Misplaced Pages

User talk:Barkeep49: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:22, 10 December 2024 editBarkeep49 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators41,397 edits →I noticed your comment about the committee getting more appeals in the past than it does now: Reply to SFRTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:45, 20 January 2025 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers383,061 edits →January music: GA 
(143 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
|maxarchsize=400000}} |maxarchsize=400000}}


== November music == == January music ==
{{User QAIbox {{User QAIbox
| image = Apple tree in field, detail, Ehrenbach.jpg | image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8 | image_upright = 1.3
| bold = ] · ] · ] | bold = ] · ] · ]
}} }}
greetings from a trip -- ] (]) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Happy new year 2025, opened with ] that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). -- ] (]) 16:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


back home: what do you think about ]? --] (]) 23:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Now: ], my ] 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. ] will be my story tomorrow. --] (]) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:As someone who knows little about music and especially classical music, I can appreciate how difficult some of his pieces are to play. Yourself? Best, ] (]) 18:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:: (I didn't mean the music - sadly: of course not - but how a user new to a certain topic that I'm not supposed to mention is treated. I was new to it in 2012.) - I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang ] at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --] (]) 19:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


I managed a few more pics and the first precious ;) - If you have a few seconds please look into the ''Sacrifice'' trailer, see her speak ... --] (]) 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== '']'' arbitration case opened ==


My ] is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Great collaboration, Storye book found the pic, MONTENSEM wrote the lead after adding detail, and I feel you know a lot about the person after reading just that. (No discussion about an infobox, as for an estimated 95% of composers' articles. They have become normal, ], did you know?) --] (]) 09:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:SilverLocust@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260341982 -->


Today we have the next composer of the kind, mentioned ] with two others. When I saw the TFP of ], however, I was inclined to help him to more accessibily but dropped it when I looked at the article history. I try to avoid conflict. I only step in when someone ''new'' to the strangest "contentious topic" I have encountered on WP gets treated as a warrior. I wonder what could stop that, - assuming good faith should be the first approach, no? --] (]) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
==Invitation to provide feedback==
Hello talk page watchers. Inspired by Worm That Turned's ] where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback.I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my ''''''. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, ] (]) 16:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


:Good faith is so often the key to avoiding and diffusing conflict. But it's understandable why in moments it doesn't happen. Best, ] (]) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:1.5 stars, spammed my watchlist with feedback requests. ] (]) 16:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I thought about doing it via MMS rather than manually but my guess is that would have also spammed it. Sorry for the flood on your watchlist but knowing how big your watchlist is it'll be knocked off the visible top in like the next hour. Best, ] (]) 16:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC) :: Today's focus is another composer because he would have been 90 today, ]. There was a discussion in 2019, still on the talk, in case of interest in the study of good faith. --] (]) 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's already halfway down, so it shouldn't be much longer. Busy day, can tell everyone is back at work after the long holiday weekend. ] (]) 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC) :: I wrote the article about his opera, and smiled when quoting from it "We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!" ;) --] (]) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Today a violinist from Turkey, ], whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --] (]) 21:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
: I have a positive opinion of you. I'm not sure why. It's just a general feeling of satisfaction when I see your username cross my watchlist. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:: ... and today, ], ], in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author ] (who also wrote ]). --] (]) 18:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Jehochman}}, it's because it feels like your drink is about to arrive ;) &spades;]&spades; ] 03:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good admin; would support again. Communication makes thought processes transparent, and is thorough without being exhaustive or tedious. Reasonable person, strong work ethic. Downsides: despite promising "Bark" substring, dog puns difficult and largely unsuccessful. ] (]) 13:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC) :: Today I have ] (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with ] who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks Folly. I appreciate the kind words. Best, ] (]) 20:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback from Buidhe == === Precious anniversary ===
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}}
--] (]) 08:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:I've mentioned this before but precious was hugely important to me as an editor and as part of this community. I appreciate the work you do in giving it out (and commemorating it). Best, ] (]) 15:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
#Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing — although I don't really follow admin stuff too much, I do believe that you are a net positive as admin and therefore hope you do not resign
:: Thank you! I love to do it. While I slowed down in giving, the daily routine of remembering things to be thankful for is an uplifting exercise ;) - Today, my first objective was to upgrade ] that I brought to the Main page (in poor shape, but I was too tired yesterday), - it's nominated for GA now. My story today. I'll make a story for ], although my first article this year is already off the Main page. - The second was to help finding a FA suitable for TFA on IWD. The third will be to turn to today's article, another recent death. Then a round of telling others the same things, and then I'll probably be too tired to give the first precious of the year. --] (]) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
#Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently — although I am skeptical of the firewall that arbcom tries to place between conduct and content issues, if you are going to wade into content issues (such as whether some country has a "right to exist" or not) it's important to be informed about the content in question—see ] where I hope you took into consideration the criticism of the assumption you made going in
:::Well there is no deadline for telling someone they're precious, but it certainly remains appreciated by me and a highlight of my wiki creer. That other stuff is good too - all . On a different note I've read through the Rimsky-Korsakov RfC and am considering doing a close (if I do I'll need to read it through at least once more entirely). Best, ] (]) 23:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
#(Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep
:::: Well, I don't care how that will be closed, seriously. --] (]) 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
#(Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know
:::: The choreographer is my story today, although her all-too-brief on the Main page was on 5 January. Her work mentioned is based on ]. I wonder if you are aware that one of the key debates of the infoboxes arbcase is now in ] (there were two earlier), - for background or entertainment, as you like it. It contains the key argument against an infobox (at least as I see it): "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article." - I think the discussion remained civil, btw. --] (]) 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
#:Thanks {{u|Buidhe}} for the feedback. To your second point I do take it seriously and it's why I started by asking questions while also being transparent about my thinking behind it and then listening seriously to the answers. So I agree with your point and will endeavor to do it even better in the future. Best, ] (]) 16:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: ] today who directed lasting performances --] (]) 21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Deletion review for ] ==
== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
An editor has asked for ] of ]. 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.<!-- Template:DRV notice -->


also: ], ], ], ].
] from the past month (November 2024).


]


] (]) 05:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
] '''CheckUser changes'''
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


== SPI ==
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


Hi Barkeep, you closed this thread/report at SPI ] with no action. Was that because it was filed by a sock account or because you determined Boksi and BePrepared were not sock accounts?
] '''Technical news'''
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.


Thank you, ] (]) 23:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


:@] I only considered the BilledMammal element of that filing substantively and closed the rest of it on "it was filed by a sock" grounds. You can see at the SPI below it I do substantively consider BePrepared (and there is a new SPI open about them as well). ] (]) 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
----
::I see, thank you.
{{center|{{flatlist|
::<s>Do you think the concerns and evidence I presented warrant an SPI filing for Boksi?</s> ] (]) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Nevermind for now, there's not much to go on in what I added alone. I do think they are a likely sock however, perhaps I'll gather more info and file an SPI another time. ] (]) 06:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== Feedback from RoySmith == == Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
My apologies for blowing off the 4 question format, but I just want to say that when you were on arbcom, you always struck me as one of the few adults in the room. I get why you left, but I hope you'll go back once you've got the U4C thing out of your system. ] ] 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for your feedback Roy. {{tqq|got the U4C thing out of your system}} is an amusing way to hear that work of mine described, though I do appreciate what I perceive as the background thought: the U4C is a distraction from the core work we do on enwiki. Making that statement true is a major reason I've done this work for closing in on 4 years now. So I'm not sure I'm going to ever get it out of my system but I hope to reach a point where I feel like I will have done what I set out to do. I am also really enjoying not having the constraints of being an Arb - for instance I've once again had headspace to do content work when I've had the time and I ''love'' doing content work. Producing high quality content is why we're all here and so returning to those roots is really important to me. However, I did take satisfaction in the work I did as an arb and there are things about that work I miss, so I could see myself standing for election again someday. Best, ] (]) 18:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback from Clovermoss ==

#Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing
#Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently
#(Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep
#(Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know
* I think barkeep should do whatever they feel like doing and I trust them. ] ] 21:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks <s>Clever</s>Clover. Best, ] (]) 20:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback from Floq ==

*Pros
**I think we tend to generally agree on the important things, and when we do disagree, you're wrong in reasonable, thoughtful ways. :)
**Protecting enwiki from U4C or C4C or U4U or whatever the hell it is.
*Cons
**I'm not on your list of people who could recall you?? That hurts.
**Your automatic feedback form autofills the section as "Feedback from Barkeep49" unless you remember to change it.
*Overall score
**95% (98% if you add me to the recall list)
--] (]) 22:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks Floq for the feedback. I have no idea why I didn't include you on this list. I am pleased to have this be an exception to me being wrong in a thoughtful way. Best, ] (]) 23:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback from Risker ==

I think Clovermoss has it right: keep doing what you're doing, as long as you're getting a level of satisfaction from doing it. I'm happy to see you taking your extensive experience from English Misplaced Pages to a global level, and I hope that you bring back what you learn from working with global teams to share here on Enwiki. I think our project benefits greatly from this kind of diverse perspective and, as you are a good communicator, there's a reasonable hope that such messages will sink in to a few more people. We do tend to be quite insular on this project, although we'll make exceptions for Commons and Wikidata. I like seeing that you're puttering in the broad range of admin/functionary tasks, including SPI and XfD.

I'm really happy to see you returning into the content sphere, and am inspired to work much harder at doing that, too.

The one thing I would suggest is pacing yourself. It's hard to do when you're working on things that you feel are important/time-sensitive/valuable, but burnout is a real thing. Personally, I'm in favour of reading cheap trashy novels and long drives to see people I like or go places that are interesting, but I'm sure you have your own ways of bleeding off frustration. ] (]) 00:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks. I too am hopeful of bringing back things from other projects. For instance, I have found value in the way dewiki ArbCom does its case requests and I am considering bringing back an element from another project's blocking policy which I like. And yes continuing to find joy in our volunteer work is important. It is why, as you note, I'm happy to have headspace for content again. Best, ] (]) 20:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback from PMC ==

#Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: Being a voice of reason and gentle good humor
#Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Write more content so I can do GA/FA review for you, because I feel like that would be fun

That's it, man. Keep being you :) &spades;]&spades; ] 03:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks PMC. As for me writing GA/FA I will definitely take you up on it. I am determined to get ] up to GA so be careful what you wish for (though I would bet I get something else up to GA/FL before that - no immediate plans for any FAs). Best, ] (]) 20:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

== Heya ==

Hey Barkeep, I got your note asking for feedback and per the others here I'll skip the questions you asked and just say the things I wanted to say. {{wink}}

My thoughts are almost universally positive. As you know, I've known you for a ''long'' time in wikiyears, and there possibly is nobody I'd trust more. The thoughtfulness, good faith, and sheer volume of work you bring to this community is very near unparalleled, and I'm beyond grateful for your presence here, both personally and when thinking about the future of this project.

In struggling to offer some actionable feedback, here's what I do want to mention: We really don't have a lot of barkeeps in this project. By that, I mean that we don't have many folks at all (right now, maybe just you) with the combination of availability, dedication, energy, gregariousness, precision of analytical thought, and ability and willingness to ''do the work'' that you bring to the table. I know that all sounds like a compliment, and it is that too, but my point is this: you're in a position to build new structures, institutions, and processes that will hopefully stand the test of time, both at enwiki and globally. To do that, you can't assume there will always be a barkeep49 ready to save the day. By that, I mean that there will be times{{snd}}years at a time, even{{snd}}when ArbCom, or the U4C, or whichever other body that comes along has ''nobody'' with that combination of qualities, and we need to build structures and institutions that are able to muddle along just fine in that case, even without someone like you. I think this is a hard message to internalize, because it's hard for anyone in particular to view themselves as ''that'' unusual (without being a bit of a narcissist, maybe). But my point is that you really should view your presence as an exceptional thing, and that you should not count on the availability of someone like you to serve on the bodies you are designing and getting off the ground, in the long run.

I hope you get what I'm trying to get at. Anyway, as you know, I've been concerned for some time about the long-term sustainability, relevance, utility, and health of the projects and the associated communities, and it is people like you who make me feel optimistic that we can still get through this. No pressure :)

Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 19:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:Let me also say that I think this request for feedback idea is a good one and I think a lot of people would benefit from it. Thinking back on my own wikijourney, the last time I've really heard substantive feedback from a bunch of people was my own RfA, over six years ago now. And I think that both sides of the coin are valuable in different ways: of course actionable feedback for self-improvement is helpful, but hearing the reaffirmations of trust and appreciation can also be very important to both the effectiveness and enjoyment of this work. And there are many ways in which both of those (but perhaps the latter especially) are harder to access the longer one has been around the project. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 19:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks Kevin. There's a lot to think about here. I'm not even sure where to start on the capacity building you mention (even if I don't 100% subscribe to the way you think I'm unique). My attempt at capacity building had been RfA. But as you know, I've had to put those activities on pause because I couldn't do that with enough remove; what happened around RfA made me reconsider my entire involvement in the project. Ultimately I decided the right answer for me was to step away from RfA while continuing other activities. So yes I agree with your general comment about capacity building (it was something I did at NPP when I was active there). If you come up with anything specific there I would love to hear it because my best answer so far has been to write about those things. But I will also give it more thought. Best, ] (]) 20:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, thanks. I think what I was getting at is that we need to build systems and institutions that are resilient to the lack of people like you, at least for a time, which may sometimes mean shifting the expectations we have for volunteer-driven work. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 18:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Apologies for butting in, but can I ask what you're referring to with {{tq|what happened around RfA}}? I would assume you mean ] in general, but it looks to me, as someone who post-dates that discussion and has the hindsight of ] having occurred, that it was extremely successful, at least as far as anyone can be successful at trying to get this old ship to change course. -- ] (]) 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You're always welcome here asilvering. No. I'm referring to RFA2024 there. Best, ] (]) 17:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Oof. I guess I assumed it was something further in the past since you've always seemed like such a rock. Glad you're still around. For what it's worth, to this post-RFA2024 addition to the corps, it looks like capacity has indeed been built, even if it felt awful at the time. -- ] (]) 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes the elections are a huge success. Very happy to see it. Best, ] (]) 18:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback from Epicgenius ==

#Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I've found you to be a level-headed admin who's always willing to offer a helping hand. Like PMC, I think you are doing well at being a voice of reason, so you should keep it up. Cliched as this may sound, admin or not, you are a positive presence on Misplaced Pages.
#Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Unfortunately I don't know what feedback to provide in this regard. In my view, you have it pretty much nailed down; if anything, there should be more admins who are like you. I do realize that this would be a tall order, though, like L235 mentions above. Other than that, I suggest jumping back into content creation, even if only occasionally (I see you're already doing that). It'll be fun.
#(Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: I don't have any questions.
#(Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: I don't have a list of things I wish you'd stop/do differently, at the moment, so I'm not sure how useful my feedback is. Personally I think you are doing a great job, but I do think it's worth soliciting feedback from folks who may have had disagreements with you. ] (]) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
#:Thanks Epic. I appreciate the time and consideration you gave this. Best, ] (]) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
#::You're welcome. Hopefully my feedback can be helpful even though I don't have any specific suggestions for improvement. <small>Also, for Q3, I should have asked how you're doing, but then I'd be stealing Amory's idea. {{=D}}</small> &ndash; ] (]) 00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback from Amorymeltzer ==

#''Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing:'' Keep thinking systemically, broadly, and communicating your thoughts. You're quite good at it; putting a name to an issue and conveying it clearly is hugely valuable. I'd basically echo everything Kevin said above here, so all of that as well. Institutional is a word I'd use.
#''Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently:'' Take care of yourself! I can't know this and I ''think'' it probably belongs above, but I just want to make sure you're doing all the things we're saying we want you to do but keeping yourself balanced and on an even keel. Also—and I know this is contradictory—ArbCom.
#''Questions I have for Barkeep:'' How's it going? How're you feeling?
#''Other feedback I want Barkeep to know:'' You rock!

~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:I miss our paths crossing regularly. I hope you're well. Thanks for taking some of your limited time to comment here. Best, ] (]) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Ok since you and Epic have now both said that you want to know the answer, I suppose I better answer your question. I'm generally feeling quite good about wiki related matters these days. Serving on ArbCom is a privilege I've been lucky to do and I miss some elements of the work, but its work also tends to occupy nearly all the space I have for wiki related matters. So not being on ArbCom has been tremendously freeing and reinvigorating; I'm truly enjoying being a volunteer again on wiki. And helpfully the U4C work has been good so far. The committee members are all great colleagues, we're doing a reasonable job of setting up systems and processes that are going to endure (which was my major reason for running). And having just the little bit of distance in work between what happens with ArbCom and the cases we've gotten has been useful too. Outside of not having as much time for wiki work as I once did, I do feel like I'm operating as my "best self" in the work with the U4C. Best, ] (]) 01:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

== ] updates ==

You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on ], providing a reason with ] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 -->

== Feedback request: Misplaced Pages proposals request for comment ==

]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

== December music ==
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
On the Main page today ] on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's ] from the ]. We ] today. -- ] (]) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:What pretty choral spaces. Best, ] (]) 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Thank you! - Rehearsal was difficult - too many new pieces, too little light - but the singing, with raised vigilance, was good. - What do you think of {{diff|Samuel Barber|1251417174||this edit}}? --] (]) 10:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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


== Deletion review for ] ==
]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
] has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> —] 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Second set of eyes ==
== I noticed your comment about the committee getting more appeals in the past than it does now ==


Hey Barkeep! I saw you were reviewing ] at the same time as I. I noticed the page was created in one edit with "clarification needed" tags and all, so I made the edit summary of this: {{diff||1270074136}}. Is there anything else that needs to be done beyond having that statement in the edit summary for attribution? I didn't see any notice at the source page of ], which hadn't been edited since October 2024 and the split came about in December 2024. Thank you, <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
That could change as we tell those with ARBPIA bans they have to appeal to ARBCOM, which I've started doing. ] ] 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


:That's a reasonable point though I don't think it changes the overall analysis of my point since the comment I made was presuming a heavier workload. Best, ] (]) 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) :Thanks @]. I thought I'd seen attribution of the clear split but obviously didn't; your post facto comment suffices under the license. If I was feeling more motivated I'd have linked it back to the main article better. Best, ] (]) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's only if the admin says the appeal has to be heard by arbcom. I'm not sure how much that will come up. ] (]) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well at least one admin is saying he's doing it. And perhaps more will given that the most frequent admin in the topic area is becoming an arb. ] (]) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:45, 20 January 2025


Archives (Index)

January music

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Now: Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I managed a few more pics and the first precious ;) - If you have a few seconds please look into the Sacrifice trailer, see her speak ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Great collaboration, Storye book found the pic, MONTENSEM wrote the lead after adding detail, and I feel you know a lot about the person after reading just that. (No discussion about an infobox, as for an estimated 95% of composers' articles. They have become normal, project opera removed the "no infobox" recommendation from its style guide in 2019, did you know?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Today we have the next composer of the kind, mentioned in my story with two others. When I saw the TFP of Mr. Balfe, however, I was inclined to help him to more accessibily but dropped it when I looked at the article history. I try to avoid conflict. I only step in when someone new to the strangest "contentious topic" I have encountered on WP gets treated as a warrior. I wonder what could stop that, - assuming good faith should be the first approach, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Good faith is so often the key to avoiding and diffusing conflict. But it's understandable why in moments it doesn't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Today's focus is another composer because he would have been 90 today, Georg Katzer. There was a discussion in 2019, still on the talk, in case of interest in the study of good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I wrote the article about his opera, and smiled when quoting from it "We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton (who also wrote The Rite of Spring). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before but precious was hugely important to me as an editor and as part of this community. I appreciate the work you do in giving it out (and commemorating it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I love to do it. While I slowed down in giving, the daily routine of remembering things to be thankful for is an uplifting exercise ;) - Today, my first objective was to upgrade an article that I brought to the Main page (in poor shape, but I was too tired yesterday), - it's nominated for GA now. My story today. I'll make a story for Dada Masilo, although my first article this year is already off the Main page. - The second was to help finding a FA suitable for TFA on IWD. The third will be to turn to today's article, another recent death. Then a round of telling others the same things, and then I'll probably be too tired to give the first precious of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Well there is no deadline for telling someone they're precious, but it certainly remains appreciated by me and a highlight of my wiki creer. That other stuff is good too - all . On a different note I've read through the Rimsky-Korsakov RfC and am considering doing a close (if I do I'll need to read it through at least once more entirely). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I don't care how that will be closed, seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The choreographer is my story today, although her all-too-brief on the Main page was on 5 January. Her work mentioned is based on The Rite of Spring. I wonder if you are aware that one of the key debates of the infoboxes arbcase is now in Talk:The Rite of Spring/Archive 3 (there were two earlier), - for background or entertainment, as you like it. It contains the key argument against an infobox (at least as I see it): "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article." - I think the discussion remained civil, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Otto Schenk today who directed lasting performances --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for 1960s in history

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1960s in history. 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.

also: 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, 2000s in history.


Sm8900 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Barkeep, you closed this thread/report at SPI Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#7 January 2025 with no action. Was that because it was filed by a sock account or because you determined Boksi and BePrepared were not sock accounts?

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS I only considered the BilledMammal element of that filing substantively and closed the rest of it on "it was filed by a sock" grounds. You can see at the SPI below it I do substantively consider BePrepared (and there is a new SPI open about them as well). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I see, thank you.
Do you think the concerns and evidence I presented warrant an SPI filing for Boksi? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Nevermind for now, there's not much to go on in what I added alone. I do think they are a likely sock however, perhaps I'll gather more info and file an SPI another time. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Scott Ritter 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 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Thajuddin

Spworld2 has asked for a deletion review of Thajuddin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Second set of eyes

Hey Barkeep! I saw you were reviewing History of Székesfehérvár at the same time as I. I noticed the page was created in one edit with "clarification needed" tags and all, so I made the edit summary of this: . Is there anything else that needs to be done beyond having that statement in the edit summary for attribution? I didn't see any notice at the source page of Székesfehérvár, which hadn't been edited since October 2024 and the split came about in December 2024. Thank you, Utopes (talk / cont) 20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Utopes. I thought I'd seen attribution of the clear split but obviously didn't; your post facto comment suffices under the license. If I was feeling more motivated I'd have linked it back to the main article better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Barkeep49: Difference between revisions Add topic