Jump to content

User talk:Barkeep49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

March music

[edit]
story · music · places

New month: today is the birthday of Chopin and Ricardo Kanji, see my stories of today and yesterday, with dream music by the first and Bach played by the other. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today: Carmen turns 150, as the main page and my story tell you. I chose a 1962 concert of the Habanera, - enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) - plenty of music to greet you as a new bureaucrat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it shows that there remain issues among "repeat players" in the topic area which isn't a surprise to me (nor am I guessing to you). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are the repeat players opposing, but almost all support names were new to me. - Should someone with that depth of involvement have closed, that is one question, and if, then without a sign of having looked at arguments, that is the other. Your voice is not needed (I asked when there was no comment yet, and I thought that you know the topic), but welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all this, it's open again, restored by the closer - as I had hoped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi#February music for context --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And still another layer of history: the unanswered question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two RD stories to say bye to March --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election 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 00:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Five Star Movement 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 22:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 19:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 5

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 10 March. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org


Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter


Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reinforcing spiral

[edit]

Watching a discussion you're having on another page, and it reminds me of one of the most unsolvable problems we have wrt civility. If Editor A is minorly snarky to Editor B (say a 1 on the Snarkometer), we don't want to stick our noses in, because people are mildly snarky so often that the whole place would get bogged down. (I really don't think the "solution" is to warn people for this.) If Editor B responds with a level 2 snark, it seems unfair to "warn" them for responding to snark with snark. When Editor A dials it up to a 3, the same theory applies, as it does when Editor B responds with a 4. etc. Soon, we've got people hurling insults. Somebody needs to step in at some point, but whatever point it is, they get the inevitable "the other guy was doing it too". And we've incrementally reinforced to the warned editor that this place isn't "fair", and they're being picked on.

I have no solution, only recognition of the problem. That's not quite true, I think a step in the right direction is a quiet word from a friend (instead of an authority figure of some kind) saying "you're letting yourself get baited". or "be the bigger person". Or something. But few friends ever do this. I've tried just now, but (1) it's public, so not quite what I'm advocating, and (2) I don't think they consider me a "friend", so I don't have much faith it will work.

Definitely a puzzle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful words @Floquenbeam. As I think you know I'm a huge proponent of the impact friends can have. And yes I think you're right about the spiral being a tricky problem. I too wish I had answers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once in a while, I try to [pretty glibly] think about game theory and difficult cooperation problems on Wikipedia. There's a really solid strategy called generous/forgiving tit-for-tat with some relevance to these cases. Tit-for-tat -- in a game where mutual cooperation is beneficial, mutual defection is bad, and asymmetrical cooperation/defection is very bad (think prisoner's dilemma) -- means you start off trying to cooperate, and continue cooperating as long as the other person is cooperating, but if the other person defects, you defect too. Copy the other person's last action, basically. It can be prone to spirals. So there are modifications. There's the grim modification where as soon as someone defects, you defect in every interaction with that person forever. In some cases, that winds up working better than regular tit-for-tat. But even better is a generous modification where you start off cooperating and are prepared to forgive one act of defection (i.e. continue to cooperate until the other person defects twice). Turns out when you iterate a game like the prisoner's dilemma, generous tit-for-tat is a really effective strategy: generosity is beneficial. Of course, introducing a moderator/referee to this kind of changes the whole game, but it makes me wonder about ways to get Wikipedians to forgive one instance of snark. If Editor A is minorly snarky to Editor B and Editor B responds without snark, does it make sense to give that person a barnstar? Editor A might be miffed, but does it matter? Speaking of not mattering, maybe what we need is an essay along the lines of "De-escalation doesn't have to be fair" explaining that when you feel a sense of unfairness because de-escalation happened with disproportionate regard for relative Snark Factors, don't worry -- odds are, you'll wind up on the other end sometime. PS: maybe try the generous tit-for-tat thing." :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One approach is to politely ask them both within their discussion to focus on the relevant topic, rather than escalating the undesirable behaviour. This gives them a way to save face with anyone following the thread, as they don't have to appear to be giving in to the other. A problem though is that many editors who fall into this cycle are inclined to only take advice from, if anyone, those with whom they've had previous positive interactions (and for me, I'm literally on just one editor's Christmas card list ;-). isaacl (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table-oriented programming (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Hi. Something went wrong when I sent this to AfD. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if it can be corrected? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 maybe someone else already fixed it but I don't see any issues: the page itself looks ok (XfDCloser recognizes it), it's not he article page, and it's on the list of AfDs opened today. What was the issue you had? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for checking. Looks like Spiderone fixed it. Onel5969 TT me 16:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49&oldid=1283273395"