User talk:Barberio/Archive 5

User 2005

I see that you've had problems with this user deleting your entries as well. He's been deleting many of my entries. I have given him a warning. Cloudreaver 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment - Is he still up to no good? Sure, I'll put in my thoughts on the matter. Keep me posted. Cloudreaver 16:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

GAC under fire on the Community Portal.

Hi. Considering that you told me to add the Good Article Collaboration to the Community Portal, I was hoping you could help sort out an issue. Another user insists on removing it. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Community Portal#GAC.--HereToHelp 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

because of the projects history of inappropriately advertising their non-policy project everywhere (as you have now spread to the community portal). i have already blocked the above admin once for abusing their privileges in that way, and will repeat if anyone continues on that course. Zzzzz 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

??? This is odd. What do you mean "i have already blocked the above admin...". William M. Connolley 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Signing Statements are USA phenomenon only

Hello! I appreciate your anti-centricism edits at [[signing statements] but there are no citations to significant signing statements outside the USA. I have mostly reverted that part of the edit, on the grounds that the article is about USA signing statements only. Can you add non-US material if the article would be better with examples from outside USA? rewinn 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I've been relucant to participate in this mediation. This is partly because I don't really see how the implementation of existing policies can be open to mediation. But it's also because I've spent an aburd amount of time on Wikipedia engaged in endless discussions with people who don't really care about facts or the truth. Some people just want to have the last word. ("Wrong, a genius like me? Impossible!") Others simply use discussion as a tool to spread doubt or innuendo. ("Are you really sure that Prince Charles isn't an alien reptile? Can you prove that?" ) And some people only use discussion as a tool to push their POV into an article. The idea is to simply exhaust their opponents. ("Why are you reverting my changes without discussion?") I'm just completely fed up with all that.

But I've read your comments on the talk page and now on the mediation page, and you gave me back some of my faith in (part of) humanity. Perhaps it would be a good idea to participate in this mediation? Perhaps something good could come out of it. Please tell me what you think.

I think your proposal for a new template was very constructive:

There is of course a risk that the template could be used as an excuse to add even more links to unreliable sites. And Wikipedia should be about informing people and not desinforming them. Guiding people to unreliable and possible false information is not the right way. Even so, as explained in WP:EL, it is sometimes useful to link to unreliable sites, and then your template (or something similar) ought to be mandatory. --Denis Diderot 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unverifiable-external-links

Template:Unverifiable-external-links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unverifiable-external-links deletion

Thanks for letting me know! --Iorek85 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

About User:2005

I see that you've had trouble with this User:2005 in the past. Lately he has been disrupting me as well. His main behavioral problem is that he is an unscrupulous editor, who does not think about others before editing, reverting, or deleting their work. He is quite inconsiderate, and usually it's "his way or the highway". Should we do something about this? Cloudreaver 05:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Proposed Decision Pages

The Proposed Decision page says near the top, "Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page." As a result, your comments belong on the talk page, not the PD page. 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Appeasement

Hello Barberio--Thanks for your recent contributions to the Appeasement article, but don't forget about the main article, appeasement of Hitler, if you believe the information would be well-suited there. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't really agree with you that Appeasement of Hitler is the main article. This appears to be the issue of a merge/split debate, and I'm not going to get into it. Once it's resolved, you should copy the information if it needs to be coppied. --Barberio 00:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Reminder to remain civil

Thanks for the reminder. Things have been pretty heated over there lately. Lots of stuff is just getting on my nerves at this point. However, this was only the first time I have been asked directly to stay civil. Hiding's note was just a blanket reminder to all of us, and you'll notice he only struck out one sentence of mine. Was the comment that made you upset "this is getting rediculous. Of course allowing external links is a service to our readers and it's absurd to say otherwise"? - Mike | Talk 14:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL workshop

Noting your edit summary, I do not see what I said that was hostile in any way. I think that you need to relax and not take things so personally whenever somebody does not agree with your point of view. This is not a personal attack, but rahter something I felt the need to point out. Even if 2005's comments about you "throwing your agenda in our faces while ignoring everybody else" seem a bit harsh, your comments often come off looking like that. I am not accusing you of this myself, as I assume good faith in your edits, but I find it easy to believe that people can interpret them in that way. - Mike | Talk 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to actualy clearly state the reasoning behind your objections to the simplification and consolodation efforts. --Barberio 12:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I think that the guide is okay the way it is and it doesn't need a rewrite, and I don't see any reason to simply remove portions of the guide in "consolidation" efforts. The guide is there to avoid editing disputes and problems, and removing content from it will only lead to more trouble. - Mike | Talk 13:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain then, why you think the consolodated section on Spurious Linking does not address the problems of fansite linking? --Barberio 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It simply ignores quality and advises users not to link to fansites. But really, you're not going to get me to agree with you that the guide needs a rewrite in the first place. You just seemed to have kind of started it without any prior discussion on whether one is needed or not. I came to the discussion to get a sentence changed. That didn't mean I had any problem with the rest of the guide. - Mike | Talk 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It does no such thing, it gives two reasons where it's okay to link. Because it's directly related from the subject of the article, ie an officialy sanctioned fansite, or it's explicitly acceptable for other reasons stated in the guidelines. I see no reason at all to give fansites special treatment, and it's instruction creep to tag on any. --Barberio 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel like getting into a pointless argument with you right now, so I'm simply going to stop editing the workshop because you have obviously taken ownership of it and refuse to listen to basically any objection to the proposal. Keep it real, Mike | Talk 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that last comment. How about this: Why not just make no mention of fansites at all, and instead simply rely on the rest of the guide to decide whether they are appropriate to link to? - Mike | Talk 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you really think that you could get away with pasting this to the official guide without any sort of discussion whatsoever? Please, think about others before making changes. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Read WP:CONSENSUS - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

2005

I've never really seen the point to an RFC, they don't really achieve much. I can see why you think one is neccessary though. I just think they make the issue more divisive. Hiding Talk 19:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Red

Hi, let's talk. Red has a unique development process never before seen in any product I know of - it constantly talks with the community.

• If you intend to pledge "links not relevant", please name me 10 other products that do the same.
• If you intend to list another valid reason, please do so, too. Only saying "it's the rules" is not enough.

Cheers, Peter S. 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is *hardly* unique, and I'm not going to rise to your game of 'name 10'. The rules on external links are deliberately proscriptive to keep external links to a minimum. If you don't like it, take it up on Wikipedia_talk:External_links, and see if anyone else supports you.

It's your onus to prove why your links should have special exceptions to the guidelines. You have not done so. --Barberio 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube RFC

What purpose would blanking the list serve? ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My methods havn't been the ones being put under the question, and I don't think stopping the project because of the objections over one link I'm only marginally involved with is reasonable. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus either way except for when I was initially planning the project... and that was of support. However, if you check my contributions history you'll see I haven't done any YouTube removals for a week or so.

You say my methods have been questioned... I'd like to know where. Almost everything that is being said is in ignorance of my actual methods despite explaining in length. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto J.smith - I have been challenged about the odd deletion (see my talk - its very few given how many I have done) and have only once reverted a restoration (right at the beginning of the exercise and I wouldn't have done it now). The vast majority of my deletions have been uncontroversial removal of blatant copyvios or otherwise well within the terms of EL as well as C. Frankly, I'm fed up with constantly being accused of doing something I'm not. If I was blanket removing links I would have finished weeks ago. Its hard work going through all the dross to find the occasional worthwhile content but I'm doing this because of the concerns raised at EL - so I have already moderated my behaviour because on consensus. Unless you want to make issue with anything I have done, I suggest you leave me to get on with a boring unpleasnat job that is a) in full agreement with policy b) reflecting the consensus because I have accepted that the links need to be reviewed and considered on their individual merits and c) clearly misunderstood because noone actually seems to want to follow what I am actually doing. I'm not going to stop because of an RFC that is completely unrelated to my activities - especially as I agree with the main thrust and am working on that basis. I'm very disappointed with the ignorance shown by those opposing my editing and I think a lot of people need to stop opposing for the sake of it and trying to understand what we are about before commenting adversly. --Spartaz 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Please direct your ire to actions that I have taken personally. I became involved after participating in a discussion on AN. I do not think we will reach agreement on your request. Spartaz 20:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus for what I'm doing. The author of the RFC accepts that links must be reviewed and blatant copyvios removed. Why don't you review the small collection of examples to be found from the link at the bottom of my talk page. --Spartaz 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a home movie showing some blokes kid. Do you really believe we should be linking that?????? An edited version without the child would be fine but not this. Spartaz 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep pestering me? We clearly do not agree (and I'm not arguing copyright here - its clearly a non-commercial video). I just stating that I don't think a video that shows someones child is a suitable link. I'm sorry you don't agree and frankly I'm getting tired of being nagged about it. If you don't agree with my actions revert me. I'm not the slightest bit worried if you want to go through the deletions and check them all yourself. Sure I'm bound to have made mistakes but at least I'm trying to do something constructive instead of constantly critizing other editors. Whats your prefered option? Leaving thousands of copyvios on the site while we argue about a policy for marginal links that don't really add content one way or another? Frankly the whole thing would be a lot less effort if some of the people complaining actually dug in and gave us a hand sorting this lot out. You do the deletions - I will have less to do and you will have less to whine about. I'm currently on R do you fancy S? Doesn't that sound like a good deal? Oh, and the list of deleted links is a sample not a "best of" so no I'm not asserting that this is one of my better decisions. --Spartaz 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

There is an RfC in progress against Nearly Headless Nick, which addresses the You Tube issue (towards the bottom): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington Cindery 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Links

No, honestly, any content can be removed by any editor who gives a credible reason, and we assume good faith, and we don't put it back without addressing the good-faith reasons expressed. Why would any type of content be different? Seriously? If a long-standing contributor has a problem with something, it makes sense to sit and think about it, not immediately start a revert war. Especially where they are an admin and may be fixing up something which is actually a problem for the project. There is no deadline, and the onus has always been on those seeking to include, to justify inclusion. I'm not aware of any exceptions to that consensus if the content in question is links. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL gives the credible reasons for removing a link. "Not sufficiently proving that the video is properly copyrighted to the satisfaction of a cranky editor" is not a credible reason. If it's reasonable to believe the video is properly copyrighted, then it's acceptable to link. Editors are explicitly *not* required to seek licensing information for all external links. --Barberio 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See You in 48 Hours!

I absolutely agree - possibly the most sensible comment posted to the RFC yet. Thanks for the injection of sanity. --Spartaz 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out

Stop threatening people with blocks and wrongly accusing people of wheel warring and disruption. None of this is constructive behavior. >Radiant< 08:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... Would you like to elaborate on this? Or just making random accusations? --Barberio 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm talking about your recent comments on JzG's and DmcDevit's talk page. >Radiant< 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit had given me his word he had no longer been involved in Youtube link related edits, and I found he had actually been involved in the Barrington Hall mess. I accidently called that incident a 'Wheel war' meaning to type 'Edit war'.

JzG directly insulted me in a personal attack by telling me to "F*** off", and got the {{npa2}} template warning.

--Barberio 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're overreacting, and accusing people who disagree with you is not a good way of dispute resolution. Dmc has not been edit warring on that page, and neither has JzG been disruptive-to-make-a-point. See WP:DR for more productive ways of handling a dispute. >Radiant< 11:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The moment it become acceptable to go around telling people to "F*** off" is the moment we can declare Wikipedia dead. I'm confused why you are defending a blatant insulting personal attack. I'd be perfectly happy to sit down and discuss what ever problem it is that JzG sees, if he wants to do so calmly and without recourse to insults and abuse. I do not expect, and should not be expected to, accept abuse and insults.

Going in and changing a guideline in a near 180 turn on what it originally said without consensus support is very much disruptive behaviour. As is giving someone your word you have not been active on a problematic issue, when you have.

I don't appreciate either JzG's or DmcDevit's handling of this Youtube issue which has amounted to unilateral action without recourse to consensus discussion. I think it reflects very badly on them, and would prefer them to instead sit down and discuss it in a clam consensus lead manner. --Barberio 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• You can't seriously expect that if you want to sit down and talk, accusing people is going to help matters. >Radiant< 12:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They're simple verifiable events. Dmcdevit was involved in the Barrington Hall mess when he told me he was staying out of the Youtube links issue. JzG told me to "F*** Off". Both reasons to justly get upset with them and ask them not to continue. Coming in as you are to accuse me of wrong doing for posting an NPA warning after getting told to "f*** off is not the best attempt at dispute resolution you could have taken. Please do not post any further comments until you can explain why I should be expected to accept this kind of behaviour. --Barberio 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't twist my words. I repeat, Stop threatening people with blocks and wrongly accusing people of wheel warring and disruption. I am not asking you to give some apologetic reason, I am pointing out to you that you engage in the very behavior that you accuse others of. Take it to dispute resolution, and stop making accusations. >Radiant< 13:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are now approaching a level of harassment by continuing to accuse me of wrong doing, when I have clearly explained the rational reasons for those statements.

Again, my comment to Dmcdevit was an accurate one that after telling me clearly he had made no recent edits in regard to the Youtube issue, I discovered he had been involved during an Edit War at the Barrington Hall article.

Again, I posted {{npa2}} to JmZ's talk page only after he told me to "F*** off".

Do not post to my talk page on this issue again. --Barberio 13:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious administration

I draw your attention to these two edits:

• [1]
• [2]

These are from User_talk:JzG#Won't Fly, and these reason that I link to the two diffs is to show his intention (with the second edit) of increasing the tone of hostility. —SlamDiego 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Block log for SlamDiego

Just a quick note

In looking over JzG's talk page and related pages, I can see that tensions are running really high. I'd like to ask you to try to remain calm when editing, and not to participate in others' arguments because you're already watching his talk page. Calling another editor a "dick" wasn't cool, but since you're already involved in a dispute with him the warning doesn't carry much impact. If you feel there's a serious problem that needs intervention, you can go to WP:PAIN for administrator assistance involving personal attacks--that way, a neutral third-party can investigate the claims. Cheers. -- Merope 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:PAIN report already done. He's also just *blocked a user he had an argument with and used personal attacks on*. --Barberio 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also note WP:PAIN procedure *requires* me to post an npa template on his talk page. --Barberio 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected this procedure since this user wrote the above. At the time he wrote his message he was correct. He is no longer - templating experienced users is not helpful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the dispute? Let me strongly advise you to just walk away. I have provided you the perfect oppourtunity to do so. I beg you to take it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. I do actually believe that no one has entitlement to ignore WP:NPA. --Barberio 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I promise that I will make certain that appropriate action is taken on that front. Begging you to walk away. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry, but I'm simply believe that either WP:NPA should be applied to admins as well as editors, or we should be honest and admit it's not really policy. --Barberio 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Barberio, I suggest you take Hipocrite's advice and walk away. Experienced Wikipedia admins are allowed to break any rule they want, as long as they are not attacking each other or the project itself. See WP:IAR. That's just the way it is here, and the powers that be want it that way. This is not a complaint, it's just reality. I've learned the same lesson, the hard way - I fought back on several occasions and I was labelled as a troll and "argumentative". So the best approach is to just let it go and move on. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Good luck. ATren 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's only partly true, although sadly it is partly true, but the truth is there is no good end to be served by baiting an established editor who has friends here. Time served does tend to buy leeway, and if that time is served on the mailing list and in policy forums, all the more so. Grace Note 06:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

“libel”

First, I acknowledge that you do not approve of all of my actions. Now, in that context, I thank you for a genuine and surely trying effort to see that Wikipedia were properly administered in my case. —SlamDiego 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And, because I am such a stickler, I refer you to the American Heritage Dictionary and to Merriam-Webster, so that you can see that what I called “libel” truly was. Please note definitions 1a and 1b in the AHD and defintions 2a through 2b(2) in M-W. —SlamDiego 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just zis Guy

Guy is a respected editor here. I don't know what your particular beef is with him but it would be much better to try to settle it amicably than to try to boil up a conflict with him. It's still the festive period so try a bit more goodwill. Happy new year. Grace Note 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I did warn you earlier, and this is your final warning. Stop attacking other users and stop threatening them with blocks. Resolve Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube through discussion rather than attacking the people who disagree with you. If you don't cut it out, you can be blocked for disruption. >Radiant< 09:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop threatening me with blocks as well? My only beef with JzG is his inappropriate behaviour of resorting to personal attacks and aggressive foul language. The YouTube issue has already been mostly resolved, and I'm perfectly happy to rationally discuss things with him, if he suspends such behaviour. Do you actually support such behaviour? --Barberio 13:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is completly out of my hands now anyway, unless you want to threaten everyone else discussing JzG's behaviour on WP:ANI with a block. --Barberio 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone, unarchived

Voila! —SlamDiego 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Organizing archives

Do you think it might be useful to note something like "Notable precedents in discussion" in general for EL, as has been done with abortion article? (Some disputes crop up regularly on abortion, and when they do, editors can refer those not familiar with the dispute to check the archives. There's also a notice to check the archives for "Notable precedents in discussion" before editing/reviving an issue, to make sure it hasn't already been addressed at great length, so editors can be sure they are adding something new to the discussion.) Just a thought. "You Tube discussions here" doesn't tell us there have been notable precedents in discussion, etc? Also, it seems there are other issues besides You Tube which crop up regularly.-Cindery 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Section from AN/I deleted instead of being archived.

Hi, I've had my attention drawn to this diff. [3]

Despite the edit summary, I can't find the deleted section anywhere in the archives. Looks like it was removed rather than archived. This isn't a good thing, since this discussion prompted various other actions. Shouldn't it be archive it in the suitable place? --Barberio 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it in ANI archive 174. It was created by Yrgh who was incoherently trolling and it was then repeatedly attacked by Cplot socks who were also trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Enabling act

Hi, Barberio! I decided to contact you here so we can thrash out this whole complex of pages and issues without cluttering up the talk page at the dab project too much. I hope you don't mind. Do you see where I'm coming from? Am I overlooking some really simple option for handling this? (I have a tendency to do that sometimes.) I really do want to help straighten this out, but without being able to use CorHomo (the dab tool I like) or even popups, it's so tedious to dab links. Neither will work unless the base page is a proper dab page. PS You can reply either here (I'll watch this page) or on my talk page, as you prefer. --Tkynerd 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've turned Enabling Act into a simple disambig page the tool can work on, and once finished you can turn it back into a redirect. This can be done with all the redirects, and then finaly with Enabling act by placing a temporary disambig template there , processing it, then removing the template.

There's no real reason that CorHomo should only work on disambig pages, since it's also useful in repairing links to the wrong page. I'll contact the writer of the software about this. --Barberio 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like in your mass-dabbing on this one you accidentally replaced the contents of Nazi Germany, [here]. I've reverted. You may want to re-apply your "Enabling act" correction. Fan-1967 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point there. It hadn't struck me that it is actually Enabling Act (capital A) and not Enabling act that needs to be dabbed. I'm sorry I overlooked this. (I told you! :-)) I can't do the dabbing now because I'm at work, but I will process these this evening (US Central Time) and let you know when it's done. Thanks. --Tkynerd 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Motorsport Task List

Hello, Barberio. I just wished to let you know that I removed your Monte Carlo Rally article request from the Expand section of the task list at WP:MOTOR, as you may wish to add it to the relevant section in the WRC project. As per the description on the task page, it is intended only for articles that are not part of other projects. Our list is far from complete, and we have an enormous quantity of them to get through! Sorry for any inconvenience. Regards, Adrian M. H. 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shame

I respect your decision, but I wanted to let you know that your contributions have been of value. I had hoped you might try dispute resolution, but you need to do what's best by you. Good luck with everything. Hiding Talk 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My health has not been the best this winter, and unfortunately the kind of bullying attitude displayed by Radiant has become accepted behaviour by admins so it's not worth spending the limited amount of energy I have at the moment on something that will have no positive result. --Barberio 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Barberio, I've seen your name a few times and I was saddened by your decision to leave Wikipedia indefinitely. By this, I really hope you mean that you are going to "chill" for a time - a time which is not decided in advance. I'm also having difficulty with some individuals in the Wiki community. Fortunately, I don't think any of them are admins (yet) but the bullying certainly introduces a lot of stress in my life, which I seriously can do without. Let me just suggest something - take it or leave it, as you see fit. Part of what makes Wikipedia work is consensus building. That comes easier if you have a group of friends. I myself have been tempted to try to make contact with people for that purpose, but until now, I've just let it go. What I'm trying to say is that maybe we should just stick together. At the opening of every club meeting, we can work on setting to music the quote popularly attributed to either Mark Twain or Robert Heinlein, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's frustrating for you, and it annoys the pig." Chill for a while, and when you feel up to it, drop me a line. Cbdorsett 06:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You probably don't want to hear this from me, but you were doing good work on improving the blocking policy. >Radiant< 09:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Apparently I am "commenting on the user rather than the issue" and I shouldn't be doing that, so I'm withdrawing my comment. >Radiant< 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but this comes only after you repeatedly labelled me a troll and malicious editor with a vendetta against you. --Barberio 13:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you have misunderstood me? I have never used the words "troll", "malicious" and "vendetta" to describe you or your actions. >Radiant< 13:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of various things, ranging from 'personal attacks' to 'forum shopping', and have acted towards me with a threatening tone that my actions would earn punishment. --Barberio 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, for the third time, dispute resolution. This isn't helping. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you are rethinking your leave of absence, Berberio, then please stop the attacks on Radiant. And Radiant, please comment on the issue, not the user. Hiding Talk 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hiding, my comments were that he was "doing good work on improving the blocking policy". If you believe that this is commenting on the user rather than the issue, I hereby retract that comment. >Radiant< 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, it was the form shopping statement at WT:NOT that I had in mind. Suggestions should stand or fall on their merits. There is a difference between editing a policy page due to a dispute and suggesting a change due to a dispute. Hiding Talk 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Space-cadets.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Space-cadets.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Livejournal-logo.png removed from your user page

An image or media file, Image:Livejournal-logo.png, has been removed from your userpage or user talk page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Thank you for your cooperation.

Iamunknown 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

biting newcomers

BTW so we don't have to thread this, you can just reply here and I'll monitor. Your post is identical to the one on the AFD debate. Do you have any evidence that she is a good faith user who is not responding to canvassing. jbolden1517^Talk 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Barberio 08:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New rule

The proper way to tackle this would be to create a new proposal like Wikipedia:Mandatory talk page discussion before using AFD (or something like that) rather than trying to include it in a rewrite of an existing guideline. >Radiant< 12:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to keep discussion centralised on one page rather than spreading it? --Barberio 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to not mix in new proposals with a rewrite? >Radiant< 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you deliberately trying to antagonise me due to our past disputes? --Barberio 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Can you try to not mix in new proposals with a rewrite? >Radiant< 12:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep this discussion in the right place, don't try to take your argument here to make it personal. --Barberio 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I note you refuse to answer a very simple question. That says a lot about your intent here. >Radiant< 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, can you keep this discussion on the appropriate page, as your bringing it here seems to be simply to turn it into a personal issue. --Barberio 13:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, if you create the appropriate page for this new suggestion of yours (e.g. Wikipedia:Mandatory talk page discussion before using AFD) I'd be happy to discuss it there. Until then, your idea, your talk page. >Radiant< 13:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and will no longer respond to you. --Barberio 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your refusal to discuss anything about your new proposal has been duly noted. >Radiant< 13:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Modifying and Creating policy

You might find the discussion at Help:Modifying and Creating policy interesting. --Kevin Murray 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar

If you don't object, I'll move it to my user page. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I have no great love of the word criteria. What I objected to was an unlear title. I put up "guideline" as an alternative, but would be happy with any clear title. However, if thsat title is the result of wide support, I would remove my objection. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 13:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your changes work for me. --Kevin Murray 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I may have sounded a little tetchy, but I have a migraine today. --Barberio 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your migrane and the condition you mention at your user page. I hope that you feel better. My wife has lived with migranes all of her life, so I observe first hand how debilitating those can be. --Kevin Murray 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

{{coi}} and {{coi2}}

It is not appropriate to gut the content of templates that you've listed at WP:TFD, just because it looks like the vote is going against you. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Please wait for the outcome of the TFD before trying to deprecate these templates yourself. Nardman1 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to these templates seem inappropriate while a TfD about them is running. I'd be willing to consider some actual data on the usage of these templates, to see if they are being misused, but I'm not aware that you have provided any. You did make the following comment at WT:COI, and I invited you to give some examples for us to consider. EdJohnston 17:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

COI being used as a sole justification for deletion There seems to be a growing misconception amongst editors that COI should be resolved by deletion rather than correction. There's been very strong opinion expressed in AfD debates that something should be deleted 'per WP:COI'. Maybe something should be done to correct the impression that Conflict of Interest is reason for an AFD nomination? --Barberio 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit these templates so they can remain. In their current state, they can not remain, since they go against a few appropriate policies and guidelines . WP:BITE, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks (comment on the content, not the contributor!)...

And on the topic of the TfD, while there are strong numerical weight for keep votes... This appears to be due to canvassing amongst the origin and supporters of this template. So far I've not seen a single valid argument as to why these templates are not inappropriate disclaimers, WP:BITE violations, and redundant to the more appropriate content clean-up tags. --Barberio 19:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I view the addition of the canvassing template as an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the TfD discussion. There was no sign of inappropriate canvassing or SPAs. Posting a notice at the COI guideline talk page so that interested users of the template could comment was absolutely correct. Therefore, I have removed the canvassing template. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 19:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And it was inappropriate for you to remove the notice reminding people that TfD is not a vote. Even if you believe in your case it wasn't really canvassing, the discussion was swamped with people arriving from the COI notice board, and I have restored the tag to remind people who may believe it's a vote. You yourself indicated a belief it's a vote in your above talk message by equating the number of comments with the strength of argument. So the tag is clearly needed, and I hope you will not remove it again. --Barberio 23:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course people are coming over from WP:COIN, because they are the ones who use the template. You're trying to alter policy by deleting a template that is supported by the consensus. You have added this canvassing notice in an effort to bias the discussion. You have added your own comments to the top of the discussion in an effort to give yourself more weight. That's wrong. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references

That one is completely irrelevant. It refers only to self-references in article text. A quick glance at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes shows that it's perfectly normal for warning templates to contain links to the guideline or policy to which they pertain. Tearlach 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Modifying and Creating policy

Kim, Radiant, and Tony are trying to deprecate this guideline again. --Kevin Murray 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Concern about the possibility of disruptive editing around WP:COI

I am concerned that you seem to be on a mission to gut this guideline, whether or not there is a consensus to do you. You nominated {{COI}} and {{COI2}} for deletion.[4] In an apparent effort to create an advantage, you added and re-added {{Not a ballot}} because "a lot of people have come into this discussion from the COI notice board." [5] [6] This is not improper advertising because the people on that noticeboard have a legitimate interest in the outcome so they should know about the discussion and have a chance to comment. You inserted comments at the top of the discussion, out of order. [7] Furthermore, you watered down one template and redirected the other while the discussion was ongoing, in an apparent effort to circumvent consensus. [8] [9] I strongly urge you to respect the consensus, and I am concerned that you may be engaged in disruptive editing.

You seem to be highly intelligent and well spoken. I am hoping that we can work together, so I've struck this comment from it's previous location on WT:COI and placed it here so we can discuss this. I invite you to visit WP:COIN and work on some cases so you can see the challenges we face every day. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading over the TfD, the consensus there appears to support rewriting the templates into one template to be placed on the talk page, and be more inline with other user conduct templates. Which is what I did in the changes to the template you dispute. The edits were an attempt to salvage something from the currently inappropriate templates, and seem supported by the current consensus on rewriting.

As far as I know, there is no special 'keep comments in order progression' rule, and it makes much more sense to place generalised comments about the TfD itself at the top of the TfD. --Barberio 15:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you to think I am unreceptive to making improvements. When you first commented on the COI talk page, if you look back, you'll see that I actually made the change you requested. Let's try to work together. I think we should keep two templates -- one for COI articles that have notability problems, and one for those that do not. What new wording would you suggest. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use the {{notability}} template for pages with notability problems? And put a COI warning on the talk page of articles where you think there might be problems. --Barberio 16:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you do with the Gordon Bell page? There is no cause for a notability warning, yet he is editing his own page. How shall we get him to address the problem? Just revert his changes? EdJohnston 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If he's editing his own page, but those edits are abiding by the content policies, then why is there a problem? If there are problems with the edits, they can be addressed in the same way problematic edits are addressed in any other situation. The assumption you seem to be making here is that Wikipedia policy bars editors with conflicts of interest from editing articles, it explicitly does not. COI handling policy is to correct the article by editing it according to the content guidelines. --Barberio 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Barberio, in the past I took almost exactly the same position you have now, so I sympathize with what you are saying. I am a professional marketing consultant, and my writing skills are sufficient that I could create the appearance of neutrality. The problem is, and I did a few tests long ago, this sort of editing feels dirty. Wikipedia will be much better off if we avoid even the appearance of COI. It's a matter of public trust. Furthermore, people caught "bending" articles for commercial advantage (a clear COI) invariably claim that they are just trying to help Wikipedia, and that their edits are completely neutral. We don't have the resources to litigate all these situations. We need a clear guideline to keep people far away from trouble. The profit motive is very strong, and we are just a bunch of idealistic volunteers. You should also know that some of us are discussing an idea to create a new noticeboard for COI affected editors to suggest material and get it reviewed for neutrality. What do you think about that as an alternative to loosening the COI guideline? Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

I've revised this and tried to trim the film and television references to a few, typical examples of each, while expanding out other parts that were under-described. See what you think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any other GA concerns about the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaving it for a while to see if it's stable now. --Barberio 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- sorry about relisting the G&S article -- I checked the talk page and the edit history and didn't see any activity; I realize now that if I'd looked on your talk page too I'd have seen this note. I don't always like to bug editors who leave the reviews over seven days, since they're volunteers. I figure it's better just to quietly relist and let someone else do it if the first editor got too busy. Anyway, sorry about the misunderstanding, and thanks for picking it back up. Mike Christie (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, no trouble caused. --Barberio 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Could you clear up this for me? Thanks. Whsitchy 15:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

COI template

Hi, I noticed that you had some discussions and suggestions regarding the COI2 template. As a person who has recently been the subject of a COI discussion I feel that the current template does not reflect the policy well. I made a comment and a suggested text here [10] I didn't realise at the time that this issue had already been discussed extensively, but I would be interested in your comments nonetheless. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: OTRS

Hi. Can I ask why you reverted my addition of a proposal tag to WP:OTRS. As I have noted on the talk page, and at the pump, the page is not policy, and OTRS volunteers do not have special powers here. If you want them to have special powers, you need to run this through as a proposed policy to be discussed, or get the Wikimedia Foundation to officially appoint you all as special super-users on this project. --Barberio 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:OTRS. --bainer (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yadda

With respect to your comment that people who close deletion debates early shouldn't be administrators, in just five minutes scanning one day's worth of AFD logs, I found the following people who do so: Anthony.bradbury, Arkyan, DragonflySixtyseven, Husond, Kwsn, Merope, Natalie_Erin, Night Gyr, Resurgent insurgent, RHaworth, Ryulong, Sr13 and Tone. There are, of course, dozens more of such people. Now will you seek arbitration to demote a significant percentage of our active admins, or could you perhaps consider that you are overstating the problem here? >Radiant< 11:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't pursue needless arbitration if pointing out hey are risking causing disruption way will stop them doing it.

Maybe you should try arguing on the issues, not trying to agitate me? You know full well that I don't appreciate the combative and hostile attitude you take. --Barberio 11:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have known you would respond with ad hominems rather than reason. Never mind. >Radiant< 11:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I no longer consider you to be a worthwhile member of this community, and will not engage you in discussion since your actions seem designed to agitate and you show high levels of aggression towards those you have disagreements with. Please direct any future discussion with me via a cooler tempered third party, as you are simply incapable of having a civil discussion with me. --Barberio 11:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And once again, WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 11:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)