User talk:Barkeep49#Clarification

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 22:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Barkeep49, since I’ve found you to be a reasonable admin in the past, could you take a look at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted blurb): Tom Stoppard where I think matters could use a non-involved adult-in-the-room? Similarly, and much more complex, I would appreciate your review at Monsanto and Talk:Monsanto which in my view could use some fresh admin eyes. Thanks for any time you can spend on these matters, and best wishes this holiday season! Jusdafax (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general I stay out of front page work, including ITN. I got half way through that discussion and was reminded why. However, if no one beats me to it and I remember I might be interested in closing the RfC about RD when the time comes in a couple of weeks. As for Monsanto I have no doubt it could use more eyes, but I don't have lots of time to administer disputes at the moment due to prioritizing U4C work in that regard. I know GMO is one of those contentious topics that doesn't get the admin attention it needs and I'm sorry I'm not in a position to help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and thanks for the reply. Time quickly resolved the first issue, but the second, well… Jusdafax (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry to note continued issues at the Monsanto article. Given your above statement, would you recommend I file at AN (not AN/I)? Thanks again. Jusdafax (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways to get some page remedies at AE now. But if you are just going to make an appeal like you made to me yes I'd recommend AN. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Barkeep49! Is there a way for me to test this out? I see where the button appears on a recent closed RfA, so I know where to find it, but obviously I don't want to actually transclude that again. :D Thanks! This is a really useful script. I hope it will encourage both candidates and nominators. Valereee (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee yeah this has been an issue with that particular script. There is a version of it that lives on Test Wikipedia that I did some testing with. But truthfully I accidentally (for a moment) transcluded an RfA here when I was testing because the test wiki RfA setup is not identical to ours. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha...thanks, tales like this make me less embarrassed when I do things like that. :) Valereee (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's worthwhile, but perhaps a way to inject a different base pagename for testing purposes could be introduced? (It could be a custom data attribute value in a span element, for example.) isaacl (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly considered setting up a test environment, but there was enough broke things on both test and here I never went through with it choosing to spend my time elsewhere. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever decide to look into it again, something like this is what I was thinking of after line 22:

let testDataSpans = document.querySelectorAll("span[data-rfx-starter-base-rfc-page]");
for (let testDataElem of testDataSpans)
{
  if (testDataElem.dataset.rfxStarterBaseRfcPage)
  {
    config.baseRfxPage = testDataElem.dataset.rfxStarterBaseRfcPage;
  }
}

isaacl (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love it if there were a fake RfA on test wiki I could try it on, but I totally get that this is a lot of work for someone to spare me embarrassment. :D Valereee (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee there is Giraffer's RfA which I use for my testing but the problem is that is already transcluded. When I attempted to do an untranscluded one I get [this. Even if I solved that the issue with this script is that it can't complete with test because the transclusion page is completely different as their RFA infastructure reflects requests on testwiki rather than for testing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 04:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my appeal is in New Year I'm currently working on Wikipedia on checking former parishes and have completed Shropshire so I have 12 counties left to check so I should be done around New Year if I get 1 county a day done plus I've got to re list and check Norfolk which will probably take a few more days. This means I should be done in the 1st week or so in January. On Commons I have to check 197 and a bit (current) parishes in Suffolk for images to create categories and I also have quite a few pubs to create. I do intend to start my appeal on 1 January but I would like people to take their time in reviewing it as I would like us to get things right and so that I have time to finish things on Commons. It might be the case that if I was to do Suffolk parishes on Commons every other day (and do pubs the other days) and if I can check 50 parishes a day I could in theory get the Suffolk parishes done by Christmas but that seems unlikely and more like the 1st week of New Year seems more likely. Do you still think it makes sense to aim to get all restrictions removed as that's what people have said they want in the last few years? Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think you should appeal all your restrictions and explain why they are no longer necessary and that has been the clear feedback you've gotten from multiple ArbComs at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Operation Raise the Colours 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hi Barkeep49 Season's Greetings and all the best for 2026
		Wherever you are and whatever you believe in (or don't), reach out for peace on this little planet of ours! HAPPY HOLIDAYS 🥳 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]