighKing 12:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

With respect, when I see Cunard comment on a NCORP AfD you nearly always do as well but in the opposite way. You are often able to carry the day with your arguments. I tend to be pretty cautious about just wiping away editor's participation as insufficient. But I will, out of respect, give the AfD another read later today when I have some time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't ask for anything more, thanks. HighKing 21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So in re-reading the discussion there was a new editor who was blocked and also another editor or two who was voting keep more on procedural rather than substantive grounds. As such I have changed the close to no consensus on merits. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. HighKing 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, for the same reasons as above/before, can you review your close at Games Research Inc, another involving Cunard-research where he didn't apply NCORP guidelines and everyone other Keep !voter just went +1 for Cunard and another went to far as to dismiss NCORP. Thank you. HighKing 21:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@HighKing:, Cunard ,in what is a first for the AfDs I've closed, actually specifically noted what he saw as significant coverage. Multiple other editors specifically cited his research, in indeed those specific sources. I think you know that I care a good deal about the relationship between SNGs and GNG. But that participant rejecting NCORP is interesting but only partially relevant to the broader consensus that available sources do satisfy NCORP, which was full well how I evaluated the AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There's significant coverage related to GNG (and other) requirements and significant coverage related to NCORP requirements. Seeing as how Cunard only refers to GNG (and quotes the "significant coverage" line from the GNG), and neither Cunard nor a single other Keep !voter even mentions NCORP (except to deny it's relevance), you can understand why I have asked for you to take another look. I cannot find any basis for you saying that the "broader consensus" was that "the sources satisfy NCORP". I provided a detailed rebuttal of the top 3 "significant" sources - only Hobit argued and that argument ended with the dismissal of NCORP relevancy. P.S. I'm not doubting your caring about the GNG/SNG relationship. HighKing 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So you're arguing that because Cunard left out the word secondary that he's making no claim to notability under NCORP? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That quote comes from WP:SIGCOV. I'm simply pointing out that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest any of the Keep !voters looked at the sources, and NCORP, and the only one that did said NCORP wasn't even relevant. Are you suggesting the word "secondary" was "accidentally" left out and that you're sure that Cunard was examining the sources under the NCORP guidelines? If that's your position, fair enough, I don't see it myself and that is the reason why I've asked here. I don't understand your decision and it won't make future AfDs any easier if you've half the editors arguing on the basis of GNG and the other relying on NCORP. HighKing 21:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, for me, NCORP is just the strictest application possible of the GNG. SIGCOV says significant coverage in reliable independent sources while ORGCRIT says significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Cunard added multiple, which for me, was him clearly referencing NCORP. I've done alright for myself on enwiki in part because I'm willing to make sure that I don't call a guideline a policy and because I can rattle off the difference between SIGCOV and ORGCRIT off the top of my head (but then still go and double check it before I press to submit). However, I still slip up with my words from time to time and know that others don't make as much effort as I do to be precise. I'm not willing, in the context of a consensus forming discussion, to throw out their participation when a good faith reading can be had that doesn't require that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cunard added multiple? Lol. When have you ever known Cunard to add anything *other* than multiple? This isn't anything significant - on multiple occasions in the past, editors (including me) have complained to Cunard about "too many sources" at AfDs. Anyway, not sure I buy that reasoning either. SIGCOV specifically requests multiple sources too - There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. For me, it is a stretch to suggest that Cunard was referencing NCORP/CORPDEPTH because he added multiple sources given the above. I suppose it demotivating/disheartening when there doesn't appear that any consideration was given to my !vote pointing out that the main issue was that the "significant" sources identified by Cunard actually all failed ORGIND. Just seems from where I'm sitting that the non-Keep !votes weren't given the same shake of the stick and although there were less of them, I thought their arguments had a lot of merit. You can probably appreciate I'm not here trying to hound you for whatever. We've each had our say, I'm happy to leave it and move on. Plenty more articles at AfD. I only edit at NCORP-related AfDs so I'm probably too picky about interpreting the guidelines and sometimes lose sight of the wood for the trees. Thanks for the detailed responses. HighKing 23:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTABILITY Clearly states it has to pass EITHER the General Notability Guideline OR one of the subject specific guidelines, it has never had to pass both despite years of people getting confused and arguing about this. It clearly passed the GNG. All those saying delete said so because of SSG, ignoring the fact that it passed the GNG so it didn't matter. Dream Focus 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strange you'd jump in to make that comment given that you're fully aware of the RfC at the WP:N Talk Page where this paragraph was discussed, etc. HighKing 21:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Kid

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New Kid 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hugh Mesibov

That was weird. When I ran it, it gave me like a 72 or 73%, and when I looked at the similarities, the "Life" section was almost all highlighted. Not sure what happened. Ran it again just now, and yeah, I wouldn't have tagged it. Sorry. Onel5969 23:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I saw you had tagged it so I really spent a fair amount of time look and even was like "is this really close paraphrasing". No worries on this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Operativo Alfil

Hello Barkeep49. I am Malvinero10 and I mainly active in eswiki. Yes. The text deleted here is a literal translation from this article (from the part "Alistamiento de las unidades" to "Para el 02 AGO de 1991, la misión del GT 88.1 estaba finalizada"). Also, the article has irrelevant informations.

I have removed other copys in other articles (see my recent edits). Regards, Malvinero10 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Malvinero10. I am going to leave it for an admin who speaks Spanish and can verify the COPYVIO as Google Translate was not helpful enough. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Malvinero10 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

7 Minutes A7

7 Minutes for a CSD A7 :) PS: Thanks for noticing me yesterday about the Copyvio.CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I really messed this up. Help.

Hi. There was a cut and paste, which also created a couple of redirects. I attempted to fix it, but since I can't delete redirects, I simply screwed it up worse. The redirects are Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, ]. The original article was Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. Hopefully you don't waste much time fixing my screw-up, but thanks in advance. Onel5969 05:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So I saw this last night Onel5969 and thought "This seems like a problem better faced in the morning." As I now look into it I'm not seeing any issues. The two Misplaced Pages space redirects have been deleted and Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union is pointing to Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. So it looks like all is right? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Props to Polyamorph who it looks like cleaned up my mess. Yes, it's all good now. Onel5969 16:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi both, I came across this in the newsfeed, it was messy :) The only problem with my fix is I had to first move (without leaving a redirect) Presidium of the Supreme Soviet to Draft:Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, given that it only contained two redirects to the wikipedia-space article I thought this would be a non-controversial move. So barkeep, if you wanted to delete Draft:Presidium of the Supreme Soviet as final cleanup that would be cool. Otherwise it will get deleted in 6 months anyway...Polyamorph (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

1 hour blocks

I've since reached a higher level of understanding via discussions with various kind and patient colleagues. :D —valereee (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:, I know which is why I think it only needs to be noted in a passing comment rather than somewhere formally :). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspected that might be the case, which is why I didn't post to the proposed decision talk lol! :) —valereee (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Rip wikipedia notability and Terms

Hi I feel Sad today when I see your wiki admins are getting paid for those articles who are not notable and who have done anti national works if you think to become a software developer or app is notable than everyone is notable have a look on Zeyan Shafiq this guy pay admins to get page up and start getting verified on social media (Very sad) and when someone talk about it they automatically get banned 😆😆😆 RIP notability and wikipedia. K hope you will check this and if you want us to trust wikipedia have a close look and see about it. Pibotindia (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)